Datasets:

Eugleo

/

echr-outcomes

like 0

6. The applicants are spouses. They were born in 1968 and 1965 respectively and live in Donetsk. The first applicant is a lawyer practising in Ukraine. He is the President of the law firm Pravis, subsequently renamed Golovan and Partners. 7. The applicants are the co-owners of a flat which, at the material time, was used by the first applicant as his office. The deed of ownership was issued in the name of the second applicant. 8. In February and April 2005 the first applicant entered into legal services agreements with a company, K. Under those agreements K. transferred to the first applicant certain documents concerning its commercial activity. 9. On 4 April 2005 the investigator of the Slovyansk Tax Office instituted criminal proceedings against the officials of company K. for alleged tax evasion and forgery of documents. 10. On 19 April 2005 the investigator issued a search warrant for K.’s documents in the office of the first applicant. The warrant was approved by the Prosecutor of Kramatorsk. In the reasoning part of the search warrant the investigator noted that it had been established in the course of pre-trial investigation that a number of bookkeeping, tax accounting and other documents had been stored at the first applicant’s law office. 11. The warrant authorised the search and seizure of the following material: “contractual documents, bookkeeping documents, primary and summary accounting documents, tax accounting and other documents which concern the relationships between [K.] and [company D.] as regards the delivery of electricity by the latter to the former company in the period from 1 January 2001 to date; decisions and other procedural documents issued in the same period by the commercial courts when dealing with disputes between the two companies.” 12. On 5 May 2005 the investigator, the tax police officers, and two attesting witnesses arrived at the first applicant’s office to carry out the search. The first applicant objected to the search. He stated that the flat was private property and, accordingly, any search of it could be carried out only on the basis of a court decision, as required by Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further stated that the documents requested by the investigator had been entrusted to him by K. in his capacity as the company’s lawyer and, by virtue of section 10 of the Bar Act, could not be seized without his consent. 13. The investigator ignored the first applicant’s objections and commenced the search. In the course of the search a number of K.’s documents, including some dated before 2001, were seized. 14. The two attesting witnesses countersigned the search report compiled by the investigator. The witnesses were born in 1984 and at the relevant time were studying at the Donbas Machinery Building Academy. Subsequently, in the course of “pre-investigation” enquiries, the two witnesses confirmed that the first applicant repeatedly informed the investigator that the searched premises were the individuals’ private property. 15. On 6 May 2005 the seized documents were attached to the criminal case file as material evidence. 16. On 2 August 2005 the decision of 4 April 2005 instituting criminal proceedings against the officials of company K. was quashed as unfounded. 17. On 6 and 11 May 2005 the applicants complained to several prosecutors’ offices at various levels about the search of their premises. They requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against those who had carried out the search. 18. On 25 May and 8 July 2005, 23 February, 4 April and 25 August 2006, 23 March and 15 June 2007, 28 March, 5 September and 3 October 2008, 20 April 2009, 19 March, 9 April and 9 August 2010 and 4 March 2011 the prosecutor’s offices adopted decisions refusing to open criminal proceedings against the investigator and the police officers involved in the search. According to those decisions there was no indication that criminal offences under Articles 162, 364, 365, and 397 of the Criminal Code had been committed. The latest decision specified in particular that at the time of the search the flat had been used as business premises, while the documents had been seized as evidence in the criminal case and therefore could not be covered by the lawyer-client privilege. 19. All those decisions were quashed as unfounded, either by the supervising prosecutor or by the court. In quashing the impugned decisions the supervising authorities relied on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring preliminary court authorisation for the search of an individual’s premises and on those of the Bar Act safeguarding the professional secrecy afforded to lawyers. 20. In particular, on 27 December 2011 the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk, quashing the prosecutor’s decision of 4 March 2011 refusing to open criminal proceedings, found that the prosecutor’s office had failed to take into account the fact that the searched flat was owned by private individuals and that, pursuant to domestic legislation, any search of it could be carried out only on the basis of a court decision. Besides, the materials of the enquiries suggested that the seized documents had been entrusted to the first applicant in the course of his activity as a lawyer and had been covered by lawyer-client privilege. The court therefore concluded that the search and the seizure of documents had been carried out unlawfully. The court remitted the case for additional “pre-investigation” enquiries, for the adoption of the proper decision under Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. On 23 January 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision of the first-instance court, adding that the investigative authorities had not yet examined whether the investigator had seized documents which had no relevance to the criminal case against the officials of company K.

5. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Bozieni. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. At the time of the events, the applicant was a student at the State University in Tiraspol located in Chişinău. 8. On 3 February 2000 P. complained to the Centru Police Station in Chişinău that he had been robbed on 27 December 1999 by three unidentified persons. He suspected that one of those persons was the applicant. 9. A criminal investigation was initiated. On 31 March 2000 a student of the police academy, A.P., knocked at the applicant’s door at approximately 7.30 in the morning. Having opened the door, the applicant was forced to follow A.P. out to the street, where he was forced into a car belonging to P. Another student from the police academy, A.R., was waiting in the car. 10. According to the applicant, he received blows from A.P. and A.R. all the way to the Centru Police Station. Upon his arrival at the station, the applicant was taken up to office no. 508. The applicant alleges that he was ill-treated in that office by A.P. and A.R. and by another plain-clothed person, whose identity he did not know at the time. He made this complaint to the prosecution. 11. The applicant was invited to confess to having robbed P. When he refused, A.P. and A.R. tied his hands and feet together behind his back and he was suspended on a metal bar placed on two adjacent tables (a position called “swallow” akin to “Palestinian hanging”). He then received truncheon blows to the soles of his feet and was kicked and punched in various parts of his body. A gas mask was put on his face and cigarette smoke was blown into the air access tube, causing him to suffocate. That tube was later attached to his penis. His captors also inserted a glass bottle into his anus three times. At one time he lost consciousness. 12. Later on that day the applicant was taken to a prosecutor’s office. In view of clear signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body, the prosecutor ordered a medical examination to establish whether he had been ill-treated. 13. According to the applicant, the investigator responsible for the criminal investigation into P.’s complaint was officer O. This officer had never delegated any power of investigation or arrest to any other officer, including officers C., A.P. and A.R.. 14. On 3 April 2000 the applicant was examined by a group of forensic doctors, who found that he had been injured. In particular, he had a black eye and a bruise on his chest of 10 x 7 cm, and had suffered head trauma and anal damage. The doctors excluded the possibility that the injuries could have been sustained as a result of a fall. Later that day he was admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of head trauma. 15. On the same date the criminal investigation against the applicant was discontinued, but he was allegedly not informed about it until much later, on an unspecified date. 16. In a statement made on 12 April 2000 A.P. mentioned, inter alia, that while the applicant was being questioned a person who was not part of the police force, R.B., was also present. No violence had been used against the applicant, who had been arrested on the orders of investigator C. 17. On 15 June 2000 a criminal investigation was initiated against A.P. and A.R. 18. The applicant underwent two more medical examinations, on 28 June and 24 July 2000, which confirmed the injuries caused to him. The last examination concluded that it could not be excluded that the applicant had caused the injuries himself. 19. On 21 September 2000 an investigator decided to discontinue the criminal case against A.P. and A.R. for lack of evidence. On 29 November 2000 the applicant complained to a prosecutor about the discontinuation, noting that he had not been informed of it until he insisted on receiving an update on 21 November 2000. On 1 December 2000 the prosecutor annulled the investigator’s decision. 20. According to an order issued by the Minister of Internal Affairs on 26 August 1999, police academy students A.P. and A.R. had been temporarily authorised to act as police inspectors until 1 March 2000. On 25 December 2000 inspector C. was reprimanded for ordering A.P. and A.R. to arrest the applicant on 31 March 2000, despite being aware that they were no longer authorised to act as police inspectors, actions which led to bodily harm being caused to the applicant. 21. On 30 December 2000 a prosecutor decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against A.P. and A.R. under Article 185 (2) of the Penal Code (abuse of authority, see paragraph 41 below) for lack of evidence and opened an investigation under article 116 (2) of the Penal Code for unlawful deprivation of the applicant’s liberty (see paragraph 41 below). 22. On 20 February 2001 a prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation against A.P. and A.R. under Article 116 (2) of the Penal Code and to initiate an administrative investigation against them for causing minor injuries to the applicant. On 23 March 2001 the Centru District Court annulled that decision and sent the case file to the prosecution for re-qualification of the acts committed by A.P. and A.R. under the provisions of the Penal Code. 23. On 11 April 2001 the prosecutor annulled his decision of 30 December 2000 and sent the case file to the investigator for further investigation. 24. On 28 April 2001 the prosecutor decided that the actions of A.P. and A.R. came within the ambit of Articles 101 and 207 of the Penal Code (beating an usurpation of powers respectively, see paragraph 41 below). On 8 May 2001 the applicant asked the Prosecutor General’s Office for a re-qualification of the acts from beating to torture, as provided by Article 101/1 of the Penal Code (see paragraph 41 below). The applicant emphasised that he had been caused suffering with the aim of forcing him to confess to a crime which he had not committed. This could only be characterised as torture. On 14 May 2001 he made a similar complaint to the prosecutor in charge of the case. 25. A.P., A.R. and their lawyers failed to appear at the court hearing on 28 May 2001. At the next hearing on 4 June 2001, the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to re-qualify the acts committed by A.P. and A.R. from beating to torture. This request was rejected since the prosecution was responsible for such a re-qualification. 26. Further court hearings were held on 13 and 20 June, 9, 17 and 20 July, 17 and 26 September 2001. After the hearing of 26 September 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on the orders of officer Adajii, who was a witness for the defence in the case against A.P. and A.R. The applicant lodged a separate complaint in respect of this arrest with the Court. The applicant also submitted that he had been openly insulted and intimidated in court by A.P. and A.R., who often came armed to court hearings, and by other police officers. 27. On 8 October 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against A.P. and A.R. within the criminal proceedings. 28. On 27 November 2001 R.B. was called to court as a witness for the defence. The applicant identified R.B. as the plain-clothed person who had ill-treated him in office no. 508 alongside A.P. and A.R. He asked the prosecution and court to charge R.B. with the crime of torture, together with A.P. and A.R. On 29 November 2001 the applicant’s lawyer made a similar request. The lawyer complained that the investigators had not made sufficient efforts to verify the involvement of the third person in the applicant’s ill-treatment, referring to the consistent submissions the applicant had made since his first complaint about the participation of a third person in the events. They received no reply and no investigation was initiated in respect of R.B. 29. On 22 April 2002 the Centru District Court found A.P. and A.R. guilty as charged and sentenced them to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. The applicant was awarded 1,235 Moldovan lei (MDL, equivalent to 102 euros (EUR)), to be paid by A.P. and A.R. 30. In response to a request by the Helsinki Committee of Human Rights in Moldova, on 14 May 2002 the Ministry of Internal Affairs confirmed that A.P. and A.R. had not been suspended from their positions during the investigation against them, based on the principle of presumption of innocence. 31. The applicant and the accused appealed. On 29 October 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and awarded him MDL 11,058 (EUR 826) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicant and the accused appealed. 32. On 26 December 2002 and 16 and 30 January 2003 the defence lawyer did not appear in court. The hearings were postponed each time. 33. On 6 February 2003 the Court of Appeal annulled the lower courts’ judgments and sent the case file for re-examination by the first-instance court, finding that the accused could not be tried for usurpation of powers. 34. Further hearings were scheduled for 20 March, 14 and 29 April, 13 May, 1 and 23 June, 5, 20 and 27 July and 2 August 2003. All except one of these hearings were postponed due to the absence of the prosecutor or the defence attorney. 35. On 26 March 2003 the Centru District Court sent the case file to the prosecution for re-qualification of the acts committed by the accused. According to the applicant, he was not informed about the course of the proceedings after that date. 36. On 7 April 2003 the applicant’s lawyer asked the prosecution to qualify the acts of the accused as torture. Having received no reply, she repeated the request on 25 August 2003 and subsequently complained to the Centru District Court that there had been no response from the prosecution. On 18 September 2003 a similar request was made to the same court. On 8 October 2003 the Centru District Court found that the prosecution had failed to respond to the applicant’s lawyer’s requests, for no reason. It ordered the prosecution to give an answer. 37. In August 2004 A.R. died. The applicant made numerous unsuccessful attempts to access the criminal file. He was not informed about the course of the proceedings. 38. On 10 June 2005 the Centru District Court acquitted A.P. of the charge of usurping police powers. He was sanctioned administratively and fined MDL 1,000 (EUR 65). The applicant was awarded MDL 2,263 (EUR 147) in damages. 39. On 8 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partly quashed that judgment. The court found A.P. guilty under Article 101 of the Penal Code (see paragraph 41 below), but relieved him from criminal responsibility due to the expiry of the five-year limitation period applicable in his case. The court awarded the applicant MDL 15,000 (EUR 997). 40. That judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice on 30 May 2006. The judgment was final.

4. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Turkey. 5. The applicant was wanted by the police on suspicion of membership of the illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi; the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). 6. According to the applicant, on 2 August 1996 he was taken into police custody by plain clothes police officers, who kicked and punched him during the arrest. They then handcuffed the applicant, put him in a taxi and took him to the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate in the Aksaray District. 7. The arrest report, dated 2 August 1996 and signed by the applicant, stated, that the police had received information that the applicant would meet with another member of the DHKP-C at an address in the Kadıköy District of Istanbul. Four police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch waited for him at that address. When they saw the applicant, they identified themselves as police officers. The applicant tried to run away and the officers had to use force to arrest him. 8. At the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. In particular, he was allegedly stripped naked, blindfolded and subjected to Palestinian hanging and falaka. Electric cables were attached to his sexual organs and his toes, and electric shocks were administered to him. His testicles were squeezed and a firearm was inserted into his anus. The applicant was also hosed down with cold water. 9. On 12 August 1996 the applicant was examined by a doctor who noted the following marks on his body: a completely-healed 5 cm abrasion on the side of the left wrist, three grazes of 1 x 4 - 5 cm on the right wrist, a completely-healed 5 cm long graze on the left shoulder, two abrasions of 1 cm in diameter under the right knee. The doctor further opined that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for two days. 10. On 15 August 1996 the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. He contended that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his custody period and that his statements had been taken under duress. The public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court referred the applicant to the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. The applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert who noted the same marks on the applicant's body as the doctor who had examined him on 12 August. 11. The Istanbul State Security Court subsequently ordered the applicant's detention on remand. 12. On an unspecified date, the Fatih public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment of the applicant. 13. On 7 and 25 November 1996, 9 December 1996 and 13 August 1998 the Fatih public prosecutor took statements from four police officers who were on duty at the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate at the relevant time and were involved in taking the applicant's police statement. 14. On 31 December 1998 the Fatih public prosecutor sent a report to the Istanbul public prosecutor and summarised the facts and complaints concerning the investigation. The Fatih public prosecutor requested the Istanbul public prosecutor to file a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the four police officers with inflicting torture under Article 243 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 15. On 14 January 1999 the Istanbul public prosecutor did so. 16. Between 25 January 1999 and 16 February 2000, the Istanbul Assize Court held seven hearings and heard three of the police officers. The fourth police officer and the applicant made statements before the Aydın Assize Court and the Sakarya Assize Court respectively on commission, which were then sent to the Istanbul Assize Court. The applicant maintained before the court that he had been subjected to torture in police custody. The police officers denied the allegations against them. 17. On 16 February 2000 the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the accused police officers. In its judgment, the first-instance court noted that the applicant could not identify the accused police officers and that therefore, there was insufficient evidence to convict them. The court further considered that the injuries on the applicant's body could have occurred during the arrest. 18. On 6 August 2001 the judgment of 16 February 2000 was served on the applicant, who was detained in Kırklareli E-type prison. 19. On 7 August 2001 the applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court. 20. On 8 October 2001 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's appeal, holding that the applicant could not lodge an appeal since he had not intervened as a civil party to the criminal proceedings. 21. The judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court became final as neither the public prosecutor nor the accused appealed.

7. The applicants were born in 1978, 1981, 1987 and 1986 respectively. The first applicant lives in Gothenburg and the other applicants live in Sundsvall. 8. In December 2004 the applicants, together with three other persons, went to an upper secondary school (gymnasieskola) and distributed approximately a hundred leaflets by leaving them in or on the pupils’ lockers. The episode ended when the school’s principal intervened and made them leave the premises. The originator of the leaflets was an organisation called National Youth and the leaflets contained, inter alia, the following statements: “Homosexual Propaganda (Homosexpropaganda) In the course of a few decades society has swung from rejection of homosexuality and other sexual deviances (avarter) to embracing this deviant sexual proclivity (böjelse). Your anti-Swedish teachers know very well that homosexuality has a morally destructive effect on the substance of society (folkkroppen) and will willingly try to put it forward as something normal and good. -- Tell them that HIV and AIDS appeared early with the homosexuals and that their promiscuous lifestyle was one of the main reasons for this modern-day plague gaining a foothold. -- Tell them that homosexual lobby organisations are also trying to play down (avdramatisera) paedophilia, and ask if this sexual deviation (sexuella avart) should be legalised.” 9. For distributing the leaflets, the applicants were charged with agitation against a national or ethnic group (hets mot folkgrupp). 10. The applicants disputed that the text in the leaflets expressed contempt for homosexuals and claimed that, in any event, they had not intended to express contempt for homosexuals as a group. They stated that the purpose of their activity had been to start a debate about the lack of objectivity in the education dispensed in Swedish schools. 11. On 11 July 2005 the District Court (tingsrätten) of Bollnäs found that the statements in the leaflets had clearly gone beyond what could be considered an objective discussion of homosexuals as a group and that the applicants’ intention had been to express contempt for homosexuals. It therefore convicted the applicants of agitation against a national or ethnic group, and sentenced the first and second applicants to two months’ imprisonment, the third applicant to a suspended sentence (villkorlig dom) combined with a fine, and the fourth applicant to probation (skyddstillsyn) combined with 40 hours of community service. 12. The applicants as well as the prosecutor appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) for Southern Norrland. The applicants requested the court to reject the charges, to consider the criminal act minor, or at least to reduce the punishments. The prosecutor appealed as regards the first three applicants, requesting the court to consider the criminal act to be aggravated or at least to increase the punishments. 13. On 14 December 2005 the Court of Appeal, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment of 29 November 2005 in the case NJA 2005 p. 805 (see below under “Relevant domestic law and practice”), rejected the charges against the applicants on the ground that a conviction would amount to a violation of their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Convention. 14. The Office of the Prosecutor-General (Riksåklagaren) appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) and requested it to convict the applicants of agitation against a national or ethnic group, arguing that it would not amount to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case. The applicants disputed the appeal. 15. On 6 July 2006 the Supreme Court convicted the applicants of agitation against a national or ethnic group. The majority of judges (three out of five) first considered decisive for the outcome of the case whether the interference with the applicants’ freedom to distribute the leaflets could be considered necessary in a democratic society and whether the interference with their freedom of expression could be deemed proportionate to the aim of protecting the group of homosexuals from the violation that the content of the leaflets constituted. The majority then held: “In the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding Article 10, in the interpretation of the expression “contempt” in the provision regarding incitement against a group, a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of the case should be made, where, in particular, the following should be considered. The handing out of the leaflets took place at a school. The accused did not have free access to the premises, which can be considered a relatively sheltered environment as regards the political actions of outsiders. The placement of the leaflets in and on the pupils’ lockers meant that the young people received them without having the possibility to decide whether they wanted to accept them or not. The purpose of the handing out of the leaflets was indeed to initiate a debate between pupils and teachers on a question of public interest, namely the objectivity of the education in Swedish schools, and to supply the pupils with arguments. However, these were formulated in a way that was offensive and disparaging for homosexuals as a group and in violation of the duty under Article 10 to avoid as far as possible statements that are unwarrantably offensive to others thus constituting an assault on their rights, and without contributing to any form of public debate which could help to further mutual understanding. The purpose of the relevant sections in the leaflets could have been achieved without statements that were offensive to homosexuals as a group. Thus, the situation was in part different from that in NJA 2005 p. 805, where a pastor made his statements before his congregation in a sermon based on certain biblical quotations. The above-mentioned reasons taken together lead to the conclusion that Chapter 16, Article 8 of the Penal Code, interpreted in conformity with the Convention, permits a judgment of conviction, given the present circumstances of this case.” 16. The minority (two judges) found that convicting the applicants would not be proportionate to the aims pursued and would therefore be in violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Hence, the minority wanted to acquit the applicants but gave separate reasons for this conclusion, at least in part. One of them was of the view that the prosecution was not formulated in such a way that the Supreme Court could take into consideration that the leaflets had been distributed at a school and addressed to the pupils, while the other found it natural that the leaflets had been aimed at pupils and agreed with the majority that an overall assessment of the circumstances had to be made. 17. The first three applicants were given suspended sentences combined with fines ranging from SEK 1,800 (approximately 200 euros (EUR)) to SEK 19,000 (approximately EUR 2,000) and the fourth applicant was sentenced to probation.

5. The applicants are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1943, 1945 and 1951 respectively and live in Budapest. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 1 December 2002 the Romanian Prime Minister made an official visit to Budapest and gave a reception on the occasion of Romania’s national day, which commemorates the 1918 Gyulafehérvár National Assembly when the transfer of hitherto Hungarian Transylvania to Romania was declared. 8. The Hungarian Prime Minister decided to attend the reception and made that intention public the day before the event. 9. The applicants were of the opinion that the Hungarian Prime Minister should refrain from attending the reception, given the Gyulafehérvár National Assembly’s negative significance in Hungarian history. Therefore, they decided to organise a demonstration in front of the Hotel Kempinski in Budapest where the reception was to be held. They did not inform the police of their intentions. 10. In the afternoon of 1 December 2002, approximately 150 people, including the applicants, assembled in front of the hotel. The police were also present. There was a loud noise, whereupon the police decided to disband the assembly, considering that it constituted a risk to the security of the reception. The police forced the demonstrators back to a park next to the hotel where, after a while, they dispersed. 11. On 16 December 2002 the applicants sought judicial review of the action of the police and requested the Pest Central District Court to declare it unlawful. They asserted that the demonstration had been totally peaceful and its only aim had been to express their opinion. Moreover, the applicants pointed out that it had obviously been impossible to inform the police about the assembly three days in advance, as required by Law no. III of 1989 on the right of assembly (the “Assembly Act”), because the Prime Minister had only announced his intention to attend the reception the day before. 12. On 6 February 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ action. Concerning the circumstances of the event, it noted that the demonstration had been disbanded after a minor detonation was heard. 13. The District Court also noted that the three-day time-limit for informing the police of a planned assembly could not possibly be observed if the demonstration had its roots in an event that had occurred less than three days beforehand. In the court’s view, the possible shortcomings of the Assembly Act could not be remedied by the courts. Therefore, the duty to inform the police about such meetings applied to every type of demonstration, including spontaneous ones. The court also noted that there might be a need for more precise and sophisticated regulations in respect of such events but said that this was a task for the legislator, not the courts. 14. The court also found that the duty to inform the police in advance about assemblies held in public served to protect the public interest and the rights of others, namely, the free flow of traffic and the right to freedom of movement. It observed that the organisers of the demonstration had not even attempted to notify the police. The District Court went on to say: “... under the relevant provisions of the domestic law in force, the fact that an assembly is peaceful is not by itself enough to dispense with the duty to inform the police. ... The court has not dealt with the issue whether or not the assembly was peaceful, since the lack of notification made it illegal per se and, therefore, the defendant dissolved it lawfully, pursuant to section 14(1) of the Assembly Act.” 15. The applicants appealed. On 16 October 2003 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. It amended part of the District Court’s reasoning, omitting the remarks concerning the possible shortcomings of the relevant domestic law. Moreover, the Regional Court found, referring, inter alia, to the case-law of the Court and decision no. 55/2001. (XI. 29.) of the Constitutional Court: “... in the application of the relevant domestic law, the approach is obviously authoritative in that there is no exemption from the duty of notification and, therefore, no difference between ‘notified’ assemblies and ‘spontaneous’ ones – the latter are unlawful owing to the failure to respect the above-mentioned duty of notification.” 16. In sum, the Regional Court found that the restrictions imposed on the applicants were necessary and proportionate. 17. The applicants lodged a petition for review which the Supreme Court dismissed on 24 February 2004, without examining its merits, since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Şanlıurfa. 6. On 22 November 1984 Law no. 3083 came into force. Article 5 of this law provided the possibility of leasing State land to farmers who were in need and who fulfilled certain eligibility criteria (“right holders”). In particular, Article 24 § 1 of Law no. 3083 provided that those who had been convicted of certain offences were not entitled to benefit from this law (see paragraph 16 below). 7. Following the promulgation of Law no. 3083, the applicant applied to the Commission which determined the eligibility of farmers to be right holders and requested to be provided with land in Ceylanpınar in the south-east of Turkey. 8. On 1 March 1999 the applicant was identified as a right holder and leased land from the Directorate General for Agricultural Reform (Tarım Reformu Genel Müdürlüğü) (“the Directorate General”) for an indefinite period on payment of a rent. The applicant earned his living by cultivating this land. 9. On 11 May 2000, after conducting a “security investigation”, the Directorate General annulled the right holder status of the applicant. 10. On 31 May 2000 the applicant brought an action in the Gaziantep Administrative Court requesting the stay of execution and reversal of the Directorate General’s decision. 11. On 8 June 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court decided to request the defendant administration to indicate the reasons which grounded its decision to annul the right holder status of the applicant. The court invited the defendant administration to submit their response and relevant documents within thirty days. 12. On 2 August 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a stay of execution of the decision, holding that necessary conditions were not met. 13. On an unspecified date, the Directorate General refused to submit the information or documents requested by the Gaziantep Administrative Court. In this respect, the Directorate General relied on Article 20 § 3 of the Law on Administrative Procedure which provides that the Prime Minister or other Government Minister may refrain from submitting information or documents to an administrative court if the information or documents in question pertain to the security or vital interests of the State. 14. On 7 December 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case. The court held that the impugned decision of 11 May 2000 and the refusal of the Directorate General to submit the relevant information and documents had been in accordance with the domestic legislation. The applicant appealed. 15. On 15 April 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 5 July 2002.

5. The first applicant was born in 1979, while the second and third applicants were born in 1984 and 1983, respectively. They all habitually reside in Pružina. 6. Since 2007 the applicants have been facing multiple charges mainly concerning alleged violent offences, against a background of organised crime. In the context of their prosecution on these charges, they were arrested, remanded, released, and re-arrested and re-remanded several times. 7. A part of the present application directly relates to three of their unsuccessful requests for release from detention following their arrest on 1 April 2010 on a charge of perjury. These requests and the underlying procedures are described in chronological order in sections B. to D. below. 8. The applicants’ term of detention following the arrest of 1 April 2010 ended with their release on 1 April 2011, subsequent to which, on the same day, they were again arrested and later remanded in detention pending trial on a charge of extortion. The remainder of the application directly concerns their interlocutory appeal against the remand order following that arrest and, together with the underlying procedure, it is described below in section E. 9. On 2 May 2010 the first applicant made a submission requesting release. It was received at the Považská Bystrica District Court on 11 May 2010 and the applicant amended it by means of a further submission, which reached the District Court on 19 May 2010. 10. On 21 May 2010 the District Court heard the first applicant. In the course of the questioning he challenged the judge in charge of the case on grounds of bias, alleging that there had been an arbitrary interference with the organisation of the workload at the District Court, as a result of which the case had not been assigned to the lawful judge. 11. At the conclusion of the questioning on the same day, that is to say on 21 May 2010, the District Court dismissed the challenge. Immediately afterwards the first applicant used his right to state on the record that he wished to appeal against the decision on his challenge and he submitted his grounds for appeal on 24 May 2010. That appeal was dismissed by the Trenčín Regional Court on 10 June 2010, the decision being served on the first applicant on 21 June 2010. 12. The first applicant’s request for release was then dismissed by the District Court on 25 June 2010 and, following his interlocutory appeal, by the Regional Court on 20 July 2010, the latter decision being served on the applicant on 26 July 2010. 13. On 27 September 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the examination of his request for release had not been speedy, that its dismissal had been arbitrary, and that it had not been determined by the lawful judge. 14. On 4 October 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. As for the length of the proceedings in the first applicant’s request for release, the Constitutional Court recapitulated the course of those proceedings and found that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded as regards both the part of the proceedings that took place before the District Court and the part that took place before the Regional Court. The remaining complaints were partly out of time and partly manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the first applicant on 23 November 2011. 15. On 10 May 2010 the second applicant and the third applicant also requested release and offered to pledge under Article 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that, if released, they would live in accordance with the law. Their request was filed with the Považská Bystrica District Office of the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”) which was responsible for dealing with it in the first instance. 16. Finding no reasons for acceding to it, on 17 May 2010 the PPS transmitted the request to the District Court for a judicial determination. The case file was received at the District Court on 21 May 2010. Having established that the case file was incomplete, the District Court asked the PPS for a complete version of it on 27 May 2010, which was submitted to the District Court on 2 June 2010. Meanwhile, on 27 May 2010, the applicants waived their right to be heard in person by the District Court. 17. The request was dismissed by the District Court on 3 June 2010 and, following the applicants’ interlocutory appeal of 16 June 2010, by the Regional Court on 15 July 2010. The former decision was served on the applicants and two of their three lawyers on 9 June 2010. On 8 July 2010, by means of telephone inquiry in response to the impossibly of having it served on the third lawyer, the District Court established that the third lawyer had stopped representing the applicants, explaining the failure to inform the court accordingly by the fact that he had been on holiday. The latter decision was served on the applicants and on the lawyer of one of them on 2 August 2010. It was served on the other applicant’s lawyer on 9 August 2010. 18. On 30 September 2010 the second applicant and the third applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, directing it against the District Court and the Regional Court, and alleging a violation of their rights under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (and their constitutional equivalents) to a speedy review of the lawfulness of their detention by an impartial tribunal established by law and to release pending trial. 19. On 9 November 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. As for the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ request for release, the Constitutional Court recapitulated the course of those proceedings and observed that some delays had been caused by the failure of the authorities to submit a complete case file to the District Court and by the above‑mentioned failure of one of the applicants’ representatives to inform the court of the termination of his mandate, which had resulted in repeated and eventually futile attempts to serve the written copy of the District Court’s decision on him. The Constitutional Court concluded that neither before the District Court nor the Regional Court had the length of proceedings been incompatible with the speediness requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The remaining complaints were inadmissible partly because they were a res iudicata by virtue of a previous decision of the Constitutional Court and partly because they were manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the second applicant and the third applicant on 19 December 2011. 20. On 22 December 2010 the applicants lodged a fresh request for release. In response, the District Court informed them in a letter of 3 January 2011 that – without the submission of new relevant information – under the applicable statute a new request for release could be lodged at the earliest thirty days after the final determination of the previous request. As the applicants’ request of 22 December 2010 contained no such new information in relation to their previous request – which had only been dismissed with final effect on 16 December 2010 – it could not be entertained. 21. The first applicant amended his request by means of a further submission received at the District Court on 20 January 2011 while the second applicant and the third applicant did so by a submission received on 31 January 2011. 22. The request was dismissed by the District Court on 7 February 2011 and, following the applicants’ interlocutory appeal, by the Regional Court on 23 February 2011, the latter decision being served on the applicants on 2 March 2011. 23. On 31 March 2011 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging inter alia a violation of their rights under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 24. On 14 June 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It recapitulated the course of those proceedings and observed that – since the applicants’ request contained no new relevant information in relation to their previous request – the courts were prevented by law from examining it. The periods under consideration had therefore not commenced on 22 December 2010, as claimed by the applicants, but only on 20 and 31 January 2011, when they had amended the original request. From that perspective, the length of the impugned proceedings was acceptable. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicants on 18 August 2011. 25. Following their arrest on 1 April 2011 (see paragraph 8 above), the applicants were remanded in detention pending trial on a charge of extortion by the District Court’s order of 4 April 2011. 26. On 14 April 2011 the applicants challenged the detention order by means of an interlocutory appeal, which the Regional Court dismissed on 21 April 2011, its decision being served on the applicants on 19 May 2011. 27. On 15 June 2011 the applicants challenged these decisions before the Constitutional Court, alleging inter alia a violation of their rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, including the right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of their detention upon their interlocutory appeal against the detention order of 4 April 2011. 28. On 13 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The decision was served on the applicants on 16 January 2012. 29. Meanwhile, on 27 September 2011, the applicants were indicted to stand trial on the charge in question and, on 15 November 2011, they were released from detention. The proceedings on the merits appear to be still pending.

5. The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Groningen. 6. The applicant’s parents’ relationship ended in 1990. The applicant’s mother was granted parental authority. 7. In 2001 the Child Care and Protection Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming) investigated the applicant’s situation because he had been displaying severe behavioural difficulties, had dropped out of school, had committed a number of offences and appeared disinclined to respect authority in any shape or form. 8. By a decision of 9 October 2002, the Juvenile Judge of the Groningen Regional Court (kinderrechter bij de rechtbank) placed the applicant under the supervision (ondertoezichtstelling) of the Groningen Juvenile Care Foundation (Stichting Jeugdzorg – “the Foundation”) for a period of one year and also issued an authorisation to the Foundation for the applicant’s custodial placement in a confined institution for treatment (gesloten uithuisplaatsing) for a period of three months. On 14 November 2002 the applicant was admitted to “Het Poortje” Juvenile Institution, a confined institution for treatment, in order to be observed and psychologically examined. 9. On 8 January, 6 March and 3 April 2003 the Juvenile Judge extended the authorisation for the applicant’s custodial placement in a confined institution. The last such extension was set to expire on 9 October 2003 – one full year after the first decision. 10. On 1 August 2003 the Juvenile Judge of the Groningen Regional Court received the Foundation’s request (dated 29 July) for a prolongation of the authorisation for the applicant’s custodial placement for the duration of the supervision order. Reference was made to a report containing the results of an examination of the applicant’s personality by a remedial educationalist/psychologist that had been issued on 1 February 2003. 11. On 10 September 2003 a hearing was held before the Juvenile Judge. The applicant stated that he did not want to be placed in a confined institution for treatment and that his behaviour had improved. On behalf of the Foundation it was submitted that the applicant had recently been placed at Rentray, a confined orthopsychiatric institution for persons with severe behavioural difficulties, that the intended treatment would take one to one and a half years, and that it was out of the question that the applicant would be able to live with his father or his grandmother as he had indicated he wished to do. The Juvenile Judge stated that the report on the applicant’s personality was clear and that a relapse, which was considered to be a real possibility, had to be prevented at all costs. Treatment was necessary, also in view of his age, and he had already been admitted to Rentray. 12. On 17 September 2003 the Juvenile Judge decided to extend the period of supervision for a further year, with effect from 9 October 2003, and to prolong the authorisation issued to the Foundation for the applicant’s custodial placement in a confined institution for treatment for the duration of the supervision order. 13. On 17 October 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Leeuwarden Court of Appeal against the decision of 17 September 2003, in so far as it concerned the custodial placement. 14. A hearing was held on 11 December 2003. At the hearing the applicant’s counsel, emphasising that the case was not a particularly complicated one, requested the applicant’s immediate release as the case at issue had not been dealt with speedily within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. After having deliberated on this matter, the Court of Appeal considered that there appeared to be insufficient grounds to release the applicant immediately; nevertheless, a decision would be rendered as soon as possible and at the latest on 19 December 2003. 15. On 19 December 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 17 September 2003 and extended until 1 May 2004, that is to say for six months rather than one year, the authorisation issued to the Foundation for the applicant’s custodial placement in a confined institution for treatment. In this connection the court ruled as follows: “37. Having regard to the far-reaching character of [the] measure – involving as it does a deprivation of liberty –, it should not last longer than strictly necessary. On 14 November 2002 [the applicant] was placed in a confined institution for observation and diagnosis and on 26 August 2003 he was placed there for treatment. Having regard, inter alia, to the ... positive development in [the applicant’s] behaviour and to the individual treatment meeting which will take place in April 2004, the court perceives cause to extend the authorisation for [the applicant’s] custodial placement in a confined setting for treatment until 1 May 2004.” As regards Article 5 § 4 of the Convention the Court of Appeal held as follows: “7. In answering the question whether the case was decided sufficiently speedily, the court is of the opinion that the nature of the custodial measure at issue, the duration of that measure and the relationship between the duration of the measure and the (total) time that has elapsed between the moment the appeal was lodged and the date on which the appeal was decided upon should also be taken into consideration. 9. The imposed ... measure consists of extending the authorisation for [the applicant’s] custodial placement in a confined setting for a duration of one year, with effect from 9 October 2003. 11. In a letter of 20 October 2003, the court invited the Foundation and [the applicant’s] father and mother to file their submissions by 10 November 2003 at the latest. It is to be noted, also in view of the custodial character of the measure, that these interested parties have been granted a shorter period of time within which to lodge observations than is customary in family-law cases. After all, pursuant to section 7 of the Uniform Regulations for petition-based proceedings in family-law cases (Uniform Reglement voor rekestprocedures in familiezaken) the usual period within which observations are to be lodged is six weeks. 12. Subsequently, by letters of 11 November 2003, the parties were summoned to appear at the court’s hearing of 11 December 2003 and the decision has been scheduled for today. 13. In view of the above-mentioned elements and the way they are related to each other, the court concludes that in the present case the decision can still be said to have been taken speedily within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and that this provision has therefore not been breached.” 16. On 13 January 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (beroep in cassatie) with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). He complained explicitly of a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to have had regard only to the period between 17 October 2003, the date on which the appeal had been lodged, and 19 December 2003, the date of the decision. He argued that the court should have included the period from 14 November 2002 to 17 October 2003 during which time he had also been deprived of his liberty, as well as the fact that (at that time) he had been a minor below the age of 16. He further claimed that the considerations of the Court of Appeal relating to the shorter time than usual for the submission of observations could not warrant the conclusion that the decision had been taken speedily, nor were they relevant in that context. The statement of points of appeal was lodged by a member of the Supreme Court bar, a lawyer practising in The Hague. 17. On 10 September 2004 an Advocate-General (advocaat-generaal) to the Supreme Court, acting as deputy to the Procurator General (procureur‑generaal), submitted an advisory opinion. She considered that as the period for which the authorisation had been granted had in the meantime lapsed, the applicant no longer had an interest in the appeal and it therefore ought to be declared inadmissible in accordance with the established case-law of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, with a view to developing the law, the Advocate-General addressed the merits of the appeal. Reference was made to the Court’s judgments and decision in the following cases: Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland (21 October 1986, Series A no. 107); E. v. Norway (29 August 1990, Series A no. 181‑A); Van der Velden v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 29514/05, ECHR 2006‑XV); Navarra v. France (23 November 1993, Series A no. 273‑B); and Bouamar v. Belgium (29 February 1988, Series A no. 129). The Advocate-General noted that the period between 17 October 2003, the date on which the appeal to the Court of Appeal had been lodged, and the hearing before that court on 11 December 2003 had already lasted 54 days, and that a further 8 days had elapsed until the decision of 19 December 2003. However, the entire procedure – from the first request for extension of the authorisation until the decision taken on appeal – had lasted from 1 August 2003 to 19 December 2003, that is a period of 141 days. As to other circumstances that had to be taken into consideration, such as the complexity of the case and the applicant’s behaviour, the Advocate-General pointed out that the extension at issue was based on reports that had been issued before the start of the proceedings in question and that the only delay that could be attributed to the applicant concerned the time that had elapsed between the decision of the Juvenile Judge of 17 September 2003 and the lodging of the appeal on 17 October 2003. The Advocate-General concluded that, in her opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeal had not been taken speedily within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 18. The applicant, through counsel, submitted a written response to the Advocate-General’s advisory opinion on 23 September 2004. He argued that the lawfulness of the detention orders following on from the original order depended on the lawfulness of the original order. Furthermore, domestic law provided for an appeal to the Supreme Court in cases such as the present; such an appeal could only be effective if the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal admissible and ruled on its merits. 19. By a final decision of 5 November 2004, the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible for lack of interest, since the authorisation at issue had already lapsed in the meantime. 20. On 29 April 2004, shortly before the day on which the Court of Appeal’s order of 19 December 2003 was due to expire (1 May 2004), the Juvenile Judge of the Groningen Regional Court extended its validity for four more weeks. It was extended for a further two months on 19 May 2004. The intention was to transfer the applicant to an open setting during this time. 21. On 14 June 2004 the applicant was transferred to an open (non-custodial) unit within the Rentray institution. It appears that the applicant absconded from this unit three times between July and September 2004. 22. On 6 October 2004 the Juvenile Judge of the Groningen Regional Court made a new supervision order and authorised the applicant to be placed in a custodial institution for a period of six months, backdated to 30 September 2004. The applicant and his mother appealed on 17 October and 4 November respectively. 23. On 8 December 2004 the Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, ruling on both appeals, shortened the placement order to three months instead of six on formal grounds. It dismissed an argument based on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, holding that the proceedings had been sufficiently speedy, and that in any event a finding of a violation of the requirement of “speediness” would not ipso jure have entitled the applicant to immediate release since that might well have gone against his own best interests. 24. It appears that the applicant remained in a secure institution until the time he reached his majority, which was in mid-2006.

5. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Zubry village, Pustomytivsky District, Lvivska Region. 6. On 11 May 1992 the Pustomytivsky District Council (hereafter “the District Council”) withheld from “L.”, an agricultural company, a plot of land to transfer it to individual farmers for permanent use (hereafter “the 1992 decision”). A four-hectare part of this plot in the administrative ownership of Zubry village was allocated to the applicant. 7. On 27 April 1993 the applicant was issued with a Land Use Act (Державний акт на право користування землею) in his name as a physical person registering his permanent right to use this plot for farming. 8. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Lviv Regional Arbitration Court that the Zubry Village Council (hereafter “the Village Council”) had refused to allocate to his farm in kind the plot of land to which he had been entitled under the Land Use Act. 9. On 10 March 1994 the above court ordered the Village Council to allocate the plot to the applicant’s farm by 10 April 1994. 10. This judgment (hereafter “the 1994 court judgment”), which was rectified in 1996, became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted in its respect. On numerous occasions the bailiffs approached the Village Council seeking allocation of the plot. However, the latter refused, insisting that the community had no land for distribution and that all available plots were lawfully occupied by other parties. 11. On 4 October 2000 the Village Council took an official decision refusing to allocate the land to the applicant’s farm, stating that there were no available plots. 12. On 1 March 2001 the Lviv Regional Arbitration Court revoked this decision as unlawful, finding that the previous judgment confirming the applicant’s farm’s right to a plot of land had never been challenged in accordance with applicable procedures and so had remained in force and subject to execution. 13. On an unspecified date the bailiffs destroyed the enforcement order and discontinued the enforcement proceedings. 14. On 6 March 2008 the applicant, acting on behalf of his farm, instituted proceedings against the bailiffs, complaining about their failure to ensure enforcement of the 1994 court judgment and seeking a renewal of the enforcement proceedings. 15. On 27 May 2008 the Lviv Regional Commercial (former Arbitration) Court allowed his claim in part. It noted that the 1994 court judgment had never been revoked and remained in force at the material time. It further found that the failure of the bailiffs to enforce the judgment at issue and destruction of the enforcement order issued by the court was not lawful. 16. On 9 March 2010 the Lviv Commercial Court of Appeal upheld this decision, having added to its operational part that the applicant’s demand for reopening of the enforcement proceedings should be rejected. 17. The parties did not inform the Court as to whether there had been any further appeals against this decision. 18. On 25 November 1998 the Pustomytivsky District Prosecutor lodged a protest against the 1992 decision allocating the land to the applicant. 19. On 4 December 1998 the District Council revoked the decision at issue following this intervention and requested the prosecutor to initiate proceedings for revocation of the applicant’s Land Use Act and registration as a farmer. The Council noted, in particular, that the land at issue should have been distributed among the employees of “L.”, which the applicant was not. It also noted that the plot had been allocated to the applicant without a proper preliminary land survey and before he had been duly registered as a farmer. 20. The applicant appealed against this decision before the Lviv Regional Arbitration Court. 21. On 4 February 1999 the court ruled for the applicant. It found that the District Council had no authority to interfere with the applicant’s use of the land, unless this use were found to be unlawful according to the procedure established by section 49 of the Property Act. It further noted that the reasons cited by the Council in justification of the revocation of the decision did not constitute a valid ground for divesting him of the possession of the plot. According to the case file materials this decision was not appealed against and became final. 22. On 14 June 1999 the President of the Lviv Regional Arbitration Court reviewed the decision by way of supervisory review following the defendant’s request and found the previous decision lawful. 23. On 1 December 1999 the Higher Arbitration Court revoked these decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 24. On 20 April 2000 the Lviv Regional Arbitration Court found that the defendant had acted contrary to section 59 of the Self-Governance Act in revoking its 1992 decision and found that revocation unlawful. It appears from the case file materials that this decision was not appealed against and became final. 25. On 12 July 2000 the Deputy President of the Lviv Regional Arbitration Court reviewed the decision by way of supervisory review at the defendant’s request and upheld the previous decision. 26. On an unspecified date the above decisions were revoked and the proceedings reopened. 27. On 19 December 2002 the Lviv Regional Commercial (former Arbitration) Court rejected the applicant’s claim. It noted that on 28 January 1992 the Pustomytivsky District Council had decided that the land withheld from “L.” for distribution to individual farmers would be allocated to its (former) employees in accordance with Article 7 of the Farming Act and Article 5 of the Land Code in force at the material time. As the applicant had not been employed by “L.”, he had not been eligible to obtain a plot from the land at issue. The court further noted that the extra-judicial procedure by which the Council’s decision had been revoked was lawful, as the Prosecutors’ Office Act entitled prosecutors to lodge objections to unlawful decisions of various entities, obliging them to review them and remove their shortcomings where necessary. As regards the Council’s request for the prosecutor to initiate proceedings for revocation of the Land Use Act and the applicant’s registration as a farmer, these were recommendations only and did not as such have any bearing on the applicant’s rights. On 15 May 2003 the Lviv Regional Commercial Court of Appeal upheld this decision. 28. The applicant appealed in cassation, alleging that revocation of the decision of 11 May 1992 was contrary to the applicable provisions of substantive and procedural law. In particular, this revocation had resulted in the applicant’s being de facto deprived of a plot of land on grounds not foreseen in the applicable legislation and in violation of due process provisions, requiring judicial proceedings for a decision on that deprivation. 29. On 14 January 2004 the Higher Commercial Court upheld the previous judgments, noting that the applicant had never submitted a proper application for allocation of the land and that as he had never worked for “L.” there had been no grounds to add him to the list of persons entitled to obtain its former land in the first place. In the light of the above there was no reason to conclude either that the prosecutor had wrongfully objected to the 1992 decision or that the District Council had wrongfully revoked it in response to this objection. 30. On 15 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine refused the applicant leave to make a further appeal in cassation. 31. Subsequently the applicant attempted unsuccessfully to have the proceedings reopened and the judgment of 19 December 2002 reviewed. 32. It is not clear from the case file materials whether the validity of the applicant’s Land Use Act was ever reviewed by the domestic judicial authorities.

4. The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Skopje. 5. On 3 April 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the then Skopje Municipal Court (Општински Суд Скопје) (“the first-instance court”) against the Copyright Agency of Macedonia-Skopje (“the company”) claiming payment of an outstanding dividend. He alleged that the company’s restructuring had been unlawful and that the latter had not calculated his salary in compliance with the applicable legislation at that time (the applicant alleged that the company had not been fully privatised and that accordingly, it should have applied legislation concerning socially-owned enterprises). He further claimed that the company had misappropriated part of its profits and distributed them to its employees as salaries. In that latter context, he claimed a higher dividend than he had actually received (he claimed to have possessed 13.63% of the company’s capital and not 11.918%). 6. On 17 February 1997 the court ordered an expert examination of the applicant’s claim. It appears that the expert report was produced in August 1997. 7. On 29 May 1997 the applicant brought a separate civil action against the company’s manager. On 25 December 1997 the first-instance court joined the two applications since they concerned the same issues of facts and law. 8. On 3 December 1997 the applicant unsuccessfully proposed a friendly settlement of the case. 9. In September 1998 the applicant successfully applied for the removal of the judge sitting in his case. The sitting judge also asked to withdraw due to the applicant’s difficult behaviour, namely that he had repeatedly accused the courts and experts of bias and incompetence. 10. None of five hearings fixed between 25 November 1999 and 5 October 2000 was adjourned at the applicant’s request. 11. On 29 November 2000 the chairman of the panel deciding the applicant’s case withdrew because the applicant had brought criminal charges against her. The latter were rejected by the public prosecutor. 12. Hearings listed on 29 May, 12 July and 21 December 2001 and 14 February 2002 were rescheduled due to the absence of the sitting judge or the incorrect summoning of the defendants. 13. By submissions of 18 November 1998, 4 May 1999, 25 April 2000, 25 April 2001 and 1 March 2002, the applicant submitted further applications increasing his claim. 14. On 28 March 2002 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 4 September 2002 this decision was served on the applicant. 15. On 19 December 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant on 18 September 2002. 16. On 12 February 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (ревизија) with the Supreme Court. On 5 and 20 March 2003 he filed supplements to his appeal. 17. On 23 June 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on him on 16 December 2004. 18. On 20 December 2004 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification of its decision, which had been in fact a request for a fresh decision on the merits. 19. The composition of the first-instance court’s panel changed four times during the proceedings in question.

5. The applicants were born in 1979 and 1975 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. 6. On 31 May 1999 the applicants were arrested at different locations in Diyarbakır. It appears from the arrest report in respect of Mr Attı that he was arrested outside the university where he was a student. The reason for the arrest was the police officers' “suspicion of his appearance/condition” (durumundan şüphe ettiğimiz). He was taken into police custody for the “necessary investigation to be carried out”. 7. According to the arrest report in respect of Mr Tedik, he was arrested in a house and “in relation to an investigation”. Mr Tedik was also taken to the police station. The police officers who arrested Mr Tedik also searched the house and found a number of books and magazines in the Kurdish and Turkish languages. The books included a book of poems, a novel and a Kurdish grammar book. 8. The Diyarbakır Police Headquarters, where the applicants were being detained, wrote to the prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 2 and 4 June 1999, and asked for permission to detain the applicants for a number of additional days. On 4 June 1999 the prosecutor granted permission to the police to detain the applicants until 10 June 1999. 9. Also on 4 June 1999 a number of police officers took the applicants to a number of locations where, the applicants claimed in two signed statements prepared the same day, they had carried out a number of activities on behalf of the PKK[1], including preparing and throwing Molotov cocktails. 10. The applicants were questioned by police officers on 8 June 1999. They stated that they were PKK sympathisers and also members of the Patriotic Youth Union (Yurtsever Gençlik Birliği). 11. On 9 June 1999 the applicants were released from police custody and brought before the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who took statements from them. In their statements the applicants denied any connections with the PKK, and submitted that they had been forced to sign their police custody statements without having been allowed to read them first. The same day the applicants were brought before the duty judge, who remanded them in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against them. 12. When questioned by police officers and subsequently by the prosecutor and the judge, the applicants were not represented by a lawyer. 13. On 14 June 1999 the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicants and ten other persons with the offence of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence defined in Article 168 of the Criminal Code which was in force at the time. 14. The first hearing in the case was held on 22 June 1999 by the First Division of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the course of the trial, the applicants were represented by lawyers, and they repeatedly denied the accuracy of the contents of their police custody statements. 15. On 13 March 2001 the applicants were found guilty as charged and sentenced to twelve and a half years' imprisonment. In convicting the applicants the Diyarbakır State Security Court relied on the statements taken from them in police custody. 16. The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written observations to that court but they were not forwarded to the applicants or their lawyers. The applicants' convictions were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 11 October 2001.

11. The applicant is a Latvian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Riga. She is currently a member of the European Parliament. 12. On 23 August 1939 the foreign ministers of Germany and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) signed a non-aggression treaty (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). The treaty included a secret additional protocol, approved on 23 August 1939 and amended on 28 September 1939, whereby Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to settle the map of their “spheres of influence” in the event of a future “territorial and political rearrangement” of the territories of the then independent countries of central and eastern Europe, including the three Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. After Germany’s invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 and the subsequent start of the Second World War, the Soviet Union began exerting considerable pressure on the governments of the Baltic States with a view to taking control of those countries pursuant to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its additional protocol. 13. Following an ultimatum to allow an unlimited number of Soviet troops to be stationed in the Baltic countries, on 16-17 June 1940 the Soviet army invaded Latvia and the other two independent States. The government of Latvia was removed from office, and a new government was formed under the direction of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (“the CPSU”), the USSR’s only party. From 21 July to 3 August 1940 the Soviet Union completed the annexation of Latvia, which became part of the USSR under the name “Soviet Socialist Republic of Latvia” (“Latvian SSR”). 14. The applicant was born in Riga into a Russian-speaking family. In 1971 she joined the Communist Party of Latvia (“the CPL”) while studying at the University of Latvia in Riga. The CPL was in fact a regional branch of the CPSU. From 1972 to 1990 the applicant worked as a lecturer at the University of Latvia. Throughout this period she was a member of the CPL. 15. In the late 1980s there was considerable social pressure in Latvia, as in other east European countries, for the democratisation of political life. As a result of the newly introduced freedom of expression in the territory of the Soviet Union, mass political movements were formed in Latvia, as well as in the other Baltic States, condemning the annexation of the country, asserting the need to construct a new society based, inter alia, on Latvian identity and values, and emphasising the need to restore State independence. 16. The first independent elections under the Soviet regime took place on Latvian territory in March 1990. The applicant was elected to the Supreme Council (Augstākā Padome) of the Latvian SSR as a representative for the Pļavnieki constituency in Riga. She subsequently joined the CPL’s local branch. In April 1990 this branch selected her to attend the CPL’s 25th Congress, where she was elected to the party’s Central Committee for Supervision and Audit. According to copies of that committee’s minutes, the applicant was a member of a sub-committee responsible for supervising the implementation of decisions and activities arising from the CPL programme. 17. At the same congress, a group of delegates expressed their disagreement with the CPL’s general policy, which remained loyal to the Soviet Union and the CPSU. According to those delegates, the CPL was opposed to any democratisation of public life and sought to maintain the status quo of the Soviet rule. These delegates publicly announced their withdrawal from the CPL and established a new party, the “Independent Communist Party of Latvia”, which immediately declared its support for Latvian independence and for a multi-party political system. The applicant did not join the dissident delegates and remained with the CPL. 18. On 4 May 1990 the Supreme Council adopted a Declaration on the Restoration of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia, which declared Latvia’s incorporation into the USSR unlawful and void and restored legal force to the fundamental provisions of the Latvian Constitution (Satversme) of 1922. However, paragraph 5 of the Declaration introduced a transition period, aimed at a gradual restoration of genuine State sovereignty as each institutional tie with the USSR was severed. During that transition period, various provisions of the Constitution of the Latvian SSR would remain in force. A special governmental commission was given responsibility for negotiating with the Soviet Union on the basis of the Russo-Latvian Peace Treaty of 11 August 1920. The above-mentioned Declaration was adopted by 139 out of a total of 201 Supreme Council members, with one abstention. Fifty-seven members of the Līdztiesība parliamentary bloc (“Equal Rights”, in fact the CPL group), including the applicant, did not vote. On the same day, 4 May 1990, the Central Committee of the CPL adopted a resolution strongly criticising the Declaration and calling on the President of the Soviet Union to intervene. 19. On 7 May 1990 the Supreme Council approved the government of the independent Republic of Latvia. 20. On the evening of 12 January 1991 the Soviet army launched military operations against the neighbouring country of Lithuania, whose government had been formed in the same way as the Latvian government. Soviet troops entered the television tower of Vilnius and the headquarters of Lithuanian public television, and also tried to take the seats of the Lithuanian parliament and other authorities. Massive crowds, made up of Lithuanian citizens, came to the rescue of the institutions of the newly independent Lithuania. Thirteen Lithuanian civilians were killed and hundreds injured during the clash with the Soviet army. 21. The parties disagree as to who was responsible for the deaths during the events in Vilnius on 12-13 January 1991. According to the respondent Government, the CPSU was directly responsible for those deaths, in that it had full and effective control of the Soviet troops. The applicant contested the Government’s version, stating that the Soviet army’s aggression against the Lithuanian government and the Lithuanian people was not a proven fact; in this connection, she submitted a copy of a Russian newspaper article which alleged that it had been the Lithuanian independence supporters themselves who fired into the crowd with the aim of discrediting the Soviet army. 22. At the same time, an attempted coup was launched in Latvia. On 13 January 1991 the plenum of the CPL Central Committee called for the resignation of the Latvian government, the dissolution of the Supreme Council and the assumption of full powers by the Latvian Public Rescue Committee (Vislatvijas Sabiedriskās glābšanas komiteja), set up on the same date by several organisations including the CPL. On 15 January 1991 this committee announced that the Supreme Council and the government were stripped of their respective powers and declared that it was assuming full powers. After causing the loss of five civilian lives and injuries to thirty-four persons during armed clashes in Riga, this attempted coup failed. 23. According to the respondent Government, it was absolutely clear that the attempted coup in Latvia was launched by the CPL against the background of the Vilnius events, in the hope that Soviet troops would also invade Riga to support the pro-Soviet coup. The applicant submitted that, at the material time, a series of public demonstrations had been held in Latvia to protest against the rise in food prices introduced by the Latvian government; those demonstrations were thus the main reason for the events of January 1991. The applicant also emphasised that, in their respective statements of 13 and 15 January 1991, the plenum of the CPL Central Committee and the Latvian Public Rescue Committee had not only called for and announced the removal of the Latvian authorities, but had also stated that early elections would be held for the Supreme Council. 24. On 3 March 1991 a national plebiscite was held on Latvian territory. Electors had to reply to a question worded as follows: “Do you support a democratic and politically independent Republic of Latvia?” According to figures supplied by the Government, 87.5% of all residents registered on the electoral roll voted, and 73.6% of them replied in the affirmative. According to the Government, this was a genuine national referendum, confirming the support of the overwhelming majority of the Latvian population for the idea of national independence. The applicant maintains that it was a simple consultative vote and contests the above-mentioned turnout, and thus the very legitimacy of the plebiscite. 25. On 19 August 1991 there was an attempted coup in Moscow. The self-proclaimed “National State of Emergency Committee” announced that Mr Gorbachev, President of the USSR, was suspended from his duties, declared itself the sole ruling authority and imposed a state of emergency “in certain regions of the USSR”. 26. On the same day the Central Committee and the Riga Committee of the CPL declared their support for the National State of Emergency Committee and set up an “operational group” to provide assistance to it. According to the Government, on 20 August 1991 the CPL, the Līdztiesība parliamentary bloc and various other organisations signed and disseminated an appeal entitled “Godājamie Latvijas iedzīvotāji!” (“Honourable residents of Latvia!”), urging the population to comply with the requirements of the state of emergency and not to oppose the measures imposed by the National State of Emergency Committee in Moscow. According to the applicant, the CPL’s participation in all those events has not been proved; in particular, the members of the Līdztiesība bloc were taking part in parliamentary debates over two consecutive days and were not even aware that such an appeal was to be issued. 27. This coup also failed. On 21 August 1991, the Latvian Supreme Council enacted a constitutional law on the status of the Republic of Latvia as a State and proclaimed the country’s immediate and absolute independence. Paragraph 5 of the Declaration of 4 May 1990, concerning the transition period, was repealed. 28. By a decision of 23 August 1991, the Supreme Council declared the CPL unconstitutional. The following day, the party’s activities were suspended and the Minister of Justice was instructed “to investigate the unlawful activities of the CPL and to put forward ... a motion on the possibility of authorising its continued operations”. On the basis of the proposal by the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Council ordered the party’s dissolution on 10 September 1991. 29. In the meantime, on 22 August 1991 the Supreme Council set up a parliamentary committee to investigate the involvement of members of the Līdztiesība bloc in the coup. On the basis of that committee’s final report, on 9 July 1992 the Supreme Council revoked fifteen members’ right to sit in Parliament. The applicant was not one of those concerned. 30. In February 1993 the applicant became chairperson of the Movement for Social Justice and Equal Rights in Latvia (Kustība par sociālo taisnīgumu un līdztiesību Latvijā), which later became a political party, Līdztiesība (“Equal rights”). 31. On 5 and 6 June 1993 parliamentary elections were held in accordance with the restored Constitution of 1922. For the first time since Latvian independence had been regained, the population elected the parliament (Saeima), which took over from the Supreme Council. It was at that point that the applicant’s term of office as a member of parliament expired. As a result of the Latvian authorities’ refusal to include her on the residents’ register as a Latvian citizen, she was unable to take part in those elections, in the following parliamentary elections held in 1995, or in the municipal elections of 1994. Following an appeal by the applicant, the courts recognised her as holding Latvian nationality by right in January 1996, on the ground of her being a descendant of a person who had possessed Latvian nationality before 1940. The courts therefore instructed the electoral authorities to register the applicant and to supply her with the appropriate documents. 32. By a final judgment of the Supreme Court of 27 July 1995, A.R. and O.P., formerly the most senior officials of the CPL, were found guilty of attempting to overthrow the legitimate authorities of independent Latvia by violent means. The judgment accepted, inter alia, the following circumstances as historical facts: (a) Having failed to obtain a majority on the Supreme Council in the democratic elections of March 1990, the CPL and the other organisations listed in section 5(6) of the Parliamentary Elections Act decided to take the unconstitutional route and set up the Latvian Public Rescue Committee, which attempted to usurp power and to dissolve the Supreme Council and the legitimate government of Latvia. Such actions were contrary not only to Article 2 of the 1922 Constitution, which stated that sovereign power was vested in the people, but also to Article 2 of the Constitution of the Latvian SSR, which conferred authority to act on behalf of the people on elected councils (soviets) alone. (b) The Central Committee of the CPL provided financial support to the special unit of the Soviet police which was entirely responsible for the fatal incidents of January 1991 (see paragraphs 22-23 above); at the same time, the Latvian Public Rescue Committee publicly expressed its support for this militarised body. (c) During the coup of August 1991 the Central Committee of the CPL openly declared its support for the National State of Emergency Committee, set up an “operational group” with a view to providing assistance to it and published an appeal calling on the public to comply with the regime imposed by this self-proclaimed and unconstitutional body. 33. On 25 January 1997 the Movement for Social Justice and Equal Rights in Latvia submitted to the Riga Electoral Commission a list of ten candidates for the forthcoming municipal elections of 9 March 1997. The applicant was one of those candidates. In accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Elections Act, she signed the list and attached a written statement confirming that she was not one of the persons referred to in section 9 of that Act. Under the terms of the Act, individuals who had “actively participated” (darbojušās) in the CPSU, the CPL and several other named organisations after 13 January 1991 were not entitled to stand for office. In a letter sent on the same day, the applicant informed the Electoral Commission that she had been a member of the CPL’s Pļavnieki branch and of its Central Committee for Supervision and Audit until 10 September 1991, the date of the CPL’s official dissolution. However, she argued that the restrictions mentioned above were not applicable to her, since they were contrary to Articles 2 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 34. By a decision of 11 February 1997, the Riga Electoral Commission registered the list submitted by the applicant. At the elections of 9 March 1997 this list obtained four of the sixty seats on Riga City Council (Rīgas Dome). The applicant was one of those elected. 35. With a view to participating in the parliamentary elections of 3 October 1998, the Movement for Social Justice and Equal Rights in Latvia formed a coalition with the Party of National Harmony (Tautas Saskaņas partija), the Latvian Socialist Party (Latvijas Sociālistiskā partija) and the Russian Party (Krievu partija). The four parties formed a united list entitled “Party of National Harmony”. The applicant appeared on this list as a candidate for the constituencies of Riga and Vidzeme. On 28 July 1998 the list was submitted to the Central Electoral Commission for registration. In accordance with the requirements of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the applicant signed the list and attached to it a written statement identical to the one she had submitted prior to the municipal elections. As she had done for the 1997 elections, she likewise sent a letter to the Central Electoral Commission explaining her situation and arguing that the restrictions in question were incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 36. On 29 July 1998 the Central Electoral Commission suspended registration of the list on the ground that the applicant’s candidacy did not meet the requirements of the Parliamentary Elections Act. Not wishing to jeopardise the entire list’s prospects of being registered, the applicant withdrew her candidacy, after which the list was immediately registered. 37. By a letter of 7 August 1998, the President of the Central Electoral Commission asked the Prosecutor General to examine the legitimacy of the applicant’s election to the Riga City Council. 38. By a decision of 31 August 1998, a copy of which was sent to the Central Electoral Commission, the Office of the Prosecutor General (Ģenerālprokuratūra) noted that the applicant had not committed any act defined as an offence in the Criminal Code. The decision stated that, although the applicant had provided false information to the Riga Electoral Commission regarding her participation in the CPL, there was nothing to prove that she had done so with the specific objective of misleading the commission. In that connection, the prosecutors considered that the statement by the applicant, appended to the list of candidates for the elections of 9 March 1997, was to be read in conjunction with her explanatory letter of 25 January 1997. 39. On 14 January 1999 the Office of the Prosecutor General applied to the Riga Regional Court for a finding that the applicant had participated in the activities of the CPL after 13 January 1991. The prosecutors attached the following documents to their submission: the applicant’s letter of 25 January 1997; the minutes of the meeting of 26 January 1991 of the CPL’s Central Committee for Supervision and Audit; the minutes of the joint meeting of 27 March 1991 of the Central Committee for Supervision and Audit and the municipal and regional committees for supervision and audit; and the annexes to those minutes, indicating the structure and composition of the said committee and a list of the members of the Audit Committee at 1 July 1991. 40. Following adversarial proceedings, the Riga Regional Court allowed the prosecutors’ request in a judgment of 15 February 1999. It considered that the documents in its possession clearly attested to the applicant’s active participation in the party’s activities after the critical date, and that the evidence provided by the applicant was insufficient to refute this finding. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant’s arguments to the effect that she was only formally a member of the CPL, did not participate in the meetings of its Central Committee for Supervision and Audit and that, accordingly, she could not be held to have “acted”, “been a militant” or “actively participated” (darboties) in the party’s activities. 41. The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Civil Division of the Supreme Court. On 12 November 1999 the Civil Division began examining the appeal. At the oral hearing, the applicant submitted that the content of the above-mentioned minutes of 26 January and 27 March 1991, referring to her by name, could not be held against her since on both those dates she had been carrying out her duties in the Latvian Supreme Council and not in the CPL. After hearing evidence from two witnesses who stated that the applicant had indeed been present at the Supreme Council, the Division suspended examination of the case in order to enable the applicant to submit more cogent evidence in support of her statements, such as a record of parliamentary debates or minutes of the Līdztiesība parliamentary bloc’s meetings. However, as the above-mentioned minutes had not been preserved by the Parliamentary Record Office, the applicant was never able to produce such evidence. 42. By a judgment of 15 December 1999, the Civil Division dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It stated that the evidence gathered by the Office of the Prosecutor General was sufficient to conclude that the applicant had actively taken part in the CPL’s activities after 13 January 1991. The Division further noted that the CPL’s dissolution had been ordered “in accordance with the interests of the Latvian State in a specific historical and political situation” and that the international conventions relied on by the applicant allowed for justified limitations on the exercise of electoral rights. 43. Following the Civil Division’s judgment, enforceable from the date of its delivery, the applicant was disqualified from electoral office and lost her seat as a member of Riga City Council. 44. The applicant applied to the Senate of the Supreme Court to have the Civil Division’s judgment quashed. She stressed, inter alia, the restriction’s incompatibility with Article 11 of the Convention. By a final order of 7 February 2000 the Senate declared the appeal inadmissible. In the Senate’s opinion, the proceedings in question were limited to a single strictly-defined objective, namely a finding as to whether or not the applicant had actively taken part in the CPL’s activities after 13 January 1991. The Senate concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to analyse the legal consequences of this finding, on the ground that this was irrelevant to the finding itself. In addition, the Senate noted that any such analysis would involve an examination of the Latvian legislation’s compatibility with constitutional and international law, which did not come within the final appeal court’s jurisdiction. 45. Proceedings similar to those against the applicant were also instituted against a small number of other CPL activists, not all of whom were recognised by the courts as having “actively participated” in the activities of the CPL after January 1991. 46. The next parliamentary elections took place on 5 October 2002. With a view to taking part in those elections, the Līdztiesība party, chaired by the applicant, formed an alliance entitled “For Human Rights in a United Latvia” (Par cilvēka tiesībām vienotā Latvijā, abbreviated to PCTVL) with two other parties, the Party of National Harmony and the Socialist Party. The alliance’s electoral manifesto expressly referred to the need to abolish the restrictions on the electoral rights of persons who had been actively involved in the CPL after 13 January 1991. 47. In spring 2002 the Executive Council of the Līdztiesība party put the applicant forward as a candidate for the 2002 elections; the Council of the PCTVL alliance approved this nomination. Shortly afterwards, however, on 16 May 2002, the outgoing parliament rejected a motion to repeal section 5(6) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. The alliance’s council, which was fully aware of the applicant’s situation and feared that her candidacy would prevent registration of the PCTVL’s entire list, changed its opinion and decided not to include her name on the list of candidates. The applicant then decided to submit a separate list containing only one name, her own, entitled “Party of National Harmony”. 48. On 23 July 2002 the PCTVL electoral alliance submitted its list to the Central Electoral Commission. In all, it contained the names of seventy-seven candidates for Latvia’s five constituencies. On the same date the applicant asked the commission to register her own list, for the constituency of Kurzeme alone. As she had done for the 1998 elections, she attached to her list a written statement to the effect that the disputed restrictions were incompatible with the Constitution and with Latvia’s international undertakings. On 25 July 2002 the commission registered both lists. 49. By a decision of 7 August 2002, the Central Electoral Commission, referring to the Civil Division’s judgment of 15 December 1999, removed the applicant from its list. In addition, having noted that the applicant had been the only candidate on the “Party of National Harmony” list and that, following her removal, there were no other names, the commission decided to cancel the registration of that list. 50. At the elections of 5 October 2002, the PCTVL alliance’s list obtained 18.94% of the votes and won twenty-five seats in Parliament. 51. Latvia became a member of the European Union on 1 May 2004. Prior to that date, on the basis of the European Parliament Elections Act (Eiropas Parlamenta vēlēšanu likums) of 12 February 2004, the applicant was granted permission to run in those elections. They were held on 12 June 2004 and the applicant was elected as a member of the European Parliament.

8. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives at Jerez de la Frontera (in the province of Cadiz). She teaches history and geography at secondary-school level. From 1 July 1989 to 30 June 1994 she was the head teacher of a secondary school in Jerez de la Frontera where she taught. 9. The Autonomous Community of Andalusia gave notice through an advertisement in the Official Gazette of 31 December 1991 of an internal competition to fill 2,014 senior teaching posts at secondary-school level. On 16 February 1993 the Department of Education and Science of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (“the Department”) published a provisional list of the candidates whose applications to take part in the competition had been accepted. The final list comprised 4,901 candidates, including the applicant, and was published on 27 March 1993. 10. On 9 December 1993 the Department published the candidates’ assessments and the number of marks awarded to each under the chosen selection criteria, in order to allow any complaints to be lodged. 11. By an order of 7 February 1994, it published a final list of the candidates, including the applicant, who had passed the examination. 12. In January 1994 more than 300 candidates issued proceedings in the Administrative Division of the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice complaining about the manner in which the competition had been organised and, in particular, of the use of, and weighting given to, teacher-training diplomas in the assessment process, which they maintained was discriminatory. Notice of each individual application was published in the Official Gazette of the province of Seville. The national and regional press carried reports that a large number of legal actions had been brought complaining about the organisation and results of the competition and that senior officials in the Andalusian government or members of their families had passed the examination as a result of the significant weighting given to one of the assessment criteria. The dispute was referred to the Ombudsman (defensor del pueblo) for Andalusia, who strongly criticised the weighting system and advised the Andalusian government to annul the competition. The teachers unions took a stand on the matter, which was also debated in the Andalusian parliament. 13. By a decision of the Department dated 15 March 1994 the applicant was appointed to the grade of senior history and geography secondary-school teacher. 14. In the judicial review proceedings that had been brought by a large number of candidates, the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice ordered the Department to furnish a list of the candidates in the competition, to produce the administrative file and to serve notice on interested third parties to attend the hearing. The Department lodged written pleadings, but without identifying the interested third parties who ought to be summoned. At the end of the proceedings, in a judgment of 31 March 1995, the Higher Court of Justice annulled the competition for history and geography teachers and directed the examiners to re-mark the examination papers without applying the disputed weighting. 15. In other judicial review proceedings that had been brought in the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice on the same grounds, interested third parties, who had not been personally served with summonses to appear, made an application under Article 24 of the Constitution for leave to intervene after learning about the proceedings from other sources. The Higher Court of Justice agreed to their participation in the proceedings. 16. On the reassessment of the candidates under the procedure laid down by the Higher Court of Justice, the applicant did not attain the requisite level and failed the examination. The Department issued an order on 31 August 1995, which was published on 9 September 1995 in the Official Gazette of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, annulling her appointment to the senior teaching post. 17. The applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court under Article 24 of the Constitution (right to a fair hearing) against the Higher Court of Justice’s judgment of 31 March 1995 and the Department’s order of 31 August 1995. She said in her appeal that she had learnt of the notice in the 9 September 1995 issue of the Official Gazette of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia by accident and complained in substance that the process whereby her appointment to the senior teaching post had been annulled was unfair, as she had not been summoned to appear before the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice as an interested party to the dispute. In that connection, she argued, inter alia, that the Higher Court of Justice had been under a duty under section 64 of the Administrative Courts Act to inform her of the court proceedings and to summon her to appear. She also sought a stay of execution of the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice’s judgment. 18. In a decision of 5 February 1996 the Constitutional Court declared her amparo appeal admissible. 19. On 26 February 1996 the Constitutional Court granted the applicant a stay of execution; it discharged that order on 27 May 1996. 20. State Counsel lodged written pleadings with the Constitutional Court on 30 May 1996 concerning the amparo appeal. He argued that the appeal should be allowed in part, as there had been a violation of Article 24 of the Constitution for the following reasons: “... In order to examine this appeal, it is necessary to recapitulate the criteria and conditions laid down in the case-law of the Constitutional Court establishing that a failure to serve a summons personally will violate the right to the effective protection of the courts. In that connection, the notion of ‘legitimate interest’ has a special meaning for the purposes of Article 24 § 1 (of the Constitution), as it determines who has a legitimate right to take part in court proceedings, that is to say standing as an interested party to bring an appeal. The Constitutional Court has frequently stated that the notion of ‘legitimate interest ... is defined as an advantage or any legal benefit arising out of the remedy sought’ (judgment no. 60/1982). In the present case, it will be seen that the appellant had a legitimate interest in the application before the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice, as she was liable to be affected by the judgment, which resulted in a new list of selected candidates being drawn up and, consequently, the loss of her newly obtained status as a senior secondary-school teacher. From that standpoint, therefore, it was vital for the summons to be served on her personally and directly in the proceedings. 3. Secondly, ... since the appellant was identifiable, it is necessary to determine whether she could have been served personally. In that connection, it will be observed from the pleadings lodged with the Higher Court of Justice in support of the application for judicial review that it was not only the ‘scale’ that was contested, but also the provisional list of candidates permitted to take part in the competition, which means that the persons concerned were readily identifiable. 4. Consequently, it was not only necessary, but also feasible, for the appellant to be summoned personally and directly. The last requirement is that the person concerned should have no knowledge of the proceedings. In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant knew or could have found out about the proceedings, as the judgment was not even served on her. Accordingly, the rule established in the Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 117/1983 should be applied, namely: ‘this Court will only dismiss the appeal if there is evidence establishing that the appellant was aware of the proceedings ...’ 5. In the light of the foregoing, in the present case, the appellant should have been summoned to appear in the judicial review proceedings in the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice. The fact that she was not so summoned put her in a position that was prejudicial to her defence rights, in breach of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 24 § 1 of the Spanish Constitution.” 21. In a decision of 8 March 1999, the Constitutional Court ordered the joinder of various amparo appeals against the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice’s judgment in which the appellants all relied on the same points of law. 22. In a judgment delivered on 14 September 1999 after an adversarial hearing, the Constitutional Court dismissed the amparo appeal. 23. With respect to the complaint that the annulment of the applicant’s appointment to the senior teaching post was tainted with procedural unfairness, owing to the failure to summon her to appear before the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice as an interested party to the dispute, the Constitutional Court held: “... 4. ... While it is true that the appellants allege, firstly, a violation of section 64 of the Administrative Courts Act on the ground that the Seville Administrative Proceedings Division effected service by advertisement and not personally, such a violation would only have a legal bearing on a constitutional amparo appeal if the breach of the Act also constituted a violation of the fundamental right relied on (see judgments nos. 15/1995 and 197/1997, legal reason no. 4). This Court addressed the issue of failure to summon third parties with an interest in judicial review proceedings in detail in its judgment no. 9/1981. The rules established in that case have been systematically recited, inter alia, in decisions delivered during the current decade, in judgments nos. 97/1991 (legal reason no. 2); 78/1993 (legal reason no. 2); 325/1993 (legal reason no. 3); 192/1997 (legal reason no. 2); 229/1997 (legal reason no. 2); 122/1998 (legal reason no. 3); and 26/1999 (legal reason no. 3). As a general rule, the following three conditions must be satisfied for amparo relief to be granted: (a) The appellant must have a personal legitimate right or interest capable of being affected by the judicial review proceedings concerned ... (b) It must be possible for the court or tribunal concerned to identify the appellant. Whether that requirement is satisfied will depend essentially on the information set out in the notice of application, the administrative file or the grounds of appeal ... (c) Lastly, the appellant must have been a victim of a material infringement of his or her defence rights [indefensión material]. There will be no material infringement of defence rights if the person concerned has constructive notice of the proceedings and has not appeared through want of diligence. A finding that the person concerned had constructive notice of the proceedings must be based on reliable evidence [fehaciente] (judgments nos. 117/1983 (legal reason no. 3); 74/1984 (legal reason no. 2); 97/1991 (legal reason no. 4); 264/1994 (legal reason no. 5); and 229/1997 (legal reason no. 3)). That does not prevent proof being established on the basis of presumptions (judgments nos. 151/1988 (legal reason no. 4); 197/1997 (legal reason no. 6); 26/1999 (legal reason no. 5); and 72/1999 (legal reason no. 3). The presumption that the person concerned had notice will be particularly strong in cases concerning civil servants employed by an authority that is a defendant in the proceedings (judgments nos. 45/1985 (legal reason no. 3); and 197/1997 (legal reason no. 6)). 5. The application of the aforementioned constitutional parameters to the present case gives the following results: (a) Firstly, the appellants indisputably had a legitimate interest ... (b) Secondly, ... in the present case, the Administrative Division had precise details of the co-defendants or other parties, as the application for judicial review referred to the provisional list of the selected and unselected candidates ... and even the final list of candidates ... (c) However, thirdly, as to whether there has been a material infringement of the rights of the defence, this Court held in its judgment no. 113/1998 (legal reason no. 4) that it was reasonable to presume that teachers had constructive notice of judicial review proceedings when, as in the present case, they had been appointed to their senior teaching posts following a competition that had been challenged in the administrative courts, had attracted extensive media coverage and had had an important impact in trade-union circles ... We reach the same conclusion in the present case. A number of articles on the proceedings challenging the scale used in the competition (and the list of candidates selected to take part) have appeared in large circulation newspapers in Andalusia (the case has received extensive coverage in Diario 16 (Andalusia), ABC (Seville edition), Jaén, El País, Huelva Información and Diario de Córdoba)). The underlying issues were also examined by the Andalusian parliament at a briefing session (held on 24 November 1994). In June 1994 the Department of Education and Science sent a memorandum to the teachers via the ‘Sector Education Office’ expressly informing them of the proceedings pending in the Andalusia Higher Court of Justice. To these considerations must be added the subjective characteristics common to all the applicants: they are all civil servants employed by the defendant authority; as teachers, they are in a category of the population that has frequent access to the media, particularly the press. Lastly, the number of people affected by the appeals is very high (4,091 teachers entered the competition and 2,014 were selected in a very specific functional environment (teaching)). In the light of the foregoing, we reach the clear conclusion that the appellants had constructive notice of the judicial review proceedings that were heard by the Administrative Division in Seville. Consequently, their failure to take part in those proceedings was not attributable to any lack of diligence by that Division. Accordingly, there has been no violation of the right to the protection of the courts (Article 24 § 1 of the Spanish Constitution).”

5. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Celje. 6. On 10 February 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju). The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT. 7. On 20 February 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court seeking damages in the amount of 1,586,610 tolars (approximately 6,600 euros) for the injuries sustained. On 30 March 1995 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) transferred the case to the Ptuj Local Court (Okrajno sodišče na Ptuju), since the applicant was an employee of the Celje Local Court. Between 8 June 1996 and 25 September 1997 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing. On 20 February 1997 the court held a hearing. On 17 March 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions. On 25 March 1997 the court appointed a medical expert. On 24 October 1997 the applicant increased her claim to 3,136,610 tolars (approximately 13,000 euros). On 8 January 1998 the court declared the case out of its jurisdiction and the case was transferred to the Ptuj District Court (Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju) Between 18 February 1998 and 3 May 1999 the applicant made five requests that a date be set for a hearing. Between 6 March 1998 and 1 September 1999 she lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence. Of the three hearings held between 27 November 1998 and 6 September 1999 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts who also appeared before the court. 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 17 September 1999. 8. On 27 September 1999 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru). ZT cross-appealed. On 11 September 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part dismissed the ZT’s appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 4 July 2002. 9. On 10 July 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. On 29 May 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 June 2003.

5. In February 1994 the Hungarian National Bank authorised a private limited company (“the Company”) to issue payment cards to its customers. After 1995, however, purchase with such cards was no longer possible. Despite this fact, in 1996 the applicants concluded agreements with the Company for so-called “savings cards” in which they invested various amounts of money. 6. In November 1996 bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the Company and its insolvency was established in June 1997. The applicants recovered part of their investments through partial reimbursement by the Company. They sold their remaining claims against the Company to third parties. 7. On 26 October 1998 three hundred and thirty private individuals, including the applicants, who were all represented by one law firm, brought an official liability action against the Hungarian National Bank before the Budapest Regional Court. They claimed that the respondent had not exercised its supervisory duties over the Company, therefore making it possible for the applicants to conclude the above-mentioned agreements which had resulted in substantial losses. 8. On 11 January 2001 the Regional Court dismissed their action, finding that the respondent had no duty of supervision according to the relevant domestic legislation. 9. On 28 January 2003 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to the first instance court due to the incomplete findings of fact. 10. In the resumed proceedings the Budapest Regional Court found for the applicants on 6 December 2005. It established that the Company had unlawfully overstepped the boundaries of its activities, which had been known to the respondent; nevertheless, the latter could not prove that it had fulfilled its supervisory duties in this respect. 11. On 26 October 2006 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. It acknowledged that there were omissions on the respondent’s side. However, since the applicants had already sold their claims to third parties, the court held that they could have no substantive claims whatsoever in the circumstances. 12. The applicants lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision on 5 June 2007, finding that the latter decision had been in compliance with the law.

6. The applicant was born in 1954 and at the material time lived in the Moscow Region. He now lives in the United States of America. 7. In 1977 the applicant started working for a construction and design agency, “Raduga” (GMKB “Raduga”), a State corporation that developed rocket and space devices. He signed an undertaking not to disclose classified information. 8. On 16 May 1989 the applicant signed a new undertaking, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “I, [the applicant], undertake: (a) not to disclose information containing State and professional secrets that are entrusted to me or that I learn by virtue of my service (work) duties ... ... (c) not to visit embassies, missions, consulates or other representative offices of foreign States, and not to contact – directly or through others – foreigners without the consent of the management of the agency I work for or the relevant Soviet authorities ... I have been informed of the prohibition on travel abroad, except as permitted by relevant laws and regulations ...” 9. On 31 January 1994 the applicant signed a new undertaking which read as follows: “I, [the applicant], on assuming my work duties at the Raduga design agency, undertake: (a) not to disclose information containing State and professional secrets entrusted to me or coming to my attention by virtue of my service (work) duties; (b) to abide by the applicable requirements laid down in the orders, instructions and regulations concerning the secrecy of the studies conducted, of which I have taken cognisance; (c) to notify the department of the enterprise responsible for secrecy arrangements or the competent authorities of any attempts by outsiders to obtain secret information from me; (d) to inform the human resources department in a comprehensive and timely fashion of any change in my personal circumstances; and to inform the department responsible for secrecy arrangements of any contacts with my relatives permanently living abroad or planning to take up permanent residence abroad, or of any non-professional contacts with foreigners. In the event of my dismissal I undertake to abide strictly by requirements (a) and (c) above ...” 10. On 20 August 1996 the applicant resigned. 11. In early 1997 the applicant’s father, who lived in Germany, fell ill. Wishing to visit his father, the applicant applied to the Passports and Visas Service of the Department of the Interior of Dubna for a travel passport, the identity document which entitles Russian citizens to leave the country and travel abroad[1]. 12. On 17 March 1997 the Head of the Passports and Visas Service refused the applicant’s request. The entire text of the decision reads as follows: “As there exist grounds for a temporary restriction on your right to leave the Russian Federation as set out in section 15 of the Law on the procedure for entering and leaving the Russian Federation, your application for a travel passport has been declined until 2001 further to a recommendation by the Raduga design agency of 20 February 1997 (registration number 6/209/23324).” 13. The applicant contested the refusal before the Inter-agency Commission for the examination of Russian citizens’ complaints in connection with restrictions on their right to leave the Russian Federation (“the Commission”). On 24 February 1998 the Commission informed the applicant that it had unanimously upheld the imposition of a five-year restriction. The letter did not indicate the reasons for the decision. 14. The applicant appealed against the decision of the Commission to the Moscow City Court. 15. On 24 September 1999 the Moscow City Court gave judgment. It found that on 22 April 1977, 16 May 1989 and 31 January 1994 the applicant had signed undertakings not to disclose State secrets; the 1989 undertaking also contained a clause restricting the applicant’s right to leave the country. Having examined a report on the applicant’s knowledge of State secrets of 20 February 1997, drawn up by the applicant’s former employer and confirmed by the Aviation and Space Industry Department and the State Secrets Protection Department of the Ministry of Economy at the request of the Passports and Visas Service, the court found as follows: “According to the report ... [the applicant] in his work used workbooks bearing inventory nos. 5301 and 4447 that contained extracts from top secret documents (nos. ...). In respect of some inventory numbers, requests were sent to the design enterprises [in order] to verify whether the information contained therein was still sensitive. However, no response was received. Moreover, the Court questioned a witness, Mr K., the Deputy General Director responsible for the regime and for security at the Raduga agency, who confirmed that the information contained in the documents that had been drawn up in the Raduga agency had retained its top secret classification and was still sensitive ... As the witness Mr K. clarified to the Court, there are no grounds for changing the secrecy classification of this information ...” On these grounds the court determined that the restriction on the applicant’s right to leave the Russian Federation until 14 August 2001 was lawful and justified. 16. On 9 November 1999 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the City Court’s judgment, finding that it had been properly justified and reasoned. 17. The restriction on the applicant’s right to leave the country expired on 14 August 2001. 18. On 25 October 2001 the applicant was issued with a travel passport and subsequently took up residence in the United States of America.

8. The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Karlovac, Croatia. 9. On 18 September 1992 the applicant filed a civil action with the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu), seeking damages for his destroyed property from an insurance company - C.O. The applicant claimed that an unknown person had set fire in his summer house in Pirovac, Croatia, and had also appropriated his property from the house. 10. Before 5 November 1997, i.e., the date of the entry of the Convention into force in respect of Croatia, the first instance court held three hearings. 11. At the hearing on 2 December 1997 the defendant asked the court to order the Šibenik Police Department (Policijska uprava Šibenska) to submit a report concerning the applicant's claim. On 5 December 1997 the court ordered the Šibenik Police Department and the defendant's office in Šibenik to submit information relevant for the applicant's claim. Furthermore, the court ordered the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Šibeniku) to inform it about criminal reports on arson submitted in the period relevant for the applicant's claim. The defendant's office in Šibenik replied on 22 December 1997, the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office on 2 January 1998 and the Šibenik Police Department on 12 January 1998. 12. According to the Government the hearing scheduled for 12 May 1998 was adjourned because the applicant's counsel had not received the notice of the hearing date. According to the applicant the hearing on 12 May 1998 was held in his presence. The defendant repeated its request from the previous hearing that the court order the Šibenik Police Department to submit a report relevant for the applicant's claim. The applicant replied that the defendant was already in possession of that report and accused the defendant's counsel of lying. The judge left the courtroom. 13. According to the Government, since neither the applicant nor his counsel, although notified, appeared at the hearing scheduled for 6 October 1998 the court stayed the proceedings (mirovanje postupka). According to the applicant he had never been notified of the hearing date. 14. On 12 January 1999 the applicant's counsel requested the court to resume the proceedings. 15. On 21 January 1999 the Karlovac Municipal Court struck out the applicant's claim. On 3 February 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 17 March 1999 the Karlovac County Court (Županijski sud u Karlovcu) quashed the first instance decision and remitted the case to the Karlovac Municipal Court. 16. It appears that the applicant filed a motion requesting that the presiding judge be removed from the case. On 5 July 1999 the President of the Karlovac Municipal Court rejected the request. 17. At the hearing on 5 October 1999 the court invited the defendant to submit its observations on the County Court's decision of 17 March 1999 within 30 days. On 12 October 1999 the defendant filed its submissions. 18. On 14 February 2000 the applicant increased the sum sought. 19. At the next hearing on 17 May 2000 the court decided that it would order the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office to submit further information concerning the arson in the applicant's house. On 9 June 2000 the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office submitted the requested information. 20. According to the Government, on 21 July 2000 the court scheduled the next hearing for 10 October 2000, but the applicant failed to collect the notice of the hearing date sent to him by registered mail. On 25 August 2000 the court unsuccessfully attempted another delivery of the notice of the hearing date to the applicant. 21. According to the applicant, he had never received the notices for the above hearings. 22. On 25 September 2000 the defendant filed additional submissions. On 27 September 2000 the court sent the defendant's submissions to the applicant and invited him to file his reply within eight days. On 8 October 2000 the applicant filed his reply. 23. On 16 November 2000 the applicant filed his additional submissions. According to the Government, since he had failed to submit a copy for the defendant, on 3 January 2001 the court ordered him to submit another copy. According to the applicant he had already sent a copy of his submissions directly to the defendant. On 9 February 2001 the applicant sent a letter to the court refusing to submit another copy of his submissions of 16 November 2000. 24. On 19 March 2001 the court invited the defendant to submit its inner regulations and other information concerning the applicant's claim. 25. On 9 April 2001 the court invited the Šibenik Police Department to inform it whether there were any war operations in the area where the applicant's house is situated. 26. On 12 April 2001 the defendant submitted its inner regulations. 27. On 8 June 2001 the court invited the defendant to submit copies of the photographs depicting the remnants of the applicant's house after destruction and also their estimation of damages. On 21 June 2001 the defendant submitted the requested documentation. On 29 June 2001 the court sent the copy of that documentation to the applicant. 28. At the hearing on 10 July 2001 the court decided to invite the Šibenik Warning and Information Centre (Centar za obavještavnje i uzbunjivanje u Šibeniku) to inform it whether there were any war operations in the area where the applicant's house is situated. 29. On 23 July 2001 the defendant asked the court to extend the time limit for its submissions concerning a possible settlement with the applicant. 30. On 2 August 2001 the Ministry of Defence Administration for Communications (Uprava za komunikacije Ministarstva obrane) informed the court that on 4 May 1992 there were no war operations in the area where the applicant's house is situated. 31. On 16 October 2001 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) asked that the case-file be sent to it in order to decide upon the applicant's request that the case be heard before another court. 32. On 17 October 2001 the Karlovac Municipal Court held a hearing. The applicant asked that the court adopt a judgment. It was decided that the case-file would not be transferred to the Supreme Court. The proceedings were concluded and the court adopted judgment rejecting the applicant's claim. 33. On 10 December 2001 the applicant appealed against the judgment. On 6 February 2002 the Karlovac County Court rejected the applicant's appeal.

4. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Đakovo. 5. On 14 July 2004 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) against insurance company J.O. seeking damages. 6. On 3 February 2010 that court adopted a judgement for the applicant. 7. On 22 September 2010 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed an appeal by the defendant and upheld the first-instance judgement. The judgement was served on the applicant’s representative on 6 December 2010. 8. Meanwhile, on 30 September 2008 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Zagreb County Court. 9. On 30 April 2009 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 2,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court to give a decision in the applicant’s case within six months of service of its decision. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 May 2009. 10. On 25 May 2009 the applicant appealed against the County Court’s decision in its part concerning the award of compensation. He argued that the compensation that court had awarded him was too low and sought HRK 20,000 instead. 11. On 30 September 2009 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and awarded him additional HRK 4,000, that is, HRK 6,000[1] in total. 12. On 21 October 2009 the Zagreb County Court’s decision of 30 April 2009 was served on the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court with a view to deciding the applicant’s case within the time-limit set forth in that decision.

7. The applicant was born in 1956 and is currently in Sweden. 8. On 9 January 1993 the applicant arrived in Sweden and applied to the Immigration Board (Invandrarverket) for asylum and a residence permit, claiming that he had left Iraq due to his fear of Saddam Hussein and his regime. He brought his three children with him (born in 1987, 1988 and 1991, respectively) while his wife arrived in July 1994. At the initial interview held with the applicant on the day of his arrival in Sweden, he stated, inter alia, that he was Christian and had worked as a major in the Republican Guard where he had served in a transport division for heavy vehicles. He had deserted from the army fourteen days previously and had fled to the northern part of Iraq where, with the help of a smuggler, he had managed to get on a plane to Stockholm. He had had neither ticket nor passport and his wife had remained in northern Iraq. 9. In a written submission dated 20 January 1993 the applicant added mainly the following to his initial account. He was born in Basra but had moved to Baghdad in 1986 when he married. Between October 1981 and February 1990, during the war with Iran, he had served in the military and he had been called up again between August 1990 and January 1992, during the occupation of Kuwait, to serve in an armoured transport division assigned to transport tanks. He had been given four military awards for bravery and four medals, however such medals had been given to a large number of officers and soldiers. In October 1992 he had been called upon to carry out military assignments (allegedly murders and terrorist acts) against the Shi’as in Al Ahwar. As he had felt unable to murder his own people, he had deserted and left Iraq on 20 December 1992. In this respect, he submitted that he sympathised with all organisations working against Saddam Hussein and working towards a democratic government. Following his desertion, he had visited his relatives in Basra and then made his way, with his family, to northern Iraq, where he and his children had travelled to Sweden via Turkey with the help of smugglers. Since he had held the rank of major in the reserve and had deserted, he would be executed if he were forced to return to Iraq. Apart from his four medals he also had an identity card as a major which confirmed that he was one of Saddam Hussein’s friends. 10. At a second interview at the Immigration Board, held on 17 September 1993, the applicant confirmed the information provided by him and added, in particular, that he had not engaged in any political activities. 11. On 14 and 15 December 1993 another two in-depth interviews were held with the applicant in which he essentially stated the following. He was Christian and belonged to the Ba’ath Party where he had attained the level of “advanced sympathiser” which was the level before becoming a full member. He had been drafted to the military in October 1981, had become an officer in 1986 and had risen to major in 1990. He claimed that he had never participated in any combat or killed anyone since his military work had mainly consisted of ensuring the functioning of transports and support for the front line. As an officer, he had been placed under the orders of others and thus had never had any influence himself. He had participated in the war against Iran and when this ended in 1988 he had been transferred to an armoured tank division within the Republican Guard. In March 1992 he had received four medals for bravery from the Ministry of Defence. He stated that about 500 officers had received such medals and that they were mainly perceived as an encouragement to the officers. At this time he had also received a special identity card, “Friends of Saddam”, which almost every officer in the Republican Guard and some officers in the regular army received. He had never met Saddam Hussein personally but the card gave certain privileges, inter alia, in contacts with the authorities. During the interview on 15 December 1993, the applicant changed certain statements which he had previously given to the Immigration Board. In particular, he claimed that he had not been called back into service after he left the military in January 1992. Moreover, he stated that he had applied for a visa for a tourist trip to Malta with his family at the Maltese Embassy in Baghdad and that they had received both visas and exit permits for a month. Hence, on 4 October 1992, the family had travelled legally from Baghdad to Jordan and from there by plane to Malta. He and his children had then travelled to Sweden from Malta, with the help of smugglers. The applicant stated that he wished to return to Iraq if Saddam Hussein lost power. 12. One further supplementary interview was held with the applicant on 10 January 1994 in which he maintained that he had left Iraq legally on 4 October 1992 by car to Jordan, after the family had received valid passports, exit permits and visas. He also added that, from Jordan, the family had flown to Cyprus from where they had intended to continue to Greece. Since this had not been possible, they had returned to Jordan before travelling to Malta where they had arrived on 19 October 1992. Since the smugglers had not been able to arrange a passport for his wife, she had had to remain in Malta when the rest of the family went to Sweden. 13. In February 1994 the Swedish Security Police (Säkerhetspolisen) proposed a rejection of the applicant’s asylum request for security reasons. On the basis of this, the Immigration Board decided to transfer the case to the Government for consideration but it recommended that the application be rejected. In its view, the applicant had not convincingly shown that he was in need of protection in Sweden. Although it accepted the applicant’s military background, it did not believe his reasons for leaving Iraq, inter alia, because he had only admitted leaving Iraq legally with his own passport and an exit permit, and the route used, once confronted with facts. 14. Subsequently, in 1997, the Security Police informed the Government that they no longer had any objections to the application from the point of view of security. Hence, the case was transferred back to the Immigration Board. 15. On 11 June 1998 the Immigration Board rejected the application for asylum with reference to its recommendation to the Government and noting that it found no reason to change the evaluation made at that time. Moreover, it dismissed the applicant’s request for a residence permit on the ground that it was not competent to change or repeal a final court judgment concerning expulsion. The Board observed that only the Government could repeal an expulsion order based on a criminal conviction and, in that connection, consider a request for a residence permit. 16. In the meantime, on 2 May 1995, before the asylum application had been determined, the District Court (tingsrätten) of Tierp convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to forensic psychiatric care, the duration of which was subject to a medical evaluation. It further ordered that the applicant be expelled from Sweden with a prohibition on returning. The applicant had admitted that he had killed his wife but claimed that he had acted in psychosis and had not intended to kill her. He had suspected that she had been unfaithful and had conspired against him behind his back. In its judgment, the court noted that the applicant, after having locked the door to the children’s room, had repeatedly stabbed his wife while she was asleep. In these circumstances, the court found that the applicant had been completely indifferent as to whether his wife died or not and therefore should be convicted of murder. However, since a forensic psychiatric examination showed that he had committed the crime in a state of “serious mental disturbance” (allvarlig psykisk störning) and was still, during the examination, suffering from such a disturbance, the court concluded that he was in need of treatment and sentenced him to forensic psychiatric care. 17. As concerned the expulsion, the applicant had stated before the District Court that he had been an officer in Saddam Hussein’s army and often away on missions. Because of the war, he and his family had fled from Iraq in 1993 but he had psychological problems stemming from the war. 18. The District Court had also consulted the Immigration Board and it had submitted that, although it had not yet made a decision regarding the applicant’s application for asylum and a residence permit, it considered that there were no impediments to the expulsion of the applicant to his home country. The Board noted that the applicant, an army officer, had left Iraq legally with a valid Iraqi passport containing a one-month exit visa. He had not brought his national passport with him when he entered Sweden. Having regard to the Board’s view and noting that the applicant had committed a very serious crime, the District Court concluded that he should be expelled from Sweden for life. 19. The applicant did not appeal against the judgment which, consequently, gained legal force. 20. It would appear that, following the applicant’s criminal conviction, his children were taken into compulsory public care and placed with a Swedish family. Furthermore, a special guardian was appointed for them and they were granted permanent residence permits in Sweden. 21. On 14 December 2004 the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Dalarna decided to end the forensic psychiatric care and to release the applicant. 22. In the meantime, in July 1998, the applicant requested the Government to repeal the expulsion order against him. He insisted that he would be tortured and executed if he was returned to Iraq because he had deserted from the Iraqi army. 23. On 12 November 1998 the Government rejected the request as they found that no special reasons existed for repealing the expulsion order. 24. The applicant renewed his request in February 2001, maintaining his claims. Upon request by the Government, the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) submitted its view on the case, stating that the applicant’s reasons had been examined previously and that no new circumstances had appeared for which reason the enforcement of the expulsion could take place. However, the Board added that there had been practical impediments to enforcement for some time with regard to Iraq. 25. On 17 May 2001 the Government found that there were insufficient reasons for revoking the expulsion order. However, having regard to the situation in Iraq at the time, the Government decided to grant the applicant a temporary residence permit and work permit up until 17 November 2001. 26. In a new application, dated 7 November 2001, the applicant requested that the expulsion order be revoked and that he be granted a permanent residence permit or, in the alternative, that his temporary residence permit be extended for at least one year. 27. The Migration Board submitted its comments on the case on 12 December 2002, concluding that there were no legal or practical impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order and that the applicant should be able to return to Iraq. 28. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in April 2003, the Migration Board sent another submission to the Government on 17 November 2003 where it noted that the applicant’s case now had to be seen in another light. His reasons for fearing a return to Iraq had been removed now that Saddam Hussein was no longer in power. The Coalition Provisional Authority governing Iraq at the time was striving to build up a society characterised by democracy and respect for human rights and those who had been close to the old regime and who had committed war crimes and other crimes against humanity would be brought to justice. Thus, the Board considered that the applicant would not risk being tortured or treated inhumanely if sent back to Iraq and consequently there was no impediment to his expulsion. 29. In reply, the applicant claimed that since he had been an officer in the Republican Guard, he would be exposed to persecution and acts of revenge from primarily Shi’a Muslim groups and that there was no functioning legal system or police force which could give him protection against abuse. It followed that there existed impediments to the enforcement of his expulsion. 30. Since the Government had several pending cases concerning expulsion to Iraq, they requested the Iraq Office at the Swedish Embassy in Jordan to reply to some questions relating to the situation in Iraq. 31. In November 2004 the Iraq Office sent, inter alia, the following information to the Government, which was communicated to the applicant. In August 2004 the death penalty was reintroduced in Iraq for offences such as murder, kidnapping and crimes against national security. Moreover, according to the Iraqi Penal Code of 1969, a person who had been convicted or acquitted by final judgment in another country could not be retried in Iraq. However, it was not known whether this provision had been modified or changed by the Interim Government. Furthermore, it was difficult to assess “tribal justice” in Iraq due to the poor security situation in the country but it was possible that, if a person were to return to an area where he was known and his victim was also known, there could be a risk of revenge or “tribal justice”. It was further noted that there were reports of harassment against Christians and that attacks had been directed against Christians and other minorities during 2004. 32. The applicant commented on the information and stressed that he was Christian and that the Christian minority in Iraq was being persecuted. Moreover, he had held a prominent position in the Ba’ath Party, had belonged to the exclusive circle that had been given the “Saddam’s Friends” identity card and he was well known and hated by many. Thus, it was certain that he would be killed if returned to Iraq. 33. On 21 March 2005 the Minister of Justice at the time decided to suspend the enforcement of the expulsion order until otherwise decided or until the Government made a final decision on the case. He further decided that the applicant should report to the police three times per week in order to prevent him from going into hiding. 34. Subsequently, the Government requested the Iraq Office at the Swedish Embassy in Jordan to reply to some supplementary questions relating to the situation in Iraq, which it did on 3 November 2005. In its reply it noted that, at the time, it was very difficult to obtain a complete overview and clear information about Iraq. Still, it observed that persons who had been part of the Republican Guard, other special military units or the military in general were being arrested and tried in Iraq. According to sources such as the UNHCR, the activities of these persons within their organisation determined how they were being treated more than to which military unit they had belonged. However, their position and military rank was of relevance as an indication of who could be targeted. In this context it was noted that members from special units, such as the Republican Guard, were being re-employed into the current special units. Moreover, the UNHCR had stated that even though many Iraqis were harassed as a result of their former membership of the Ba’ath Party, this harassment did not necessarily amount to persecution. A careful individual assessment was always necessary. 35. The applicant, in a comment on the Iraq Office’s information, maintained that there was a real risk that he would be subjected to extrajudicial execution if returned to Iraq due to his previous connections to Saddam Hussein’s regime. 36. On 27 June 2006 the Migration Board submitted its opinion on whether the reintroduction of the death penalty in Iraq in 2004 had an impact on the enforceability of the applicant’s expulsion order. It considered that none of the information submitted by the applicant, in his detailed asylum interview in 1993 and later, regarding his position and activities until he left Iraq in 1992, indicated that he would risk legal measures, least of all the death penalty, from the current Iraqi government. Neither his membership of the Ba’ath Party nor his relatively subordinate position in a non-combat unit were likely to cause him problems with the Iraqi authorities upon return to his home country. Thus, there were no impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order. 37. On 6 July 2006 the Government decided not to revoke the expulsion order and rejected the applicant’s request for a residence permit. It found that there was neither any impediment to the enforcement of the expulsion nor any other special reason under the Aliens Act to revoke the expulsion order. 38. As the expulsion order had become enforceable anew, the police authority, on 27 July 2006, detained the applicant awaiting the enforcement of his expulsion order. 39. On 15 August 2006 the applicant requested the Court to indicate to the Swedish Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court a suspension of his expulsion to Iraq. He alleged that he would be executed or tortured and imprisoned if returned to his home country because he had been an officer during Saddam Hussein’s regime and had belonged to his “inner circle”. Moreover, since he was Christian, he risked persecution on religious grounds. 40. On 17 August 2006 the Court decided to apply Rule 39 and to suspend the expulsion until 1 September 2006 in order to obtain some further information from the Swedish Government. In particular, the Government were requested to give their opinion on whether the applicant would risk being brought to trial before the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (hereafter referred to as “the SICT”) and sentenced to death. 41. On the following day, the Minister of Justice at that time decided to suspend the expulsion of the applicant until further notice. He also decided to keep the applicant in detention since there was reason to believe that he would otherwise try to abscond. The detention decision was reconsidered every two months until 29 June 2007, when it was decided that he should be released and that he should report to the police twice a week. 42. In the meantime, on 31 August 2006, the Government replied to the Court’s request. They first observed that the SICT had jurisdiction over individuals residing in Iraq accused of war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and a number of “political” offences under Iraqi law, including waste of national resources and abuse of position. It applied the penalties available in Iraqi law, including the death penalty. The Iraqi Governing Council had agreed that the SICT should process a limited series of 10 to 15 trials, focusing on major events that showed the geographic and temporal spread of the regime’s crimes, and that only the highest-level perpetrators should be tried before the SICT. Other perpetrators should be tried by regular Iraqi courts. 43. The Government further noted that the applicant’s claim that he had belonged to Saddam Hussein’s inner circle was recent and did not correspond to the detailed statements given by him during the asylum proceedings. They also stressed that the applicant had neither claimed to have committed any crime, nor that he was, or might be, suspected of having committed a crime which fell under the jurisdiction of the SICT. The sole fact that he had held a subordinate position as an officer in the Republican Guard or been a member of the Ba’ath Party did not give reason to believe that he would be suspected of such serious or brought to trial before the SICT. 44. On 1 September 2006 the Court extended the application of Rule 39 until 15 September 2006 in order to enable the applicant to reply to the Government’s comments. 45. The applicant submitted his comments in reply to those of the Government on 13 September 2006. He stated that the Ba’ath Party had been an elite party with only a few full members. He had been an “advanced sympathiser” which meant that he had held a high position in the hierarchy. Moreover, although he had not been in the infantry, he had participated in battle in an armoured unit during the various wars until 1992 when he had left the country because he had been ordered to carry out military actions that were against international law. The Government’s allegation that he had said that he had not been or could not be suspected of crimes under the jurisdiction of the SICT was wrong. The assessment of his application for asylum took place in 1993, at a time when the SICT had not yet come into existence and he had also not been asked about it later. Apart from the risk of being sentenced by the SICT or another jurisdiction, there was a real risk that he would be the victim of an extrajudicial killing. Extremist militias tried to find and kill all officers who had fought for Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran or who had fought against the Shi’as in southern Iraq in 1991. The retaliation was collective and directed against all officers who had fought under Saddam Hussein. The applicant also stressed that as a Christian he would be without protection in Iraq and his situation upon return would thus be most serious. 46. On 13 September 2006 the Court extended the application of Rule 39 until 26 September 2006, on which date it was extended until further notice.

5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Sochi, in the Krasnodar Region. 6. On 31 July 1998 the applicant, together with three other plaintiffs, Mr Kesyan, Ms Gorovaya and MP Kineskop, all represented by the same lawyer, filed an action against the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury and Mrs O. seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of the unlawful seizure of goods. 7. The first hearing was scheduled for 22 September 1998 but was adjourned owing to the judge's leave. The following hearing on 28 December 1998 did not take place owing to the defendants' failure to appear in court. 8. On 11 February 1999, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings. 9. In September 1999 the experts' report was received. In October and November 1999 the applicant's representative amended the claims. 10. On 25 November 1999 the court proceedings were resumed. 11. Between 25 November 1999 and 3 October 2000 the District Court listed eight hearings, of which three were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and five because none of the parties attended. 12. By a decision of 3 October 2000, the District Court declined to examine the applicant's claims on the merits on the ground of her repeated failure to appear in court. 13. On 9 July 2001 the applicant's representative requested that the decision of 3 October 2000 be set aside for the reason that neither he, nor the applicant had been duly notified of the hearings. By a decision of 12 July 2001, the District Court allowed the request and resumed the proceedings. 14. By a decision of 5 September 2001, the District Court invited the Taganrog Custom Service to join the civil proceedings as a third party. 15. Upon the third party's request of 10 October 2001, the proceedings were stayed because a related administrative case had been pending before another court. On 30 September 2002 they were resumed. 16. Between 30 September and 20 December 2002, three hearings were adjourned because the parties had failed to attend. 17. On 20 December 2002 the District Court declined to examine the applicant's claims on the merits on the ground of her repeated failure to appear in court. 18. The proceedings were resumed on 23 January 2004, upon the request of the applicant's representative of 19 January 2004, because neither he, nor the applicant had been properly summoned to the hearings. 19. Of ten hearings listed between 20 February and 16 November 2004, four hearings were adjourned owing to Mrs O.'s absence, two owing to the parties' absence, one at the request of the applicant's representative and two because the presiding judge was on leave. 20. By a judgment of 16 November 2004, the Kuybyshevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. On 16 February 2005 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 November 2004 on appeal and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 21. The Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed the first hearing for 18 May 2005. Of three hearings fixed between 18 May and 28 June 2005, two were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and one was adjourned at the defendants' request. 22. On 28 June 2005, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings. 23. The proceedings were later resumed and, by a judgment of 15 December 2005, the Kyubyshevskiy District Court allowed the applicant's action in part. The judgment of 15 December 2005 was upheld on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court on 8 February 2006.

5. The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1939 and currently resides in Donetsk. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 23 May 1987 the applicant was injured in an accident at a State mine belonging to the Trest Donets’ke Shakhtobudivel’ne Upravlinnia No. 6 (the “DSU”). On 26 August 1987 the Medical Expert Commission recognised the applicant as falling within the third category of invalidity (третя група інвалідності). From 1987 to September 1996 the applicant received disablement benefits from the DSU. 8. In September 1996 the DSU stopped paying the disability allowance to the applicant. 9. In April 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk against the DSU, seeking compensation for the disablement benefits which had not been paid to him since 1996. 10. On 25 January 1999 the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk allowed the applicant’s claims in part. It ordered the DSU to pay the applicant UAH 3,496.03[1] in compensation for material damage. On 18 February 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court partly quashed that decision in respect of the amount of compensation and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 11. The applicant’s complaints to the Presidents of the Donetsk Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, with a view to initiating a supervisory review, were rejected on 1 April 1999 and 26 September 2000, respectively, as being unsubstantiated. 12. On 1 July 1999 the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk allowed the applicant’s claims. It also ordered the DSU to pay the applicant UAH 7,336.22[2] in compensation. 13. Later, the applicant introduced a claim against the DSU with the Kuybyshevsky District Court of Donetsk, requesting reimbursement of the disability allowance for the period between 1 July 1999 and 1 December 2000. On 16 May 2001 court awarded the applicant the amount of UAH 5,962.22[3]. 14. On 1 November 1999 the applicant received UAH 25[4] in execution of the judgment of 1 July 1999. 15. On 7 February 2000 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that no breaches of the law were found in the course of the execution proceedings or the auctioning of the DSU’s property by the Voroshylovsky District Execution Service. 16. In March 2000 the Voroshylovsky District Execution Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed in full due to the DSU’s lack of funds and its outstanding debt of UAH 800,000[5] in salary and social benefit payments. 17. On 27 April 2000 the Donetsk Municipal Council, in response to the applicant’s complaints, informed him that there was no finding of a breach of the law in the course of the execution proceedings or the auctioning of the DSU’s property. 18. On 16 May and 27 June 2001 the Kuybyshevsky District Court of Donetsk respectively awarded the applicant UAH 5,962.22[6] and UAH 714.15[7] in compensation for unpaid disablement benefits for the period from 1 July 1999 to January 2001. 19. The aforementioned judgments were presented to the Kuybyshevsky District Bailiffs’ Service for enforcement on 5 June and 27 August 2001, respectively. The enforcement proceedings were initiated on the same date. 20. During 1999-2002 the judgment of the Voroshylovsky District Court of 1 July 1999 was partially enforced in instalments: in 1999 the applicant received UAH 413[8], in 2000 – UAH 476[9], in 2001 – UAH 1,560[10] and UAH 2,403.85[11], and in 2002 – UAH 2,514[12]. 21. Pursuant to payment order no. 247 of 15 July 2003, the applicant received the remaining part of the debt (UAH 6,645.74). 22. On 16 July 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings on the writs of execution of the Kuybyshevsky District Court for the judgments of 16 May and 27 June 2001 (UAH 714.15[13] and UAH 5,962.22[14]) and the writ of execution of the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk of 1 July 1999 (UAH 7,336.22[15]), in view of the full enforcement of the respective judgments given in the applicant’s favour. The proceedings concerning the judgment of 1 July 1999 were terminated on 16 July 2003 due to the payment in full in 2002 (date unspecified). The judgments of 16 May and 27 June 2001 were enforced on 16 July 2003 only. 23. On 15 October 2003 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that his complaints about the failure of the Bailiffs’ to enforce the judgment of 1 July 1999 and to pay him UAH 413[16] were unsubstantiated. 24. The applicant alleges that on 7 July 1998 he was evicted from his room in the DSU’s dormitory. The applicant was on the waiting list for State housing but was not provided with an apartment. 25. The applicant maintains that he has 11,395.65 Soviet Rubles deposited with the Savings Bank. The applicant alleges that in 1991, after Ukraine declared its independence, the deposits disappeared.

4. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kamnik. 5. On 28 November 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings concerning essentially a division of joint property before the Ljubljana District Court. On 14 December 1998 the applicant’s claim was referred to the Kamnik Local Court. The proceedings were initially conducted before the Kamnik Local Court (First set of proceedings) but were later separated into two sets of proceedings, and in part referred to the Ljubljana District Court (second set of proceedings). 6. Between 1999 and 2001 the Kamnik Local Court held three hearings. 7. On 19 June 2002 the applicant lodged a request to refer her case to another court having subject matter jurisdiction. Due to the applicant’s request a hearing scheduled for 26 June 2002 was adjourned. 8. On 5 September 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request. 9. After the applicant had amended her claim on 9 January 2003, the local court postponed the hearing scheduled for 14 January 2003 in order to allow the defendant to reply to the amended claim. 10. On 12 September 2003 the applicant lodged a motion for an interim order asking the court to order the defendant to vacate the disputed premises and to order an entry in the land register prohibiting the alienation and encumbrance of the property. On 20 October 2003 the Kamnik Local Court partially rejected the applicant’s motion. The applicant appealed. 11. On 18 February 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 12. On 6 June 2005 the Kamnik Local Court issued a decision to suspend the proceedings. On 14 September 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court annulled the decision suspending the proceedings. 13. Between 2003 and 2005 the applicant lodged two supervisory appeals with the Ministry of Justice and on several occasions requested the Kamnik Local Court to schedule a hearing and decide the case. 14. At a hearing on 1 January 2006 the Kamnik Local Court decided to postpone the main hearing until 10 March 2006 in order to allow the defendant to consider the settlement proposal of the applicant. 15. After the parties to the procedure failed to reach a settlement, the Kamnik Local Court, after holding a hearing on 10 March 2006, on that day dismissed the claim of the applicant. The applicant appealed. 16. On 21 March 2007 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Ljubljana Higher Court. Subsequently the applicant lodged an appeal on the points of law with the Supreme Court. 17. On 24 May 2007 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings due to the settlement reached in the second set of proceedings and the applicant’s withdrawal of the appeal. 18. The second set of proceedings relates to the part of the applicant’s initial claim that exceeded the competence of the local court and was referred to the Ljubljana District Court on 7 January 2004. 19. Five hearings were held between 6 July 2004 and 22 May 2007. On the latter date the parties reached a settlement agreement and the proceedings were discontinued on 28 May 2007.

5. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in St Petersburg. 6. On 17 December 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with aggravated robbery with the use of firearms. It appears that during those proceedings the applicant’s involvement in the offence was established, but he absconded. 7. By a decision of 7 September 2000 the investigator in charge brought formal charges against the applicant and ordered his arrest. He was put on the federal wanted list on 11 September 2000. 8. On 12 September 2000 the authorities disjoined the criminal case against the applicant from the main set of criminal proceeding, and then on 12 November 2000 suspended the investigation pending the search for the applicant. 9. On 5 July 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery and unlawful possession of firearms. The investigation in the criminal case against the applicant was resumed the following day. On 6 November 2001 the materials of the criminal case against the applicant were sent to the St Petersburg City Court for trial. 10. In a judgment of 8 February 2005 the St Petersburg City Court convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and robbery and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On 22 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 11. According to the applicant, although he did not offer any resistance during his arrest on 5 July 2001, police officers forced him to lie face down on the ground, handcuffed him and beat him. In particular, they hit him with a heavy object, presumably a pistol handle, on the back of his head so that he started bleeding, and beat him in the kidney area. 12. In the applicant’s submission, he spent a night in a corridor of a police station of the St Petersburg Department for the Fight against Organised Crime, handcuffed to a radiator in a squatting position and in the absence of any facilities enabling him to rest. At least three times during that night he was taken for interviews to various offices where police officers questioned and beat him, forcing him to confess to offences which had apparently been imputed to him. 13. On 6 July 2001 the applicant was taken to an investigator’s office, formally charged with aggravated robbery, and questioned. 14. According to the Government, on the same date the investigator in charge, in the presence of two attesting witnesses, drew up a report on the examination of the applicant. The relevant report attested to the presence of abrasions on the back of the applicant’s head and his back and stated that the applicant had explained that “[he] had sustained those injuries on 5 July 2001, as he had fallen during his arrest”. It can be ascertained from the report that one of the attesting witnesses was the police officer who had effected the applicant’s arrest. 15. The applicant then wrote an explanatory note in which he stated that he had sustained the aforementioned injuries because he had fallen during his arrest on 5 July 2001, and that he had no complaints against the police officers. According to the applicant, he was forced to write that explanation. 16. The applicant was then transferred to a temporary isolation ward where he was examined by a paramedic. As can be seen from a letter from the administration of the temporary isolation ward dated 5 June 2003, the paramedic established during that examination that the applicant had abrasions on his back and the back of his head and that he had made no complaints concerning his health. According to the applicant, the paramedic’s report in which he had described the applicant’s injuries later disappeared from the applicant’s file. 17. On the basis of the results of the aforementioned examination, the applicant was taken to a trauma centre. There he was issued with an injured person’s card (карточка травматика) indicating that he had no complaints and that he denied having sustained any injuries. The card further stated that the applicant had no visible injuries and no need of any medical treatment. According to the applicant, he was not in fact examined by the doctor, the latter having issued the card under pressure from the police officers who had escorted the applicant to the centre. 18. The applicant was returned to the temporary isolation ward and, according to him, on 16 July 2001 he was transferred to another detention facility. 19. During the trial, on 7 February 2003, the applicant complained before the St Petersburg City Court that he had been ill-treated at the moment of his arrest. On 28 March 2003 the court ordered an investigation into his allegations. In the same decision the court extended the term of the applicant’s remand in custody for three months, until 30 June 2003. 20. Following an internal inquiry, on 14 May 2003 the St Petersburg Prosecutor’s Office decided not to institute criminal proceedings owing to lack of evidence that a crime had been committed. The decision referred in particular to statements by the investigator in charge of the applicant’s criminal case, who had indicated that on 6 July 2001 he had questioned the applicant as an accused and the applicant had read and signed a transcript of the interview. An arrest warrant had been served on the applicant and he had been sent to a temporary isolation ward where he had undergone a medical examination which had established that he had had a haematoma on the back of his head. Regarding the haematoma, the applicant had explained that he had sustained that injury in a fall some time before the arrest and that he had no complaints against the police officers. The investigator in charge had also stated that during the interview he had not seen any visible injuries on the applicant, and that in the course of the preliminary investigation neither the applicant nor his lawyer had lodged any complaints regarding the use of any illegal methods by any officers of the law-enforcement agencies. The decision further referred to statements of three police officers who had effected the applicant’s arrest. The statements were similar to those of the investigator in charge. The officers had confirmed that they had forced the applicant to lie on the ground and handcuffed him, stating that it had been rendered necessary by the applicant’s conduct as he had made a sudden move when he was told he was under arrest. However, they had denied that they had used any unlawful violence on the applicant and had indicated that they had not known how the applicant had sustained an injury to the back of his head, which had been established during an examination upon his arrival to the temporary isolation ward. The decision thus concluded that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded. 21. The applicant and his defence counsel challenged the decision of 14 May 2003 before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”). They pointed in particular to the discrepancy between the medical record attesting to the presence of abrasions on the back of the applicant’s head and his back, which had been drawn up in the temporary isolation ward, and the medical record drawn up by the trauma centre which stated that the applicant had had no visible injuries. The applicant and his lawyer thus insisted that the internal inquiry had not been full and objective. They also indicated that during the preliminary investigation in the applicant’s case he had not lodged any complaints of ill-treatment out of fear for his security, as he had constantly been threatened by police officers. 22. On 20 January 2004 the District Court rejected the above complaint, stating that the decision of 14 May 2003 had been lawful and well-founded and provided convincing reasons for the refusal to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaints. The applicant’s allegations had been investigated fully and in detail and had proved unfounded. 23. The applicant appealed. He complained that the inquiry into his allegations could not be regarded as objective as it had been confined to interviewing the officers of the law-enforcement agencies against whom he had made his allegations. He also complained that his argument concerning the discrepancy between the medical record drawn up in the temporary isolation ward and the one drawn up in the trauma centre remained unexamined. 24. On 31 March 2004 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the first-instance decision on appeal. The court rejected as unfounded the applicant’s complaint that only the officers against whom he had made his allegations had been questioned during the inquiry. In this connection the court noted that the materials of the inquiry included the injured patient’s card of 6 July 2001, which stated that the applicant had not complained of any injuries and had no visible injuries. Also, when he had been admitted to the temporary isolation ward the applicant was examined by a paramedic, who had identified abrasions on his back and the back of his head; however, the applicant had not made any complaints concerning his health. The court further noted that during the inquiry the investigator in charge and the police officers who had arrested the applicant had been questioned and had given explanations which were relied on in the decision of 14 May 2003. It concluded that the first-instance court had thoroughly examined the materials of the inquiry and had given a well-reasoned decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 14 May 2003. 25. On an unspecified date, the applicant also challenged in court the warrant for his arrest which was issued by an investigator on 7 September 2000 and approved by a prosecutor on 12 September 2000. The applicant alleged that although his arrest had been duly authorised and the warrant in itself conformed to formal requirements, he had not been notified of this document in due time. He explained in particular that whilst he had been arrested on 5 July 2001, the arrest warrant indicated that it had been served on him a day earlier, on 4 July 2001. The applicant was also unsure whether the signature attesting that the document had been served on him, was his own. He insisted that he had not been shown the warrant until much later and that therefore he had been deprived of the opportunity to challenge it in time. 26. By a decision dated 1 July 2004 the Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg dismissed the applicant’s complaint. On 19 October 2004 the St Petersburg City Court quashed that decision on appeal on the ground that it was dated 1 July 2004 whereas the first-instance court had in fact examined the applicant’s complaint on 2 July 2004. 27. During a fresh examination which took place in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer and the prosecution, in a decision of 25 November 2004 the Moskovskiy District Court again rejected the applicant’s complaint. The court observed that the applicant had been arrested on 5 July 2001, as could be seen from the relevant report; however, procedural documents, such as the investigator’s decision by which the applicant was accused of the criminal offences, had been served on him on 6 July 2001 and it was on this latter date that the applicant had signed them. The court further relied on the applicant’s statements that he had not signed any documents before his arrest on 5 July 2001 and that on 6 July 2001 he had signed a number of documents during his interview. In this connection the court noted that it could not be excluded that the applicant had signed the warrant himself, having mistakenly put the date of 4 July 2001. The court concluded that the arrest warrant of 7 September 2000 had been lawful, as it had been duly issued by the investigator in charge and approved by a prosecutor on 12 September 2000, and that therefore the applicant’s complaints should not be allowed. 28. By an interlocutory decision of 21 January 2005 the St Petersburg City Court scheduled an examination of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25 November 2004 for 8 February 2005. The decision of 21 January 2005 included a note stating that a letter informing the applicant of the date of the examination of his appeal had been sent to the detention centre where he was being kept at that time, and that the applicant’s lawyer had been apprised of the date of the examination in person. There is no indication in the decision as to whether the applicant received the aforementioned letter. The applicant’s lawyer has also not confirmed whether he was indeed informed of the date in question. 29. On 8 February 2005 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of 25 November 2004 on appeal. The court stated, in particular, that all the arguments advanced by the applicant in his appeal had already been thoroughly examined by the first-instance court and rejected in a reasoned decision. 30. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer attended the hearing before the appellate court, whereas the prosecutor was present and requested that the decision of 25 November 2004 be upheld on appeal. According to the applicant, he received the decision of 8 February 2005 on 11 February 2005.

6. The applicants were born in born in 1973 and 1976 respectively and live in Wągrowiec. 7. The parties do not fully agree about the facts of the case, which may be summarised as follows. 8. The second applicant lived with a group of friends, including the first applicant, mostly students, in an old and decrepit house they had rented in Wrocław. They occasionally invited their friends to spend a night or a couple of days in their house. 9. On the night of 14 June 1997 there was a group of students sleeping in the house. At 3 a.m. they were awakened by two police officers patrolling the area. The police enquired whether the inhabitants knew the owner of an unlocked car parked in front of the house. 10. The applicants and one of their friends, D. S., started a polite discussion with the police officers about the car. It was confirmed that one of the residents of their apartment was the owner of the car. However, the police announced their intention of towing the car away to the police car park. The applicants argued that it was not forbidden or illegal to keep the car unlocked. At the police’s request, they produced their identity cards and the registration card of the car, whose owner was asleep in the house. 11. The police were not satisfied with their explanation and the dispute became more intense. In reaction to the opinions expressed about the intervention, in particular by D. S., the policemen used truncheons. They hit D. S. several times and handcuffed him. The applicants tried to argue with the policemen, to no avail. The police called other police officers and shortly afterwards approximately ten other policemen arrived. They hit the first applicant with their truncheons several times and the second applicant once. Thereupon D. S. was taken to the police car where he was beaten. The applicants were ordered to stand against a fence. They were pushed and jostled and the policemen insulted them referring to them as “scum”, “slobs”, “queers” (hołota, brudasy, pedały). 12. Subsequently, a group of policemen, armed with truncheons and guarded by police dogs, entered the house, woke up the other occupants and ordered them to stand against the wall. Then the police searched the house. No information was provided about the grounds, purpose or legal basis for the search. During this time the police showered abuse on the students. They pushed and shoved them. This lasted for about half an hour. Afterwards, the police left the house and warned the students that some of them were in an illegal situation as they were not registered as inhabitants of the house, and threatened that they would be in trouble if they submitted a complaint about the events. 13. The police left, taking D. S. with them. 14. On 16 June 1997 the applicants requested to be examined by a forensic medicine specialist. It was established that the first applicant had two long bruises on his left arm, and other bruises on the palm of his hand. The second applicant had a blue mark on her bottom (13 by 9 cm). It was stated that these bruises could have been caused by the use of police truncheons. 15. The second applicant and her friend D. S. lived in the house with the owner’s permission. They often received young visitors from all over the country. On the night in question the unlocked car parked in front of the house had seemed very suspicious to the policemen A. C. and R. S., who thought it was stolen and considered that it should be towed away. They had knocked at the window and the second applicant informed them that the owner was in the house. She first objected to the police action at night, and then went to look for the owner of the car among the fourteen young people who were sleeping in the house. The applicants behaved aggressively, loudly expressing opinions about the purpose and nature of the intervention. D. S. raised his voice to the police and pushed A. C. 16. The police action was a result of the fact that the applicants did not comply with the police requests to provide necessary information. The applicants talked to the police with raised voices and took a very active part in the struggle with the policemen. 17. The police officer had misinterpreted the first applicant’s intentions when he handed him his documents and had hit him to prevent his being attacked. The applicant was most probably hit once. 18. The atmosphere was tense. The owner of the car gave the police the keys and documents to the car. As D. S. was unruly and continued to express objections, the policemen decided to arrest him. While he was being taken into custody by the police, he hit one of them in the face. Thereupon truncheons were used against him. Given the attitude of D. S. and of other persons present, the police called for assistance. Two other police patrols and an emergency team arrived. As the applicants were interfering with the arrest of D. S., they were hit with truncheons. 19. Police officers D. R. and J. G. then entered the house to check the identity of the persons present. After that, the intervention was terminated. 20. On 16 June 1997 the applicants requested the Wrocław District Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the police for abuse of authority. On 23 December 1997 the prosecutor refused to do so. He found that no criminal offence had been committed. 21. The prosecutor considered that the police action had been justified. The police could have reasonably suspected that the unlocked car had been stolen, even though it had not been reported as such. The further developments had certainly come as a surprise to both the police and other persons involved in the incident. The second applicant had objected in a pretentious tone (“pretensjonalny ton głosu”) to having been woken up and to the check on the car taking place at night. She had been informed that the car would be towed away if the owner was not found. She could not locate the owner of the car, as there were many people in the house who did not know each other. The second applicant had woken all of them up in an attempt to find the owner. 22. D. S. had objected in a loud voice to the police intervention. He had insisted that the intention of the police was to harass the persons in the house. As he had not obeyed the police requests to calm down and the verbal exchange between him and the police officer A. C. had become increasingly heated, it had been decided that he should be taken to the police car. The prosecutor considered that this had been justified in the light of D. S.’s aggressive behaviour. Given that D. S. had been behaving aggressively, direct force had been used against him, including the use of truncheons and handcuffs. It was true that the applicants’ versions of the facts diverged, and these divergences could not be clarified on the basis of evidence from other witnesses, but it was clear that, in the face of his resistance, it had been necessary to use such force in order to take D. S. to the car. 23. Given the applicants’ behaviour, the police had had to call assistance. They had also felt threatened by the presence of other persons at the scene of the incident. The applicants had been hit as they had ignored the order to let D. S. go so that he could be taken to the car. In the darkness, the police had not noticed that the first applicant had in fact had his documents in his hand in order to show them to the police, and they had thought that he intended to hit them. 24. It was finally noted that the accounts of the facts given by the persons present at the scene, other than the police, were highly divergent, making it impossible to establish the facts of the case. However, the testimony given by the policemen was coherent. Therefore, the submissions of the other persons could not be considered credible and had to be assessed critically. 25. The prosecutor concluded that the measures taken by the police had been proportionate to the situation. 26. The first applicant appealed. He argued that the police brutality and aggression had been totally unjustified. Nothing in the behaviour of the persons present had justified the use of force. The police had entered private property and effected a search of the house without any sound reasons, hitting and insulting the persons sleeping in the house. He argued that he was a law-abiding citizen, a student of two university faculties and a member of the Municipal Council of his town. He had not given any reason to be beaten, verbally insulted and humiliated just at the whim of the police. The police should not intervene in private property at night and hit, insult and humiliate people just because they looked, or lived, differently. The facts as established by the prosecutor did not correspond to what had happened. All the facts had been established on the basis of the arguments of the police, who had apparently been instructed by police lawyers as to what they should say. During the questioning the prosecutor had made unpleasant remarks about the hairstyles, clothes and views of the young inhabitants of the house, which had influenced her decision to discontinue the proceedings. He submitted that the police had humiliated both himself and the others. 27. The second applicant submitted that the assessment of the evidence had been biased and that the police had clearly abused their authority, insulting and humiliating her and other participants in the incident. 28. On 20 May 1998 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor upheld the contested decision. He considered that the intervention of the police had been justified in so far as they wanted to verify the identity of the owner of the car. D. S. had behaved aggressively, both verbally and physically. Regardless of whether he had intended to hit A. C. in the face or not, his behaviour could have been perceived as an intentional assault. It was for that reason that a decision to arrest him had been taken. The identity check of the persons present in the house had been necessary as they had insulted the policemen. 29. The social status of the young people, namely the fact that they were students, imposed certain obligations on them, in particular an obligation to cooperate with the police in the interest of law and order. 30. The findings of the inquiry had not established that the students had been insulted verbally by the police, as the policemen consistently denied this. Nothing had been found to support the first applicant’s submission that the testimony of the policemen had been suggested to them by the police lawyers. 31. The prosecutor concluded that the contested decision had to be upheld.

10. On 23 October 1995 the applicant was arrested by the militia and detained on remand in the Isolation Block of the Central Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (слідчui ізолятор Головного Управління міністерства внутрішніх справ Автономної Республіки Крим). 11. On 26 April 1996 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (судoва колегія з кримінальних справ Верховного суду Автономної Республіки Крим) convicted the applicant of the murder of two persons and sentenced him to death. 12. On the same day the Administration of the Isolation Block of the Central Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ Автономної Республіки Крим) decided to move the applicant to a separate cell to await his execution, in accordance with the 1993 Pre-trial Detention Act (hereinafter “the Act”). 13. On 25 July 1996 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (судoва колегія з кримінальних справ Верховного суду Украïни) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. 14. On 20 February, 27 March, 15 May, 26 June and 23 July 1997 the applicant's mother was permitted to visit her son. On 7 October 1997 she was again allowed to visit the applicant, together with the latter's brother. 15. On 24 October 1997 the Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected an application for leave to lodge an extraordinary appeal, introduced by the applicant's lawyer. 16. On 23 December 1997 the applicant's mother visited her son again. Her next visit took place on 30 January 1998, when she was accompanied by the applicant's brother. 17. A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11 March 1997. In judgment no. 11рп/99 of 29 December 1999 the Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the death penalty were contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine. The death penalty was abolished and replaced by life imprisonment by Act no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000. 18. On 26 June 2000 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea commuted the applicant's death sentence to life imprisonment. 19. Evidence from the applicant was taken by a Court Delegation in Simferopol Prison on 4 October 1999. The Delegation was composed of Judges M. Pellonpää, J. Makarczyk and R. Maruste. The evidence taken may be summarised as follows: 20. The applicant was admitted to Simferopol Prison on 26 October 1995. On the day of the Court Delegates' visit, he confirmed that he had been informed about his rights and obligations. Actually, three or four days earlier, he signed a sheet of paper containing these rights and obligations. 21. He stated that he had been allowed to have a hot shower every Tuesday and could shave with an individual razor blade. At the same time, his hair was cut. Until autumn 1998, he could wash himself only once every ten days. Since the same date he could use an individual razor. According to him, the death row inmates started having soap and cold water in their cells in 1998. Previously, there had been water taps, but the inmates could not switch them on or off, this being done by a guard for all the prisoners. Small windows had been installed in the cells which the inmates could open to let fresh air in. 22. According to the applicant, an iron sheet covered the window in his cell until summer 1998. He confirmed that, at present, the light was enough to read or write, his cell being equipped by two lamps - a normal one and a dimmed one. He said that as far as his cell was concerned, the installation of the lamps, water taps, mirrors, new iron beds and windows had started two weeks before the Delegates' visit. 23. The applicant did not have any contacts with other prisoners. When he shared his cell with another inmate, they were taken together to the shower or for a walk. To the Court Delegates' question: “What was the longest period for which you did not have any contacts with other prisoners?”, he answered: “That was during the investigation, for about three months.” He also said that during the investigation, which had lasted six months, he had been kept in solitary confinement following a Prosecutor's decision, based on a written complaint about his allegedly inappropriate behaviour towards another inmate. According to him, the prisoners had a choice between being detained in double or single cells. He confirmed that, until the present day, he had been in the double cell. 24. He confirmed that since 1996 inmates could buy books in the prison shop and since 1999 they were allowed to get about ten newspapers. In prison there was a public radio - a loudspeaker, which was switched off at ten p.m. 25. To the Court Delegates' question: “Do you have any complaints about the food?”, the applicant answered: “How can we complain about the food when people who work do not get their salaries?” 26. According to the applicant, inmates had been examined by a medical assistant (фельдшеp) on a daily basis, and once a week by the prison doctor who could also be called in case of emergency. 27. The applicant confirmed that when he broke the rules, he was punished by being barred from having visits and receiving parcels. Since the investigation period, he had not broken any rules. As regards the general situation, he had not heard about other inmates being subjected to such treatment. 28. He also confirmed that he saw the prison governor on Thursdays. If he had some questions or complaints, he could lodge an application. 29. When the applicant wished to see his lawyer, he sent an application to the lawyer through the prison governor. Prison guards were present during the visits of the applicant's lawyer. The applicant did not write any detailed complaints or requests, discussing all those issues with his lawyer during their meetings in prison. (b) Prison practice concerning correspondence 30. The applicant was allowed to send and receive letters at the end of 1998. During his stay in Simferopol Prison, he had received four or five letters. He had written to his mother almost every month. He did not receive his mother's letter sent in September 1999, but he did not know whether it was due to the prison censorship control. (c) Prison practice concerning receipt of parcels and small packets [Nota: Parcels to be forwarded to a prisoner may be sent by post (посилка) or brought in person to the prison (передача). Small items like books or periodicals can be sent by post as a small packet (бaндepoль - literally a “bundle”)] 31. The applicant started to receive packages in approximately September 1998. He stated that he had been allowed to get six parcels (посилка, передaча) and three small packets (бандероль) per year. He considered this number satisfactory even though he would have preferred to receive one parcel every month. He confirmed that his relatives were permitted to send him food. (d) Prison clothing 32. The applicant was not allowed to wear any other type of clothes than those provided by the prison officials, except for underwear and socks. In summer the prisoners had to wear jackets and in winter they were given a warm coat and fur hats. According to him, the winter clothes were sufficient for that season. (e) Daily outdoor walks 33. The applicant confirmed that he had started having daily one-hour outdoor walks in summer 1998. The prison guards had not required the wearing of handcuffs since August or September 1999. 34. The witness was the governor of Simferopol Prison during the time of the applicant's detention there. (a) General conditions of the applicant's detention on death row 35. The witness said that on the day of the Court Delegation's visit, about 3,000 prisoners were serving a sentence in the prison, of whom 30 were on death row. 36. According to him, every death row prisoner was aware of his rights and duties. A copy of the list of rights and duties was posted in every cell. He confirmed that there was no secrecy as to the rights and obligations of prisoners and that after the decree about rights and obligations had been published, the prisoners were fully aware of them. 37. He also confirmed that he saw the applicant once a week which was, according to him, regular practice. He said that the applicant had never complained of the conditions of his detention, but disagreed with his sentence to death. He also said that the applicant had been informed about the new instructions and about the new decree concerning the rights and duties of death row inmates. 38. The witness considered the heating conditions sufficient. The prison had its own boiler and there was a fresh-air ventilation system in the cells. According to him, the prisoners had a hot shower once every seven days, when the bed linen was also changed. He denied the applicant's allegation that all death row prisoners were using the same razor, which would have created health problems on account of the risk of infection. He said that the prisoners shaved separately with blades given to them by the prison administration. 39. He stated that in the daytime there were two lamps lit plus natural light from windows in the cells, which he considered sufficient. At night, they had only one lamp lit. He said that every death row inmate had a cell of not less than 12 square metres. There was a possibility of reading books and literature using both natural and artificial light. 40. The witness said that the inmates underwent an X-ray examination twice a year. Once a week the head of the medical division visited them, and every day a medical assistant conducted an inspection. (b) Prison practice concerning correspondence 41. The witness said that death row prisoners had the right to communicate with the outside world without any limitation, both to send and receive letters. He further said that this situation had improved since May 1999. He admitted that under the existing procedure, inmates' correspondence was censored, but he did not remember any case when an incoming letter had been stopped without being given to its addressee, including letters from the European Commission of Human Rights. He confirmed that the applicant's correspondence had been registered in the journal. Moreover, any death row prisoner could complain of any violation of the right to exchange letters to the governor, to the Prosecutor who supervised the prison, or to any other official in this department. (c) Prison practice concerning receipt of parcels and small packets 42. According to the witness, the possibilities for receiving parcels improved in May 1999. Since then, the prisoners were allowed to receive six food parcels (посилка, передача) and two small packets (бандероль) per year. Previously, they had not been allowed to receive any parcel until the judgment in their criminal case had become final. Moreover, the prisoners could buy food in the prison shop. They could spend Ukrainian hryvnas 55 (UAH) per month at prices which were the same as in state-owned shops from which the prison bought the food. (d) Daily outdoor walks 43. According to the witness, prior to May 1998 the inmates had not been not allowed to go for daily outdoor walks. Since then, they had been taken out for one hour without handcuffs. 44. The witness was the doctor in Simferopol Prison, where he had been working since 1992. 45. He said that the prison medical staff included six doctors (four general practitioners, one psychiatrist and one radiologist), medical assistants (фельдшер), an X-ray laboratory assistant, a pharmacist and a clinical assistant. According to him, medical services were provided 24 hours a day. Any inmate could apply at any time and get urgent medical assistance. The death row prisoners were seen by a medical assistant every day during their daily walk. They could ask him for any medical assistance and, if his help was not sufficient, they could request to see the doctor. Besides, they could apply directly to the doctor. Every inmate had a medical file compiled upon his arrival where all details and results of medical examinations were recorded and which was kept during the period of his imprisonment. 46. The witness said that on 26 October 1995 the applicant, upon his arrival at the prison, had complained about having been beaten. In March 1997 he had requested help because he suffered from a respiratory virus infection. 47. He also said that HIV testing of inmates was not obligatory and was only conducted upon individual request. The test was preceded by a confidential interview between the doctor and the prisoner. The witness did not confirm whether there were inmates infected with the HIV virus, claiming that this was confidential information. The only other person who knew about inmates infected by HIV was the doctor responsible for the testing and the preceding consultations. 48. As far as complaints about hygienic conditions in the prison were concerned, the witness had received no such complaints. He considered that the changes in regime for the death row prisoners, especially the possibility of having outdoor walks and natural light in their cells, had improved their health conditions. 49. The witness was a medical assistant having been working in Simferopol Prison for two and a half years. He was responsible for the daily control of the inmates' health conditions, while the doctor made visits and attended emergency situations. He considered that there were particular problems with death row inmates and, in fact, he worked mostly with them. He accompanied these prisoners during their daily outdoor walks. 50. He confirmed that the improvement of living conditions in the death row prisoners' cells had had a positive influence on their health. Since then he had not received any further complaints from them regarding health and hygiene. 51. The witness stated that he had never seen any signs of guards' brutality against the death row inmates or any bodily injuries. He had never heard about such complaints made to other staff in the prison. He examined the inmates on a weekly basis and he reported to his superiors. According to him, the applicant had not complained more than other inmates. He confirmed that he had been observing the applicant for two and a half years without noticing any changes in his mental state. He had not witnessed any strong symptoms of depression of the applicant. 52. The witness was the applicant's mother. In her letter of 29 May 1998 to the Court she complained that her son had been beaten. She confirmed that during his detention in custody, the applicant had been beaten and had not been provided with any medical assistance. He had been interrogated for two hours and, after another two hours, he had been taken to hospital. She could still see traces of the beatings on his face during her meeting with him six months later. She had been allowed to meet her son for the first time six months after the sentence had been pronounced. In this meeting, she had asked her son about the beatings and he confirmed that he had been beaten. (a) Prison practice concerning correspondence 53. She did not have any complaints about the administration regarding receiving and sending letters. She rather complained generally about the prison system. She started to correspond with her son in 1998. However, she was unable to give any details in this regard. She had written her last letter to her son in mid-September 1999 but to date, he had not received it. On the other hand, she confirmed that letters had never been lost. 54. To the Government representative's questions: “During the last two or three months, how often did you send letters to your son? Can you send them every week?”, the witness answered: “If there is a need, I write him a letter.” To the Government representative's questions: “And how often do you get letters from him? Can he write to you more than once a month?”, the witness answered: “A year ago we were allowed to send one letter a month, and now there are no limitations, we can write letters as often as we want.” (b) Prison practice concerning receipt of parcels and small packets 55. The witness confirmed that she started to send parcels (посилка) to her son in 1998. Since then, she had had no complaints against the prison administration in this regard. (c) Prison practice in connection with visits of prisoners' relatives 56. The witness saw the applicant once a month during a visit lasting for about 15-20 minutes or 30 minutes at the most. She had not complained about the duration of her visits or that they had been suddenly interrupted by a prison guard who was always present, being happy to have even these short visits. She spoke with her son over the telephone, seeing him through the glass. She could not see whether he was handcuffed. 57. To the Government representative's question: “And what do you think about the duration of the meetings? Could you tell, judging by the atmosphere, whether if you had asked for the meeting to be extended to one hour or longer, you would have been allowed?”, the witness answered: “I have never asked to prolong the meetings. I think if the administration says it is over, then it is over.” To the Government representative's information: “You have the right to two-hour meetings now”, the witness answered: “It is difficult to talk through glass for two hours.” 58. The witness said that the applicant had never complained in his letters about ill-treatment, beatings or about the prison administration. He had complained about parcels, letters and visits. She admitted that the situation was improving, and that the prison administration understood that inmates sentenced to the death penalty were like other inmates. 59. On 4 October 1999 the Delegates visited the prison. The size of the applicant's cell area was about 12 square metres. The cell was in order and clean. There was an open toilet, a washbasin with one tap with cold water only, two beds fixed on the floor, central heating and a window with bars. There were some books, a newspaper, a stock of soap and toilet paper. The cell was sufficiently heated and ventilated. 60. The Delegates were shown the prison shower area, which was reasonably clean. They also visited an exercise yard. 61. According to the prison shop records, the applicant bought goods on the following occasions: On 25 September 1997 he bought foodstuffs for 5.47 (UAH), on 6 October 1997 he purchased foodstuffs and matches for UAH 9.34, on 23 October 1997 he bought foodstuffs for UAH 5.61, on 5 November 1997 he purchased foodstuffs paying UAH 5.43, on 20 November 1997 the applicant bought toiletries and foodstuffs UAH 6.40, and on 3 December 1997 he bought foodstuffs for UAH 7.36, on 18 December 1997 the applicant purchased different items for UAH 8.41. On 9 January 1998 the applicant purchased foodstuffs and matches spending UAH 9.7, on 22 January 1998 he bought foodstuffs for UAH 6.06, and on 4 February 1998 he bought foodstuffs and matches paying UAH 15.59. 62. From the applicant's medical file which was created on 26 October 1995 it appears inter alia that the applicant underwent an X-ray examination on 26 October 1995, on 18 May and 12 November 1996, on 23 May and 3 November 1997 and on 30 May and 14 November 1998.

4. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest. 5. On 2 November 1990 the applicant brought, on behalf of her minor daughter, a paternity claim against the child's purported father, a man of German nationality and residence. She also sought the payment of maintenance. 6. After several hearings, on 23 November 1992 the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court requested, as a measure of international legal assistance, the German authorities to carry out a blood group test on the respondent. The result was received by the court on 25 May 1994. On 9 January 1995 a medical expert opinion based on these results was submitted to the court. 7. On 18 April 1995 the court requested the German authorities to perform a chromosome test on the respondent. Despite repeated reminders, the requested samples did not arrive until 24 February 1999. On 7 April 1999 a further medical opinion based on the results was submitted to the court. 8. On 18 May 2000 the District Court found for the plaintiff, established the respondent's paternity and ordered him to pay maintenance. 9. On 19 December 2001 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment in a final decision. Subsequently, administrative proceedings were set in motion in order to establish the daughter's family name. 10. As the father proved unwilling to comply voluntarily with the court decisions, on 16 December 2002 the applicant requested the Pest Central District Court to initiate enforcement proceedings against him. 11. On 3 June 2003 the case file reached the Ministry of Justice for further action. 12. On 8 December 2003 the Department of Private International Law within the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the competent German authority (“Bundesverwaltungsamt”) had ordered the father to settle his debts. 13. A first payment was effected by the father in April 2004. It appears that the payments were stopped in August 2006 because the daughter had reached 18 years of age in September 2006, and a dispute then arose as to whether the obligation to pay maintenance continued because the daughter was still a full-time student.

5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Baku. More commonly known as Sardar Jalaloglu in political circles, he was the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan. It was one of the opposition parties that considered the presidential elections of 15 October 2003 illegitimate because of alleged falsifications. 6. On 16 October 2003 a number of opposition supporters held unauthorised public manifestations at the Azadliq Square in the centre of Baku, protesting the results of the elections. The manifestations ended with public disorder and violent clashes between the crowd and the police. The applicant claimed that he had not personally participated in these manifestations. 7. According to the applicant, on 18 October 2003, between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., several masked police officers, armed with Kalashnikov rifles, appeared at the applicant's house, demanding that he open the door. Before the applicant could do so, three or four of them entered the applicant's apartment through a window. Without presenting an arrest warrant or any other document, the police officers handcuffed the applicant and his guest, N.J. Then the officers dragged them out of the apartment and into a police car. The applicant and N.J. were taken to the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Mütəşəkkil Cinayətlərə qarşı Mübarizə İdarəsi; hereinafter “the OCU”). 8. Thereafter, the applicant was kept handcuffed for about four hours in one of the rooms inside the OCU's building. When the applicant's lawyer arrived and attempted to find out the reasons for the applicant's arrest, the Chief of the OCU told him that the reasons would be given the next day. 9. On the same day, the applicant was taken to the basement of the OCU's building, which was used as a temporary detention facility. There, in the office of the warden of the detention facility, he was ordered to strip naked in the presence of several policemen. The policemen checked his body for injuries and did not notice any. He was then placed in a cell with two other detainees until the next morning. 10. The next day, on 19 October 2003 between 12 noon and 1 p.m., the applicant was taken to the Investigation Department of the Chief Prosecutor's Office and interrogated in the presence of his lawyer. After the interrogation, he was charged with “organising public disorder” and “use of violence against state officials” for his alleged role in the events of 16 October 2003. According to the applicant, he orally complained to the investigator that he had been ill-treated on the way to the OCU and after being placed in police custody. 11. At 4 p.m. on the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand for three months. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal on 28 October 2003. 12. The applicant was taken from the Nasimi District Court back to the OCU where he was kept, until 22 October 2003, in the same cell with two other detainees. 13. At around 6 p.m. on 19 October 2003 the applicant was taken to the office of the Deputy Chief of the OCU, where he was told that he would be subjected to “additional interrogation”. The applicant objected, stating that the OCU officers had no competence to interrogate him after his indictment, but his objection was unsuccessful. The interrogation lasted until approximately 10 p.m. and involved questions concerning the activities of members of his political party. 14. According to the applicant, during this interrogation, he was subjected to ill-treatment in the form of, inter alia, beating of the soles of his feet by two masked policemen with truncheons. 15. In the morning of 20 October 2003 the applicant was visited by representatives of the International Red Cross. He complained to them that he had been ill-treated while in police custody. 16. On 21 October the applicant's lawyer sent a telegram to the Chief Prosecutor's Office, complaining that the OCU did not allow him to meet with the applicant in the detention facility on 20 and 21 October. Finally, on 22 October the applicant met with his lawyer and told him that he had been beaten by police officers in the OCU. 17. On the same day, the applicant was transferred from the OCU's detention facility to the Investigative Isolator No. 1. Upon the transfer, he was examined by the Isolator's doctors who observed injuries on his body (more specifically, two haematomas on his right calf and right heel) and made relevant notes in their records. 18. On 22 October 2003 the applicant's lawyer filed a petition with the investigator of the Chief Prosecutor's Office dealing with the applicant's case, requesting a medical examination of the applicant's injuries. In the petition, the lawyer noted that the applicant had complained about torture in the OCU's temporary detention facility and that he had personally seen injuries on the applicant's calf and foot. 19. Five days later, on 27 October, not having received a reply from the investigator, the lawyer filed a complaint with the Head of the Investigation Department of the Chief Prosecutor's Office concerning the investigator's failure to respond to his petition. 20. Following this, on 28 October the investigator ordered a medical examination and on 29 October the applicant was examined by a medical expert of the Forensic Medicine and Pathologic Anatomy Department of the Ministry of Health. According to the forensic report issued on 30 October, the expert observed the following injuries to the applicant's body: (1) a pale rosy circular bruise of 1x1 cm on the left elbow joint; (2) a yellowish haematoma of an indefinite shape measuring 5x3 cm on the upper part of the right calf; and (3) a yellowish haematoma of an indefinite shape measuring 6x5 cm on the inside of the right heel. Finding it unnecessary to determine the degree of gravity of these injuries, the expert concluded that they had been caused by a hard blunt object. The expert also commented that “[the possibility that] the injuries had been inflicted on 16 October 2003 cannot be excluded”. 21. On 18 December the warden of the OCU's temporary detention facility was interrogated in connection with the applicant's complaint. He testified that, when the applicant had been brought to his detention facility on 18 October, he had been in good health and that no injuries had been observed on his body. He further testified that the applicant had not complained about any health problems upon his arrival in the OCU. He also denied the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment in the OCU's detention facility. 22. On 8 January 2004 the Head of the Investigation Department of the Chief Prosecutor's Office, after interrogating four police officers of the OCU, officially refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant in the OCU's detention facility, finding that the applicant's allegations were not substantiated. The investigator noted that the police officers denied all the allegations of ill-treatment, that the forensic report did not establish conclusively that the applicant's injuries had been inflicted while in police custody, and that the applicant failed to furnish any other evidence of ill-treatment. 23. Meanwhile, on 14 December 2003 the applicant filed a separate complaint with the Nasimi District Court, complaining that he had been unlawfully arrested and tortured in police custody. Specifically, he complained that, during the interrogation in the office of the Deputy Chief of the OCU, for approximately four hours, he had been beaten with truncheons on the soles of his feet by two people in masks. He further noted that after the beating his cellmates had witnessed his injuries and provided some assistance to him. He asked the court to bring the officials concerned to criminal responsibility. 24. On 28 January 2004 the Nasimi District Court refused to examine the complaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, finding that complaints against the OCU officials must be filed with the Narimanov District Court. 25. On 29 January 2004 the applicant filed a complaint of the same substance with the Narimanov District Court. This court also refused to examine the complaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The matter was referred to the Court of Appeal, which decided that it was within the Nasimi District Court's territorial jurisdiction to examine the complaint. 26. Finally, on 18 February 2004 the Nasimi District Court examined the applicant's complaint concerning the unlawfulness of the Chief Prosecutor's Office's refusal to institute criminal proceedings and dismissed it as unsubstantiated. The court specifically noted that the forensic report did not rule out the possibility that the injuries could have been inflicted to the applicant during the public disorder on 16 October 2003, i.e. prior to the applicant's arrest. As such, the court did not consider this forensic report as conclusive evidence proving the applicant's beating in the OCU's detention facility. The court found that the applicant did not produce sufficient evidence to support his allegations. 27. The applicant appealed, claiming that the Nasimi District Court failed to give proper legal assessment to the evidence showing that he had been tortured in police custody. On 17 March 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court's decision. The full decision of the Court of Appeal was posted to the applicant's lawyer on 18 March 2004. No further appeal lay against this decision under the domestic law. 28. As for the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant for his role in organising the public disorder on 16 October 2003, on 22 October 2004 he was convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The court found that, although the applicant had not been personally present at the Azadliq Square on 16 October 2003, he was one of the organisers of the public disorder and gave instructions to his followers from his party's headquarters. 29. In March 2005 the applicant was released from serving the remainder of his prison sentence pursuant to a presidential pardon decree.

6. The applicant association is the German branch of the animal rights organisation PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). It pursues, inter alia, the aims of preventing animal suffering and of encouraging the public to abstain from using animal products. 7. In March 2004 the applicant association planned to start an advertising campaign under the head “The Holocaust on your plate”. The intended campaign, which had been carried out in a similar way in the United States of America, consisted of a number of posters, each of which bore a photograph of concentration camp inmates along with a picture of animals kept in mass stocks, accompanied by a short text. One of the posters showed a photograph of emaciated, naked concentration camp inmates alongside a photograph of starving cattle under the heading “walking skeletons”. Other posters showed a photograph of piled up human dead bodies alongside a photograph of a pile of slaughtered pigs under the heading “final humiliation” and of rows of inmates lying on stock beds alongside rows of chicken in laying batteries under the heading “if animals are concerned, everybody becomes a Nazi”. Another poster depicting a starving, naked male inmate alongside a starving cattle bore the title “The Holocaust on your plate” and the text “Between 1938 and 1945, 12 million human beings were killed in the Holocaust. As many animals are killed every hour in Europe for the purpose of human consumption”. 8. In March 2004, three individual persons, P.S., C. K. and S. Korn, filed a request with the Berlin Regional Court to be granted an injunction ordering the applicant association to desist from publishing or from allowing the publication of seven specified posters via the internet, in a public exhibition or in any other form. The plaintiffs were at the time the president and the two vice-presidents of the Central Jewish Council in Germany. All of them had survived the Holocaust when they were children; C.K. lost her family through the Holocaust. They submitted that the intended campaign was offensive and violated their human dignity as well as the personality rights of C. K.’s dead family members. 9. On 18 March 2004 the Berlin Regional Court granted the injunction. By judgment of 22 April 2004, that same court confirmed the interim injunction. The court considered that the plaintiffs had a claim to be granted injunctive relief under section 823 §§ 1 and 2 in conjunction with section 1004 of the Civil Code, sections 185 et seq. of the Criminal Code and Article 1 §§ 1 and 2 of the German Basic Law (see relevant domestic law, below). According to the Regional Court, the plaintiffs were concerned by the impugned statements in their capacity as former victims of the Holocaust. 10. The Regional Court further considered that the impugned representations constituted expressions of opinion and were thus protected under Article 5 of the Basic Law. This right protected expressions of opinion even if they were formulated in a polemic or offensive way. The depictions were particularly disturbing and drew a high degree of media attention because the pictures combined on the posters showed seemingly similar situations, which could only be discerned by the fact that one side showed coloured photographs of animals and the other black-and-white photos of humans, both alive and dead. Seen from the point of view of an ordinary spectator, the impugned posters had to be interpreted as putting the fate of the depicted animals and of the depicted humans on the same level. 11. There was no indication that the applicant association’s primary aim was to debase the victims of the Holocaust, as the posters obviously intended to criticise the conditions under which animals were kept and to encourage the spectator to reflect upon these conditions. It followed that the expression of opinion related to questions of public interest and would thus generally enjoy a higher degree of protection when weighing the competing interests. However, in the instant case it had to be taken into account that concentration camp inmates and Holocaust victims had been put on the same level as animals. In the light of the image of man conveyed by the Basic Law, which put human dignity in its centre and only marginally referred to the protection of animals, this comparison appeared arbitrary because the Holocaust victims were confronted with their suffering and their fate of persecution in the interest of animal protection. The debasement of concentration camp inmates was thus exploited in order to militate for better accommodation of laying hens and other animals. 12. The Regional Court finally considered that the decision of the instant case did not depend on a weighing of competing interests, as the expression of opinion violated the plaintiffs’ human dignity. The comparison offended the plaintiffs in their capacity as Holocaust victims by violating the respect for their human dignity. This violation was aggravated by the fact that the depicted persons were shown in a most vulnerable state. 13. On 27 August 2004 the Berlin Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal. 14. On 2 December 2004 the Berlin Regional Court, in the main proceedings, confirmed its injunction. Further to the reasons given in the interim proceedings, the Regional Court considered that it was not its task to determine from a philosophical or ethical point of view whether the suffering of highly developed animals could be compared to human suffering, as the Basic Law put human dignity in its centre. 15. On 25 November 2005 the Berlin Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal. 16. On 20 February 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The Federal Constitutional Court considered that the interpretation of the impugned pictures given by the civil courts was coherent and met the requirements imposed by the right to freedom of expression. 17. The Federal Constitutional Court expressed its doubts as to whether the intended campaign violated the human dignity of either the depicted persons or the plaintiffs. There was no doubt that the photographs depicted Holocaust victims in situations in which they were highly degraded by their torturers. However, this did not necessarily imply that the use of these pictures also amounted to a violation of the represented persons’ human dignity. Having regard to the specific circumstances of the instant case, the court considered that the intended campaign did not deny the depicted Holocaust victims their personal value by putting them on a par with animals. Even though the applicant association might generally be convinced of the equality of human and animal suffering, the intended campaign did not pursue the aim to debase, as the pictures merely implied that the suffering inflicted upon the depicted humans and animals was equal. 18. However, the Federal Constitutional Court did not find it necessary to decide whether the intended campaign violated the plaintiffs’ human dignity, as the impugned decisions contained sufficient arguments which justified the injunction without reference to a violation of the plaintiff’s human dignity. It was, in particular, acceptable that the domestic courts based their decisions on the assumption that the Basic Law drew a clear distinction between human life and dignity on one side and the interests of animal protection on the other and that the campaign was banalising the fate of the victims of the Holocaust. It was, furthermore, acceptable to conclude that this content of the campaign affected the plaintiffs’ personality rights. Referring to its earlier case law, the Federal Constitutional Court considered that it was part of the self-image of the Jews living in Germany that they belonged to a group which had been sampled out by their fate and that a special moral obligation was owed to them by all others, which formed part of their dignity. 19. The Federal Constitutional Court did not find it necessary to remit the case for re-examination to the lower courts, as there was no indication that the lower courts would come to a different conclusion in case of a remittal. When weighing the competing interests, the plaintiffs’ legal position could be granted preference over the applicant association’s right to freedom of expression even without relying on a violation of the plaintiffs’ human dignity. The lower courts had put forward sufficient reasons to allow this conclusion. In particular, the courts had begun to weigh the competing interests. Furthermore, they had based their assumption that the impugned campaign violated the plaintiffs’ human dignity on the fact that they considered the violation of the plaintiff’s personal honour as particularly serious. As these considerations applied in a similar way to a violation of the plaintiffs’ personality rights, it had to be assumed that these principles would also guide the courts in case of a remittal.

6. The applicant was born in 1972 and is now serving a sentence in Kostroma. 7. On 28 December 2003 the applicant was apprehended, allegedly in an inebriated state, on the railway line by Mr S. and Mr L., police officers from Nerekhta station police department (линейный пост милиции станции Нерехта). Subsequently he was transported to Nerekhta district police station (Нерехтский ГРОВД) and placed in a temporary detention cell. 8. After a while a police officer took the applicant from his cell to the second floor of the police station. The officer pointed to a young man and woman in one of the offices and asked the applicant whether he knew them. The applicant said that he knew the woman. The officer then noticed a blood stain on the sleeve of the applicant's jacket and allegedly accused him of having robbed the man and woman. The applicant was taken to the officer on duty and his jacket was seized as material evidence. 9. The applicant spent the night in the temporary detention wing. 10. On the morning of 29 December 2003 another police officer who did not introduce himself took the applicant from his cell to an office on the third floor of the police station. He told the applicant to write a confession statement which the applicant refused to do. The officer left and then returned with his colleagues. Together they beat the applicant up and later took him back to the cell. 11. Later on that day the applicant was brought before the Justice of the Peace of the 19th Court Circuit who found him guilty of disturbing public order and sentenced him to five days' detention. 12. On 30 December 2003 the applicant was interviewed as a witness in a robbery case. He refused to make any statements and asked for his injuries to be recorded and for an inquiry to be opened into the beatings he had received. 13. On 31 December 2003 an investigator from Nerekhta district police station, Mr S., commissioned a forensic examination of the applicant's injuries with a view to determining their extent and origin. 14. On 19 February 2004 the expert returned the following findings: “Mr Nikiforov had a fractured nose, abrasions and a bruise on his face [measuring 7 x 4 cm]. The injuries could have been caused by the impact of a hard blunt object or as a result of falling on such an object... It is impossible to establish when Mr Nikiforov's nose was broken because of his belated request for it to be X-rayed...” 15. On 20 February 2004 an investigator of Nerekhta District Prosecutor's Office, Mr V., refused to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged beatings. He found that since the applicant's jacket had been stained with blood at the moment of his arrival at the police station, the injuries must have been caused at some earlier point in time. 16. On 12 May 2004 the Nerekhta District Prosecutor quashed the investigator's decision and directed him to hear the arresting police officers and to examine the detainees' registration log. 17. On 16 May 2004 the investigator Mr V. again refused to institute criminal proceedings. On the basis of an entry in the registration log, he established that from 8.30 to 9.20 a.m. on 29 December 2003 the applicant had not been in the temporary detention wing but with police officer Mr A. However, since both Mr A. and the arresting police officers had denied using any force on the applicant, there were no indications of a criminal offence. 18. On 25 June 2004 a deputy prosecutor of the Kostroma Region quashed the investigator's decision as incomplete. He ordered, in particular, that the officers on duty be heard on the issue of whether any injuries had been present on the applicant's body at the time of his arrival at the police station. 19. On 4 July 2004 the investigator Mr V. refused to institute criminal proceedings for a third time. His decision was an exact repeat of his previous one, save for the statement of the officer Mr P. in which he had claimed that at the time of the applicant's arrival at the police station he had had no visible injuries. 20. On 5 August 2004 the Nerekhta District Prosecutor quashed the investigator's decision, further to the applicant's complaint, and ordered him to verify the origin of the blood stain on the applicant's jacket. 21. On 28 January 2005 the investigator Mr V. refused to institute criminal proceedings for a fourth time. He added the testimony of the officer Mr K. who could not remember whether the applicant had been held in the police station on 29 or 30 December 2003. 22. On 23 May 2005 the Nerekhta District Prosecutor quashed the investigator's decision, noting that the investigator had not established how the injuries had been caused or obtained statements from the applicant's co-detainees. 23. On 28 May 2005 the investigator Mr V. issued a fifth decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings. On 27 September 2005 the regional prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered an additional inquiry. 24. On 25 November 2005 the investigator Mr Ku. issued a sixth decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings, which was set aside by the Nerekhta District Prosecutor on the same day. 25. On 25 January 2006 the deputy Nerekhta district prosecutor, Ms P., refused to institute criminal proceedings for a seventh time. She noted the testimony of the investigator Mr S., the applicant's partner Ms R. and the applicant's sister Ms E., who had all seen the applicant's swollen nose and bruised face on the morning of 29 December 2003. The Deputy Prosecutor acknowledged that light injuries had been inflicted on the applicant after his arrival at the police station on 28 December 2003, but declared the prosecution time-barred because the limitation period for the offence of light injuries was set at two years. The applicant complained to a court. 26. On 30 March 2006 the Nerekhta Town Court ruled in the applicant's favour, finding that the inquiry had been incomplete. It also noted that, although it was established that the applicant had been beaten at the police station, the investigation had failed to use all possible means to identify the perpetrators. 27. On 18 May 2006 the Kostroma Regional Court upheld the Town Court's decision on appeal. 28. On 18 March 2007 the investigator Mr L. from the Nerekhta District Prosecutor's Office issued the most recent decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings. He noted that, according to the arrest record and testimonies of many witnesses, the applicant had had no visible injuries at the time he was placed in the temporary detention wing at 11.50 p.m. on 28 December 2003. On 31 December 2003 a forensic expert had examined the applicant and recorded multiple injuries, including bruising to the eye, a broken nose, chipped tooth and abrasions on his face. Officer A. had admitted taking the applicant out of his cell on 29 December 2003 but denied having beaten him. The investigator thus confirmed that the applicant had suffered bodily injuries shortly after he was detained at Nerekhta district police station. However, the prosecution was time-barred because of the two-year limitation period and no evidence implicating officer A. or any other police officers had been obtained. 29. From 18 March to 2 April 2004 the Nerekhta District Court examined the case against the applicant on the charge of robbery. 30. On 2 April 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment in a high-security colony. On 5 August 2004 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Kostroma Regional Court.

9. The applicant is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kaišiadorys. 10. He formerly worked as a prosecutor in the Kaišiadorys region. 11. The applicant submitted that in late 1998 and early 1999 he had been approached by AZ, a person previously unknown to him, through VS, a private acquaintance. AZ had asked him to secure the acquittal of a third person and had offered him a bribe of 3,000 United States dollars (USD) in return. The applicant had initially refused but had later agreed after AZ had reiterated the offer a number of times. 12. The Government submitted that VS and AZ had approached the applicant and negotiated the bribe with him on their own private initiative, without having first informed the authorities. They alleged that AZ had suspected the applicant of having accepted bribes in the past. 13. On an unspecified date AZ, who was in fact an officer of a special anti-corruption police unit of the Ministry of the Interior (Specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba – “the STT”), informed his employers that the applicant had agreed to accept a bribe. 14. On 26 January 1999 the STT applied to the Deputy Prosecutor General, requesting authorisation to use a criminal conduct simulation model (“the model” – see paragraph 32 below). The request stated: “Senior Commissioner [GM], Head of the Operational Activities Division of the [STT], having had access to information concerning [the applicant’s] criminal conduct, has established that [the applicant] takes bribes since he has agreed to assist a defendant, [MN], in return for payment. In implementing the criminal conduct simulation model, which is intended to establish, record and put an end to [the applicant’s] unlawful acts, an STT official [AZ] will hand over 12,000 litai, or the equivalent in foreign currency if required. Implementation of [the model] will require [AZ] to simulate criminal acts punishable under Articles 284 and 329 of the [Criminal Code]. With reference to section 11 of the Operational Activities Act ..., the undersigned requests the Deputy Prosecutor General to authorise the criminal conduct simulation model for a period of one year. This request is based on the information obtained during the preliminary inquiry.” 15. On 26 January 1999 the STT sent a letter to the Deputy Prosecutor General outlining the model as follows: “[STT] officials have collected operational information attesting that [the applicant] takes bribes. In implementing the criminal conduct simulation model, which is intended to establish, record and put an end to [the applicant’s] unlawful acts, an STT official [AZ] will simulate the offences of offering a bribe and breaching currency and securities regulations. In view of the above, and in accordance with section 11 of the Operational Activities Act, I hereby request you to authorise the criminal conduct simulation model and thus to exempt [AZ] from criminal responsibility for the offences under Articles 284 and 329 of the [Criminal Code] which are intended to be simulated. [The model] will be implemented by STT officials on the basis of a separate operational action plan. Implementation of [the model] will be financed by STT resources.” 16. On 27 January 1999 the Deputy Prosecutor General gave the required authorisation by countersigning and placing his official seal on the letter in question. This document constituted the final version of the model. 17. On 28 January 1999 the applicant accepted USD 1,500 from AZ. 18. On 11 February 1999 AZ gave the applicant a further USD 1,000. 19. On the same date the Prosecutor General instituted a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant for accepting a bribe, an offence punishable under Article 282 of the Criminal Code in force at that time. 20. On 17 March 1999 the Prosecutor General dismissed the applicant from his post as a prosecutor on grounds relating to corruption. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Prosecuting Authorities Act, the Prosecutor General stated that the applicant had been dismissed for a disciplinary offence and for activities discrediting the prosecuting authorities. 21. On an unspecified date the pre-trial investigation was concluded and the case was referred to the Kaunas Regional Court. During the trial the applicant pleaded guilty but alleged that he had succumbed to undue pressure from AZ in committing the offence. 22. On 18 July 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor General authorised a judge of the Kaunas Regional Court to disclose the details of how the model had been implemented “provided that this [did] not harm the interests” of the individuals and authorities involved in the operation. 23. On 29 August 2000 the Kaunas Regional Court convicted the applicant of accepting a bribe of USD 2,500 from AZ, in breach of Article 282 of the Criminal Code then in force, and sentenced him to nineteen months and six days’ imprisonment. The court also ordered the confiscation of his property in the amount of 625 Lithuanian litai (LTL). It found it established, firstly, that AZ had given the applicant the bribe during their meetings on 28 January and 11 February 1999, in return for a promise that the applicant would intervene favourably in a criminal case against a third person and, secondly, that AZ had entered into contact and negotiated with the applicant through VS. 24. The court’s conclusions were mainly based on the evidence given by AZ and on secret recordings of his conversations with the applicant. The court had also examined AP, a prosecutor working in the same regional office as the applicant, whose evidence had not gone beyond confirmation that the applicant had dealt with the criminal case against the third person (MN) indicated by AZ. VS was not summoned to appear at the trial as his place of residence was unknown, but a statement by him, which had been recorded by the pre-trial investigators, was read out in court. However, the Kaunas Regional Court did not take it into account in determining the applicant’s guilt. The court’s judgment did not contain any discussion of the authorisation and implementation of the model. 25. On 26 October 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on an appeal by the applicant, finding that there had been no incitement and that the authorities had not put any active pressure on the applicant to commit the offence. 26. On 23 November 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. Relying in particular on the Constitutional Court’s decision of 8 May 2000 (see paragraph 34 below), he argued that there were no statutory provisions allowing the authorities to incite or provoke a person to commit an offence. In that connection, he submitted that on several occasions he had unsuccessfully requested the first-instance and appeal courts to consider the influence exerted by AZ and VS on his predisposition to commit the offence. He further complained that the lower courts had not taken into account the fact that AZ was a police officer and not a private individual. He argued that AZ had incited him to accept the bribe. Furthermore, he stated that the authorities had had no valid reason to initiate an undercover operation in his case and that they had overstepped the limits of their ordinary investigative powers by inducing him to commit an offence. He also submitted that VS had not been examined during the trial. 27. On 27 February 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal in a decision which included the following passages: “There is no evidence in the case file that [the applicant’s] free will was denied or otherwise constrained in such a way that he could not avoid acting illegally. [AZ] neither ordered [the applicant] to intervene in favour of the person offering the bribe, nor did he threaten him. He asked him orally for help in securing the discontinuation of proceedings [against the third person] ... K. Ramanauskas understood that the request was unlawful ... [and] the Regional Court was therefore correct in finding him guilty ... [The applicant] contests the lawfulness of [the model] ..., stating that the case discloses a manifest example of incitement (kurstymas) by the officers of the special services to accept the bribe ... [He submits that, by law], authorisation to simulate a criminal act cannot be given in the absence of evidence of the preparation or commission of an offence. Therefore, in his view, such a procedure cannot pursue the aim of inciting a person or persons to commit a crime. If the model were used for that purpose, it would be unlawful [and] the information thereby obtained could not be admitted in evidence ... [The] model cannot be authorised and implemented unless a person has planned or started to commit an offence, evidence of which should be submitted to a prosecutor ... It appears from the case file that [the authorities] were contacted by [VS] and [AZ] after [their initial] meetings with K. Ramanauskas, during which he had agreed in principle that he would perform the requested actions for USD 3,000 ... Accordingly, in authorising the use of the model, [the authorities] merely joined a criminal act which was already in progress. ... The case file contains no evidence that [VS] is an employee of the special services ... [AZ] works at the STT as a police driver ... but this does not mean that he is prohibited from acting in a private capacity. There is no evidence that [VS] and [AZ] negotiated with K. Ramanauskas on police instructions. It has, however, been established that [VS] and [AZ] handed money to him on the police’s orders. The court considers that provocation (provokacija) to commit a crime is similar but not equivalent to incitement (kurstymas) ... Provocation is a form of incitement consisting in encouraging a person to commit an offence ... entailing his criminal responsibility so that he can then be prosecuted on that account. While such conduct is morally reprehensible, the term ‘provocation’ is not used either in criminal or procedural law or in the Operational Activities Act of 22 May 1997 ... From a legal standpoint, provocation does not constitute a factor exempting from criminal responsibility a person who has thereby been induced to commit an offence ... Since the case file contains contradictory evidence as to the conduct of [VS] and [AZ] before the criminal conduct simulation model was authorised, it is difficult to establish who was the instigator (iniciatorius) of giving and accepting the bribe, or, in other words, who incited whom to give or accept the bribe. [VS] ... stated that, after he had contacted K. Ramanauskas to ask him to intervene in securing the discontinuation of the criminal case [against the third person], K. Ramanauskas had been the first to say that he could settle the matter for USD 3,000. For his part, [AZ] ... stated that K. Ramanauskas had said that the discontinuation of the case would cost USD 3,000. In his testimony K. Ramanauskas alleged that [VS] had asked him if USD 3,000 would be enough to ensure that the case was discontinued. In these circumstances, it cannot be said with any certainty who was the instigator of the bribery, nor can it be inferred that [VS] and [AZ] incited K. Ramanauskas to accept the bribe. Furthermore, there is no reason to conclude that [VS] and [AZ] provoked the offence committed by K. Ramanauskas in accepting the bribe. It can only be said unequivocally that the initiative (iniciatyva) to apply to K. Ramanauskas in order to have the case [against the third person] discontinued came from [AZ]. However, the court considers that the answer to the question whether a person has actually induced (palenkė) or otherwise incited (sukurstė) another to offer or accept a bribe is of no consequence as far as the legal classification of [the applicant’s] conduct is concerned. Incitement (kurstymas) to commit an offence is one of the various forms of complicity. Under the branch of criminal law dealing with complicity, incitement is a form of conspiracy. A person who commits an offence after having being incited to do so incurs the same criminal responsibility as a person who acts of his own volition ... Even assuming that K. Ramanauskas was incited by [VS] and [AZ] to accept a bribe, it must be emphasised that the incitement took the form of an offer, and not of threats or blackmail. He was therefore able to decline (and ought to have declined) the illegal offer ... It follows from the testimony of K. Ramanauskas that he understood the nature of the acts he was being asked to carry out, and accepted [the bribe] of his own free will ... At the same time it must be noted that it is a specific feature of bribery as an offence that one side is necessarily the instigator (kurstytojas). A State official soliciting a bribe is an instigator within the meaning of Article 284 [of the Criminal Code then in force – ‘the CC’] in that he incites (kursto) another to pay him a bribe, in breach of that Article. [A person] offering a bribe to a State official is necessarily an instigator within the meaning of Article 282 of the CC since, by making the offer, he incites the official to accept a bribe, that is, to commit the offence provided for in that Article ... Both the person giving and the person accepting a bribe exercise their free will ... and may therefore choose between possible forms of conduct. A person who intentionally chooses the criminal option while having the possibility of resisting the incitement rightly incurs criminal responsibility, regardless of the outside factors that may have influenced his choice ...” 28. On 27 March 2001 the applicant began serving his prison sentence. He remained in prison until 29 January 2002, when he was released on licence. 29. Furthermore, the prohibition on his working in the legal service was lifted in July 2002. In January 2003 his conviction was expunged.

5. The applicant, Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir, is an Icelandic national who lives in Reykjavík. 6. On 5 March 1998 the applicant was born at the National and University Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the NUH) in Reykjavík, which was a State hospital. Soon after her birth it became clear that she was severely handicapped both physically and mentally. Her disability is assessed at 100%. 7. In July 1998 the applicant's parents complained to the Medical Director of Iceland, who in October 1999 concluded that the child had not been given improper treatment. 8. The applicant's parents, who were represented by a lawyer, then brought proceedings on her behalf against the State of Iceland in the Reykjavik District Court. Their arguments can be described as twofold. Firstly, a mistake had been committed in the delivery room in that the doctors had reacted too late to hypoxia despite its having been diagnosed directly on the mother's arrival there. Secondly, paediatricians had made a mistake when attending to the child immediately after birth. The parents alleged that a catheter inserted into the child's umbilical artery had been abnormally bent to a U-shape and left that way for approximately 32 hours. This had been capable of causing the damage that had occurred to the child's health. Instead the doctors should have partially withdrawn the catheter until it straightened out or, if that was not possible, inserted it into a limb. 9. The respondent requested the District Court to dismiss the applicant's claim, maintaining that the damage she had suffered to her health was a result of hypoxia during pregnancy, before the mother's arrival at the labour ward of the NUH, and that no additional damage could be linked to any possible mistakes on the part of hospital staff. The applicant was already in a serious condition when delivery was performed by caesarean section, by which time hypoxia had already caused arterial thrombosis. The position of the catheter had therefore not caused the damage to the applicant's health. 10. The District Court, sitting with one professional judge and two lay judges, one of whom was a paediatrician and the other a gynaecologist and obstetrician, heard extensive evidence from all the hospital personnel involved and from experts. 11. By a judgment of 24 April 2002, the District Court rejected the first claim described above but upheld the second claim and found the State liable to pay compensation to the applicant. It awarded her 28,522,474 Icelandic Crowns (ISK) in compensation (ISK 20,684,948 for pecuniary damage and ISK 7,756,856 for non-pecuniary damage), plus interest, as well as certain sums for legal costs, to be held by her parents on her behalf. Its reasoning on the merits included the following passages: “By reference to the foregoing the court concludes that proof has not been adduced to show that the plaintiff's disability was solely due to her illness following thrombosis of the aorta and the renal arteries. On the other hand, there is a significant probability that her illness following the said thrombosis at least contributed to the serious brain damage she suffered, which caused her disability and non-financial loss. Whether the plaintiff had already suffered brain damage, and the extent to which her illness may have added to that damage, is impossible to ascertain. In view of the plaintiff's difficult situation as regards proof and of the rules of evidence that must be regarded as having been formed in this field of the law of compensation, the onus must be on the defendant to prove that the brain damage from which the plaintiff now suffers would have occurred even if the defendant's employees had not made the mistake of letting the catheter remain in a U-shape in her aorta for up to 32 hours. As the defendant must, in the light of the foregoing, be considered not to have succeeded in adducing such proof, the court accepts the plaintiff's view that the conditions that would render the defendant liable to pay compensation on account of her disability and non-financial loss are fulfilled. It is not possible on the basis of the available evidence and the above rule of evidence to endorse the defendant's view that only a small part of the disability can be traced to her illness caused by thrombosis of the aorta and the renal arteries. As it has not been demonstrated whether or to what extent the damage to the plaintiff's health was due to other causes, the defendant is deemed liable for her entire loss.” 12. The Solicitor General appealed against the above judgment to the Supreme Court. In support thereof, he filed two statements by certain named doctors of the University Hospital commenting on the District Court's judgment and criticising its conclusion. The statements had been addressed to the Hospital's Chief Medical Executive, who apparently had endorsed them and forwarded them to the Solicitor General. 13. The Supreme Court initially scheduled the oral hearing for 24 January 2003, but on 21 January 2003 informed the applicant's lawyer and the Solicitor General that it had adjourned the hearing pending an opinion it intended to request from the State Medico-Legal Board (SMLB). On this occasion the Supreme Court gave the parties an opportunity to indicate the questions they would like to be put to the SMLB. 14. In reply, by a letter of 24 January 2003, the applicant's lawyer protested, in particular, against the Supreme Court's decision to seek the SMLB's opinion without having first offered the parties an opportunity to express their views on the measure. It was noted that, pursuant to section 1 of the State Medico-Legal Board Act, many doctors associated with the NUH, where the disputed medical services had been provided, had a seat on the Board. Moreover, the Medical Director had already expressed his views on the matter and was therefore disqualified from any further involvement. The lawyer also protested against any consideration of the matter by the hospital's employees, and demanded their withdrawal. In the event that the Supreme Court were to decide, despite the applicant's protest, to proceed to ask the SMLB for an opinion, the applicant's lawyer specified 11 items for questions that he wished to be put to the SMLB. 15. The Supreme Court replied on 30 January 2003 that it found no reason not to ask for the SMLB's opinion but that it would consider the applicant's proposal regarding the questions. 16. On 31 January 2003 the Solicitor General indicated 13 questions which he thought should be put to the SMLB, but did not comment on the appropriateness of asking the SMLB for an opinion. 17. On 12 February 2003 the Supreme Court formally decided to obtain an opinion from the SMLB on 19 questions relating to the matter in dispute, giving the following reasons: “It was difficult to ascertain from the evidence and testimonies submitted what the cause of the [applicant's] injury was, added to which some points were not as clear as would have been desirable. It was therefore deemed proper, before the case were tried by the Supreme Court, to obtain the opinion of the State Medico-Legal Board under section 2(1) and (2) of the SMLB Act and to seek answers on certain points since, according to the said Act, it is the SMLB's role to provide the courts with opinions on medical matters.” In connection with the above the Supreme Court drew particular attention to the applicant's request of 24 January 2003 for the withdrawal of certain members. 18. The SMLB was composed of the Director of Health (Landlæknir) of Iceland, as chair, and eight other members. 19. The SMLB delivered its opinion on 21 November 2003. It found that at the maternity ward an abnormal foetal monitor printout had been reacted to belatedly. On the other hand, there was no reason to criticise the child's treatment at the paediatric clinic following birth. The Board considered that the positioning of the catheter had not caused blood coagulation and that no mistake had been made concerning the manner in which it was placed. Thus, the Board differed from the District Court on points that were material for establishing liability to pay compensation. 20. In the context of the Board's own procedure, the matter had first been referred direct to its Forensic Chamber composed of three Board members, all of whom were employees at the University Hospital and decided that they were not disqualified. The Forensic Chamber had sought two opinions on the applicant's birth, one – by a consultant surgeon and member of the Board – on the child's case history after birth, and the other by an external obstetrician on the mother's pregnancy and the child's birth. 21. At a meeting held on 18 November 2003, the SMLB had discussed and unanimously approved the two doctors' opinions and adopted its final opinion that was transmitted to the Supreme Court. The session had been presided over by one of the Forensic Chamber's three members, who had replaced the SMLB's Chair who had withdrawn on account of his previous involvement with the case as the Medical Director of Iceland. 22. At the oral hearing on 27 February 2004 before the Supreme Court, the applicant's lawyer complained of the procedure before the SMLB, but to no avail. 23. By a judgment of 11 March 2004 the Supreme Court overturned the District Court's finding that the State was liable to pay compensation to the applicant for negligence by the University Hospital. 24. Before turning to the merits, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of disqualification: “As regards the conclusion of the SMLB and its Forensic Chamber, the respondent [the applicant] observes that doctors employed at the National and University Hospital took part in handling the matter and bringing it to a conclusion; that they, as employees of the appellant, were disqualified from doing so, and that consequently the SMLB's opinion was to be entirely disregarded. As noted above, it is the role of the SMLB to provide the courts with opinions on medical matters. The situation in Iceland is such that most experts in the field of medical science are employed at the National and University Hospital. Of the SMLB's nine members four are employed at the hospital, but none of the members taking part in this matter is employed at the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, nor at the Barnaspítali Hringsins paediatric hospital, and none was involved with the treatment of the respondent's illness, or of her mother. Furthermore, none of them is a member of the hospital's highest management, which has taken a stand with respect to this matter in conformity with the opinion of the doctors of the departments of obstetrics and neonatology. It has not been demonstrated that the Board's handling of the case was contrary to the SMLB Act and Regulation no. 192/1942 on the Procedure of the SMLB, or that the Board's resolution was influenced by any extraneous considerations. The Board's opinion and all other opinions provided in this case will have to be assessed in the light of the positions occupied by those who provide them.” 25. As to the merits, the Supreme Court concluded: “It is generally acknowledged that the use of arterial catheters may entail a danger of thrombosis. The respondent was dangerously ill and had been placed in a respirator, which demanded a monitoring of blood oxygen and acid/base levels and blood pressure, and the administration of fluids and drugs. The situation in which the doctors found themselves when they decided to leave the catheter alone must be kept in mind; as noted above, this provided the only arterial access, as matters had developed. It has not been established that a catheter lying in a loop entails an increased risk of thrombosis. As explained above, the experts consider that the respondent's brain damage was first and foremost due to hypoxia. The damage revealed by examinations of her brain is consistent with hypoxia, and it must be regarded as highly likely that this was the cause of her loss. Brain damage that might have followed thrombosis in the fifth day after the respondent's birth would on the other hand have appeared as haemorrhage due to hypertension, but such brain damage is not extensive. It is not, therefore, possible to say that there is a causal relationship between the positioning of the catheter and the respondent's brain damage. It has not been demonstrated that the respondent's loss is traceable to a fault on the part of the appellant's employees.”

4. The applicants were born in 1965, 1967, 1996, 1998 and 2000 respectively and live in Isaszeg. The first and second applicants are spouses and parents of the third, fourth and fifth applicants. 5. The applicants lived as specially protected tenants in a flat owned by the local government of Budapest 12th District. Due to the seriously deteriorated condition of the flat, in December 1995 they concluded an agreement with a view to moving to another property of the local government. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties concerning the applicants’ rights flowing from the tenancy. 6. In a first set of civil proceedings, the first applicant challenged the validity of the agreement concluded in December 1995. The Buda Central District Court dismissed the first applicant’s claim on 27 March 1996. The judgment became final at first instance. 7. In September 1997 the first applicant brought a new action against the local government in relation to the tenancy agreement. This action was also dismissed by the Buda Central District Court; and the first instance judgment was upheld by the Budapest High Court in 2000, on a date not specified in the application. 8. On 28 August 2001 the first applicant brought a third action before the Budapest High Court, claiming damages sustained in connection to the tenancy dispute. 9. On 6 August 2002 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants joined the first applicant’s action. 10. Both the Budapest High Court and the Budapest Court of Appeal, the latter acting as a second instance court, turned down the applicants’ claims. The dates of the judgments were not specified in the application. 11. The applicants lodged a petition for review. On 1 October 2014 the Kúria confirmed the final judgment. The judgment was served on the applicants on 4 December 2014.

4. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Amasya. 5. On 29 August 2000 he brought proceedings before the Samsun Administrative Court for annulment of an administrative penalty imposed on him. 6. On 20 December 2000 the court dismissed the applicant's request. 7. On 22 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 20 December 2000. 8. On 18 February 2004 the court dismissed the applicant's request once again. 9. On 6 December 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court's General Council of Administrative Divisions quashed the judgment of 18 February 2004. 10. On 28 February 2008 the court granted the applicant's request and annulled the administrative penalty imposed on the applicant. 11. On 7 October 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 28 February 2008. 12. On 28 February 2001 the applicant lodged a case with the Samsun Administrative Court for annulment of his appointment to a new post. 13. On 31 October 2001 the court dismissed the applicant's request. 14. On 21 February 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 31 October 2001. 15. On 29 November 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment. 16. On 8 January 2007 the applicant was notified of the decision dated 29 November 2006.

5. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ljubljana. 6. The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison in the period between 30 March 2009 and 23 December 2009. From 30 March 2009 to 14 April 2009 he was held in cell 5 (third floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 14 April 2009 to 11 June 2009 he was held in cell 7 (third floor), which measured 16.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 11 June 2009 to 2 July 2009 and from 30 July 2009 to 19 December 2009 he was held in cell 124 (second floor), which measured 8.8 square metres (including a separate 1.3 square metre sanitary facility) and contained two sleeping places. From 2 July 2009 to 30 July 2009 he was held in cell 120 (second floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 6 sleeping places. From 19 December 2009 to 23 December 2009 he was held in cell 98 (first floor), which measured 8.8 square metres (including a separate 1.3 square metre sanitary facility) and contained two sleeping places. The Government submitted that in cells 5 and 7 the numbers varied between four and five, in cell 120 the numbers varied between five and six and in cells 98 and 124 the applicant was held with one other prisoner. 7. As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011. 8. As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86). 9. During his imprisonment the applicant had thirty-three consultations with a general practitioner and declined some of them. He also had five dental appointments and five treatments by a psychiatrist. He asked for and was given a psychological consultation, however he did not attend it. 10. As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.

5. The applicant was born in 1969 and prior to his conviction lived in Ryazan. 6. On 28 December 2004 the investigator of the Ryazan Regional Prosecutor’s Office, with approval by a prosecutor, requested the Sovetskiy District Court, Ryazan, to remand the applicant in custody on suspicion of banditry and involvement in an organised criminal group. 7. On the same day the applicant was arrested. 8. In the meantime, on 29 December 2004 the Ryazan Sovetskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The court held as follows: “The crimes of which [the applicant] is suspected fall into a category of especially grave crimes punishable by over two years’ imprisonment. Opting for a more lenient preventive measure for [the applicant] is impossible, taking into account the particular gravity of the crimes of which [the applicant] is suspected, as well as the fact that disclosure of the identity of members of a criminal gang, including [the applicant], can create a real threat to the safety of witnesses, victims and their relatives, which follows from [statements] by [witness D.] ...” 9. On 21 January 2005 charges of banditry, involvement in a criminal group, extortion and fraud under Articles 209 § 2, 210 § 2, 163 § 3 and 159 § 3 of the Criminal Code were brought against the applicant. He was questioned as the defendant. 10. On 25 January 2005 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the decision of 29 December 2004 on appeal. 11. On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest. Stating that he was an advocate, the applicant claimed that his arrest required the prior consent of a court. On 20 March 2007 the Ryazan Regional Court, acting as the most senior level of jurisdiction, found the applicant’s arrest not to have breached the requirements of the domestic law. 12. On 24 February 2005 the Ryazan Sovetskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 June 2005. The court held as follows: “The crimes [charged against the applicant] belong, pursuant to Article 15 of the Criminal Code, to the category of particularly grave crimes, which according to Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives ground for the application of a [custodial measure]. ... At the present time it is necessary to carry out several operational and investigative actions, to establish the whereabouts of the known members of the criminal gang, to bring charges against them, to carry out interrogations and confrontations, as well as to familiarise the defendants, the victims and their counsel with the case-file material. ... The argument by defence counsel about the change of circumstances which laid the basis for application of a custodial measure cannot be taken into consideration. The reference of defence counsel to the fact that the charges against [the applicant] do not involve an episode involving [witness D.], whose statement that he had received death threats from [the applicant] had been the ground for application of a custodial measure, is unsubstantiated. A statement by [witness D.], his handwritten explanation, as well as the record of the viewing of a video recording of 6 May 2002, from which it follows that D. is a witness to a crime, [that he] fears for his life and [that] the threat comes, inter alia, from [the applicant], have been examined by the judge [...] as matters characterising [the applicant’s] personality and giving grounds to believe that his being at large could constitute a real danger to safety for [witness D.] as for other witnesses, victims and their families. Therefore, taking into account the foregoing and the nature of the crimes with which [the applicant] is charged, the court concludes that there are sufficient grounds to believe that [if not detained, the applicant] may interfere with the proceedings in the criminal case by influencing witnesses. In such circumstances there are no grounds for altering the custodial measure to a more lenient one. ...” 13. On 31 March 2005 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 14. On 23 June and 15 September 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 September and 28 December 2005 respectively. The court relied on the gravity and the nature of the charges, the particular complexity of the case and the necessity to carry out subsequent investigative actions. It further invoked the risks of the applicant’s absconding and hampering the criminal proceedings by exerting pressure on witnesses and victims, and the absence of any grounds for altering the custodial measure. 15. On 18 October 2005 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the decision of 15 September 2005 on appeal. 16. On 28 December 2005 the Ryazan Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 March 2006. The court held as follows: “It appears from the case-file material that the armed gang of which [the applicant] was a member had and has well-tested systems of secrecy and defence from law-enforcement bodies (отработанные системы конспирации и защиты от правоохранительных органов); if at liberty [the applicant] might take action against the ongoing investigation, including by way of exerting unlawful pressure on witnesses and victims. It follows from the case-file material that in the course of operational search activities officers of the Organised Crime Unit at the Ryazan Regional Department of the Interior obtained information to the effect that the members of the Osokinskaya criminal group, knowing that criminal proceedings in connection with its criminal activity had begun, were making inquiries about those who had been questioned in the case as witnesses and victims, with the view of subjecting them to unlawful influence. ...” 17. On 14 February 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above decision on appeal. 18. On 21 March 2006 the Ryazan Regional Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 28 June 2006, that is for a total duration of eighteen months. In taking the relevant decision the Regional Court had regard to the particular gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk that he would exert pressure on witnesses (the court applied the wording of the previous extension order of 28 December 2005). The court also examined the possibility of applying a more lenient preventive measure and dismissed it. 19. On 26 April 2006 the charges against the applicant were rectified. They involved banditry, involvement in a criminal group, extortion, fraud, pressurising those involved to complete deals, organising robbery, murder, attempted murder and infliction of grave bodily harm, and trafficking in firearms and ammunitions under Articles 209 § 2, 210 § 2, 163 § 3, 159 § 3, 179 § 2, 162 § 3 (in conjunction with Article 33 § 3), 105 § 2 (in conjunction with Articles 30 § 3 and 33 § 3), 111 § 3 (in conjunction with Article 33 § 3) and 222 § 3 (alone and in conjunction with Article 33 § 3) of the Criminal Code. 20. On 4 May 2006 the applicant and his lawyer were informed that the pre-trial investigation had been terminated. From the documents submitted by the Government it can be seen that they both signed the document on termination of the pre-trial investigation and expressed the wish to read the case file, both together and separately. 21. On 18 May 2006 the applicant started reading the case file. 22. On the same day the applicant’s lawyer was invited to study the case file. This is supported by a letter inviting the applicant’s lawyer to appear at the IZ-62/1 facility in Ryazan at 10 a.m. to study the case-file material. The letter bears a handwritten note made by the head of the bar association, of which the applicant’s lawyer was a member: “Received for transfer to A. Yudin. 18 May 2006. Signature”. 23. On 23 June 2006 the Ryazan Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until he and his lawyer had finished studying the case file (consisting of seventy-five volumes), but not beyond 24 September 2006. The court held as follows: “[...] Pursuant to Article 109 § 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if upon completion of a pre-trial investigation the time-limits set out in Article 109 § 5 for giving the accused and his counsel access to the case file have been complied with, but the thirty-day period proves insufficient for them to read the entire file, an investigator [...] may submit to the court, no later than seven days before the expiry of the maximum detention period, a request for extension of the period of detention. In [the applicant’s] case the above-mentioned requirements of law have been complied with. In his request for extension of [the applicant’s] detention pending the investigation until [the applicant] and his counsel had finished reading the file [...] the investigator indicated that at the present moment there were no grounds for altering or discontinuing the application of a [custodial measure]. As before, there are sufficient reasons to believe that, if released, [the applicant], taking into account the gravity of the charges against him, may abscond or otherwise obstruct the proceedings in the case. Therefore, the circumstances which led the court to apply the custodial measure to [the applicant] have remained unchanged. At the same time, extending [the applicant’s] detention until he and his counsel have finished reading the case file... without indicating a specific end-date contradicts the requirements of Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The above Article implies that the extension is granted for the time requested by the investigation authorities. [However], extending [the applicant’s] detention without indication of a specific end-date... would have worsened [his] situation and removed the preventive measure from judicial control. On 7 February 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor General extended the time-limit for pre‑trial investigation... until 24 September 2006 inclusive. Therefore, the court extends [the applicant’s] detention until he and his counsel have finished reading the case file..., until 24 September 2006 inclusive, that is until the expiry of the time-limit for the pre-trial investigation. ... The argument put forward by the defence, to the effect that the investigation authorities have breached the requirements of Article 109 § 5, is unsubstantiated. It follows from the record on termination of the investigative actions of 4 May 2006 that [the applicant] and [his lawyer] expressed their wish to read the case file both together and separately. On 18 May 2006 the head of the Central Bar Association [of Ryazan], K., received a notification in the name of [the applicant’s lawyer Yud.] informing [the latter] that [the applicant] had started reading the case file and that he was also invited to appear on 19 May 2006 at the Ryazan IZ-62/1 remand prison to [study the case file]. According to the record of the studying of the case file and statements made by [the applicant] and [his lawyer], they met in the remand prison on several occasions after 18 May 2006, yet did not discuss when they would jointly study the case file. It appears from the foregoing that until 31 May 2006 [applicant’s lawyer Yud.] deliberately did not appear to study the case file, to give himself an opportunity to use this situation before the court. The requirements of Article 109 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were therefore complied with...” 24. On 16 August 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above decision on appeal. 25. On 18 September 2006, and 18 January, 21 May and 11 September 2007, the Ryazan Regional Court further extended the applicant’s detention until he and his lawyer had completed their reading of the case file, but not beyond 24 January, 24 May and 24 September 2007, and 24 January 2008 respectively. All the decisions were worded similarly to the decision of 23 June 2006. 26. On 31 October 2006 and 14 March, 17 July and 24 October 2007 respectively, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above decisions on appeal. 27. Following the request by the investigator, on 31 October 2007 the Ryazan Sovetskiy District Court limited until 21 December 2007 the time for the applicant and his lawyer to study the case file. 28. On 27 December 2007 the investigator took a decision that the reading of the case file by the applicant and his lawyer should be terminated. 29. On 17 January 2008 the applicant and his lawyer signed the record to the effect that they had completed their reading of the case file. 30. On 18 January 2008, however, the Ryazan Regional Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 24 April 2008, with reference to Article 109 § 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court had regard to the fact that the applicant’s lawyer had submitted a request (the nature of the request was not specified in the relevant court decision) which had not yet been processed, that other co-defendants had not finished reading the case file, and also to the gravity and the nature of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding or otherwise interfering with the course of the proceedings. 31. On 8 April 2008 the criminal case against the applicant and fifteen others was transferred to the Ryazan Regional Court for trial. 32. At the preliminary hearing on 23 April 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court extended the applicant’s and nine other co-defendants’ detention during judicial proceedings until 8 October 2008. In so far as it concerned the applicant, the decision read as follows: “... [The applicant] was arrested on 28 December 2004. His detention has been repeatedly extended in accordance with the criminal procedural law, the last time until 24 April 2008, for a total of three years, three months and twenty-eight days. ... Pursuant to Article 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a preventive measure can be lifted or changed if it is no longer necessary or if the grounds for its application have changed. It follows from the material examined by the court that the factual circumstances which had served as the ground for the court decisions to apply a custodial measure to the defendants and its subsequent extension have not changed and remain... sufficient, from the point of view of the principle of reasonableness, to maintain the [above] preventive measure. No convincing arguments were put forward by the defence as to the existence of any new factual or legal grounds for altering the preventive measure. The circumstances pointed out by the defendants and their counsel such as [the defendants’] positive references, their family situation, [the existence of] permanent residence, [their] state of health and the necessity to support their families, do not preclude a risk of them absconding from justice or otherwise obstructing the proceedings in the case, since the defendants are charged with particularly grave crimes, including banditry. ... The [above] circumstances are not favourable for replacing the [custodial] measure with [a more lenient one]. Notwithstanding the overall length of the defendants’ detention, the existing risk of their absconding is a sufficient ground for limiting their [right to] liberty of person. Furthermore, the extension of detention in respect of defendants charged with banditry is justified by the necessity to protect the rights and interests of victims and witnesses, as well as the public interest, which, in spite of the presumption of innocence, outweighs the respect for individual liberty. ...” 33. On 17 June 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above decision on appeal. 34. In the meantime, on 7 June 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court had scheduled the opening date of the trial and maintained the preventive measures applied to the applicant and his co-defendants. 35. On 24 September 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court extended the applicant’s and nine other co-defendants’ detention for three months, until 8 January 2009. It found as follows: “... [The defendants] have been charged with banditry and involvement in criminal community, - criminal offences directed against public safety and public order. [The applicant and four other co-defendants] have also been charged with aggravated murders. The crimes charged against the defendants belong to a category of grave and particularly grave crimes the punishment for which not only exceeds two years’ imprisonment, but also exceeds the time the defendants had spent in custody so far. According to the information contained in the case file regarding the [defendants’] personalities: - [the applicant and seven others], who have families and children, were not working for a long time before their arrests; ... It also follows from the submissions by the prosecution that: [Prosecution witness Yezh.] submitted to the court that pressure had been exerted on him by the defendants in respect of whom the custodial measure had been applied with the purpose of forcing him to make false statements about them. [Defendant S.] who admitted his guilt [...] but who had not yet been questioned by the court on the merits of the charges, asked the court to take safety measures in his respect until he had been questioned, fearing [intimidation] by [the defendants in detention]. ... Safety measures had been taken in respect of a number of witnesses who [also] feared for their safety. Some of them... were questioned by the court anonymously and in conditions in which they could not be seen by others present during the proceedings. [Separate proceedings were instituted against several other suspects who are being searched for.] ... The breaches of court orders committed by the defendants during the questioning of prosecution witnesses show that they were attempting to influence witnesses even in court. Of 500 [prosecution witnesses] the court has questioned only thirty-two. Therefore, it has been established that the court had not questioned the majority of the witnesses and victims; [that] there are grounds to be concerned about [the risk of] unlawful influence over them by the defendants; [that] there are witnesses and one of the defendants who fear such influence; [that] the defendants have actual opportunity to exert such influence even while they are in custody; [and that] there are witnesses who have already been intimidated [by the defendants]. Analysis of the above information gives grounds to believe that, if released, the defendants not only may abscond and maintain their criminal activity, but also influence victims and witnesses who have not yet been questioned by the court, thereby obstructing the administration of justice. The defence has not put forward any circumstances preventing the defendants from being detained in custody; nor can any such circumstances be seen from the case file. The defence has also not put forward a valid argument regarding the existence of new factual or legal grounds for altering the custodial measure. The circumstances mentioned by the defence... such as [the defendants’] positive references, their [family situation] and [existence of permanent residence]... cannot be viewed by the court as preferential and sufficient grounds for altering the custodial measure. Besides, the existence of these circumstances as such does not exclude the possibility that the defendants will abscond or otherwise obstruct the proceedings in the case, since they are charged with particularly serious crimes, including banditry, punishable with imprisonment. When examining parties’ requests concerning custodial measures the court takes into consideration: the gravity and the nature of the charges against the defendants; the reasonableness of the suspicion justifying the placement of each defendant in custody; the time each of the defendants had already spent in custody; personal data in respect of each of the defendants; [and] the possibility of applying a more lenient preventive measure. The [defendants’] detention had been ordered and repeatedly extended in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure. Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the possibility of extending detention during criminal proceedings beyond six months in cases concerning serious or particularly serious criminal offences, each time for no longer than three months. It follows from the case-file material that the factual circumstances which [were taken into consideration by the courts] when [applying and extending] the custodial measure had not only remained unchanged, but had been expanded by new and substantial circumstances, which, taken together, are evaluated by the court as sufficient... grounds for maintaining the custodial measure. The risk existing at the current stage of the proceedings of the defendants’ absconding is a sufficient ground for [further] deprivation of [their] liberty, notwithstanding the lengthy term of their pre-trial detention. Besides, the extension of detention in respect of those charged with banditry is justified by the necessity to protect the rights and interests of victims and witnesses, as well as [the necessity to protect] the public interest, which, in spite of [the defendants’] presumption of innocence, outweighs respect for individual liberty. ...” 36. On 21 November 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above decision on appeal. 37. On 22 December 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court extended the applicant’s and nine other co-defendants’ detention for three months, until 8 April 2009 inclusive. The court applied the same reasoning as in its extension order of 24 September 2008. In addition, the court took into account that the members of the criminal group of which the applicant was allegedly a member helped each other whenever criminal proceedings were instituted against either of them, so that the member would escape punishment or receive a less severe one. The court specifically referred to two examples of such behaviour by members of the criminal group in question. 38. On 24 February 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above decision on appeal. 39. On 23 March, 15 June and 24 September 2009 the Ryazan Regional Court extended the applicant’s and nine other co-defendants’ detention each time for three months, until 8 July and 8 October 2009 and 8 January 2010 respectively. The court adopted the same reasoning as in its previous extension orders and addressed new arguments raised by some of the defendants (not the applicant). 40. On 27 April, 30 July and 3 November 2009 respectively the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above extension orders on appeal. 41. On 21 December 2009 the Ryazan Regional Court extended the applicant’s and his nine co-defendants’ detention during judicial proceedings for an additional three months, until 8 April 2010. The court added to its previous reasoning the fact that during the trial some of the witnesses and the victims had changed their statements in so far as they concerned the applicant and two other co-defendants. The court further referred to the large volume of case material and evidence, involving multiple episodes and numerous participants. 42. On 24 March, 30 June, 23 September and 20 December 2010 the Ryazan Regional Court further extended the applicant’s and his nine co‑defendants’ detention during judicial proceedings, each time for three months, until 8 July and 8 October 2010 and 8 January and 8 April 2011 respectively. The court applied the same line of reasoning as in its previous extension orders. The extension order of 30 June 2010 further addressed the defendants’ argument that the length of their detention during judicial proceedings was excessive: “The defendant’s argument, that their detention during judicial proceedings has been excessively long, is disproved by the trial itself. The multi-episode criminal case with a large number of participants has been being examined [by the court] on the merits since 30 July 2008; hearings are only adjourned at the request of the defence or when defence counsel are unable to attend; there are no unjustified interruptions in the proceedings. The court has repeatedly applied ... measures to all the defendants detained during judicial proceedings... for breaches of court orders and [manifest actions aimed at] delaying the proceedings. The legal and factual complexity of the case, the conduct of the defendants... and the organisational measures being taken by the court show [that the trial is being carried out in compliance with the reasonable time requirement].” 43. On 28 March 2011 the Ryazan Regional Court convicted the applicant of banditry, aggravated murder, robbery, extortion, fraud and pressurising others to complete deals, and sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment. The judgment ran to 335 pages. 44. On 19 October 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above judgment on appeal.

4. The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Pavlovych Voytenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and resides in the village of Nova Vodolaga, in the Kharkiv Region, Ukraine. 5. In September 1999, the applicant retired from the army. Upon retirement, the applicant was entitled to compensation for his uniform and to reimbursement of his travel expenses. As this compensation remained unpaid for three months, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Donetsk Garrison Military Court against the Donetsk Regional Military Registration Department (Донецкий Областной Военный Комиссариат), seeking recovery of the debt. 6. On 12 January 2000, the court found for the applicant (Решение Военного суда Донецкого гарнизона) and awarded him UAH 2,576.72[1] for the uniform and UAH 128.77[2] for travel expenses. The court decision was not appealed and therefore came into force on 22 January 2000. The execution writs were sent to the Voroshylovsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Donetsk (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Ворошиловского районного управления юстиции Донецкой области) and the enforcement proceedings started on 16 March 2000. 7. The debtor was given time to execute the judgment voluntarily, until 23 March 2000. After the debtor had failed to execute the judgment, the Bailiffs’ Service sent the execution writs and payment orders to the Donetsk Regional Treasury Department to withdraw the amount of the award from the debtor’s account, which revealed a lack of funds for such payments. 8. On 10 April 2000, the payment order and execution writ were returned to the Bailiffs’ Service without execution due to the debtor’s lack of funds. 9. On 17 May 2000, the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s favour were joined to other enforcement proceedings against the debtor. 10. On 24 October 2000, the debtor transferred to the Bailiffs’ Service the amount of UAH 128.77 (the reimbursement of the travel expenses) to be paid to the applicant. However, this sum was only transferred to the applicant on 20 July 2001 (4 October 2001 according to the applicant). The delay, according to the Government, was caused by a lack of information about the applicant’s banking details. 11. On 7 November 2000 and 20 July 2001, the execution writ and the payment order for the remaining amount (the compensation for the uniform) were twice re-sent to the Treasury Department. They were returned without enforcement on the same grounds as before – a lack of funds on the designated account. 12. On 9 September 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service checked and attached the debtor’s accounts. The Bailiffs also checked and found that the debtor had no vehicles or real estate in its possession. 13. On 22 February and 6 August 2002 the execution writ for the remaining amount and the payment order were twice re-sent to the Treasury Department. They were returned without enforcement on the same grounds. The Treasury Department also noted that the payment order had expired on 6 September 2002. 14. In response to the applicant’s inquiry, he was informed by the Bailiffs’ Service in August 2002 that the debtor’s accounts had been frozen and that the execution of his judgment would take place as soon as State budgetary money could be transferred to it. 15. On 25 November 2002, joint enforcement proceedings against the debtor, including the applicant’s judgment, were initiated by the Bailiffs’ Service for a total amount of UAH 32,680.80[3]. 16. On 16 December 2002, the Bailiffs’ Service attached the debtor’s account in the “Aval” Bank. 17. On 5 May 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service also ordered an attachment of the debtor’s funds which had accumulated in 26 accounts. 18. On 10 January 2004, the judgment given in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full. 19. On 12 January 2004, the amount awarded was transferred to the applicant’s bank account.

16. The applicants are a married couple, Svetlana Sisojeva (“the first applicant”) and Arkady Sisojev (“the second applicant”), and their daughter, Aksana Sisojeva (“the third applicant”). They were born in 1949, 1946 and 1978 respectively. The second and third applicants have Russian nationality, while the first applicant has no nationality. All three live in Alūksne (Latvia). 17. The first two applicants entered Latvian territory in 1969 and 1968 respectively, when the territory formed part of the Soviet Union. The second applicant, who was a member of the Soviet armed forces at the time, was stationed in Latvia and remained there until he finished his military service in November 1989. The third applicant and her elder sister, Mrs Tatjana Vizule, were born in Latvian territory. 18. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the restoration of Latvian independence in 1991, the applicants, who had previously been Soviet nationals, became stateless. In August 1993 Tatjana married a Latvian national. She is mother to two minor children who have Latvian nationality. 19. In 1993 the first and second applicants applied to the Latvian Ministry of the Interior’s Nationality and Immigration Department (Iekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un imigrācijas departaments – “the Department”) to obtain permanent-resident status and to be entered in the register of residents of the Republic of Latvia (Latvijas Republikas Iedzīvotāju reģistrs). However, on 19 June 1993 the Department issued them with temporary residence permits only. 20. The first and second applicants then lodged an application with the Alūksne District Court of First Instance, requesting it to direct the Department to enter them in the register of residents as permanent residents. In a judgment delivered on 28 October 2003, which was upheld on 8 December 1993 following an appeal on points of law, the court allowed their application. It considered that under the legislation in force the situation of the second applicant, who had left the army before 4 May 1990 – the date on which Latvia had declared its independence – could not be equated with that of a non-Latvian serviceman temporarily present on Latvian soil, who would be entitled to a temporary residence permit only. The Department subsequently entered all the applicants in the register of residents. 21. In the meantime, in January 1992, the first two applicants had each obtained two former Soviet passports and had therefore been able to have their place of residence registered in Izhevsk (Russia) despite already having a registered place of residence in Latvia (pieraksts or dzīvesvietas reģistrācija). The Department only discovered this fact in 1995. 22. In two decisions dated 3 November and 1 December 1995, the Alūksne police decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the applicants for using false identity papers. However, the Department imposed an administrative penalty of 25 lati (LVL) (approximately 40 euros (EUR)) on them for breach of the passport regulations. The Department also applied to the Alūksne District Court of First Instance to have the proceedings reopened to consider new facts, alleging fraudulent behaviour on the part of the first two applicants. The Department also noted that the third applicant had followed the example of her parents and sister in 1995, obtaining two passports and having her place of residence registered in both Russia and Latvia. 23. By an order of 28 May 1996, the Alūksne District Court of First Instance, ruling on the application for the proceedings to be reopened, allowed the Department’s application, quashed its own judgment of 28 October 1993 and ordered the removal of the applicants’ names from the register of residents. The first two applicants appealed to the Vidzeme Regional Court which, by an order of 3 June 1997, quashed the decision in question and referred the case back to the Alūksne Court of First Instance. 24. In 1996 the second and third applicants applied for and obtained Russian nationality. On 8 August 1996 the Russian embassy in Latvia issued them with Russian Federation passports. In March 1998 the third applicant, by now an adult, was joined as a party to the proceedings before the Alūksne Court of First Instance. 25. By a letter of 15 May 1998, the Tripartite Joint Committee for the implementation of the agreement between the governments of Latvia and the Russian Federation on the social welfare of retired military personnel of the Russian Federation and their family members residing on the territory of the Republic of Latvia (“the Russian-Latvian agreement” – see paragraph 53 below) requested the Ministry of the Interior’s Nationality and Migration Directorate (Iekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvalde – “the Directorate”), which had replaced the Department, to issue the applicants with permanent residence permits, on the ground that they had the right to remain in Latvia under the above agreement. In a second letter sent the same day, the Committee informed the Alūksne Court of First Instance that the first applicant had neither Russian nor any other nationality. 26. In July 1998 the applicants submitted a further request to the Court of First Instance. In a joint memorial they argued that, as the second and third applicants had Russian nationality, they had the right to obtain permanent residence permits under the Russian-Latvian agreement. The first applicant, who had no nationality, contended that she was entitled to the status of a “permanently resident non‑citizen (nepilsonis)” under the Law on the status of former USSR citizens without Latvian or other citizenship (“the Non-Citizens Act” – see paragraph 47 below). 27. In court, the applicants made no attempt to deny the actions of which they had been accused by the Department and the Directorate, but maintained that those actions had been in breach only of Russian law and therefore had no effect on their rights in Latvia. 28. In a judgment of 28 July 1998, the Alūksne District Court of First Instance allowed the applicants’ request. It noted that the applicants’ place of residence had been legally registered in Alūksne since 1970 and that they had lived there from then onwards. In the court’s view, since the procuring of second passports by the applicants and their registration in Russia were illegal and void acts, they had no impact on the applicants’ legal status in Latvia. The court also noted that the second applicant was on the list of former members of the Russian armed forces in receipt of a Russian military pension and entitled to remain in Latvia. That list had been drawn up jointly by the two governments in accordance with the Russian-Latvian agreement. Consequently, the court held that the first applicant was entitled to apply for a passport as a “permanently resident non-citizen” and that the second and third applicants were entitled to obtain permanent residence permits. 29. The Directorate appealed against that judgment to the Vidzeme Regional Court. In a judgment of 15 June 1999, the Regional Court dismissed the appeal, endorsing the findings and reasoning of the first‑instance court. 30. The Directorate then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Senate of the Supreme Court. In a judgment of 15 September 1999, the Senate quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and declared it null and void. The Senate found that secretly obtaining two passports and registering places of residence in two different countries, failing to disclose the second passports, and supplying false information to the authorities when applying for regularisation constituted serious breaches of Latvian immigration law. The Senate also referred to section 1(3), sub-paragraph 5, of the Non‑Citizens Act, which stated that the status of “permanently resident non‑citizen” could not be granted to persons who, on 1 July 1992, had their permanent place of residence registered in a member State of the Commonwealth of Independent States (of which Russia is a member). The Senate considered that the provision in question was fully applicable to the applicants’ case. 31. The Senate also noted that the judgment of the Alūksne Court of First Instance of 28 October 1993 had been subsequently set aside when the proceedings were reopened, thereby depriving the entry of the applicants in the register of residents of any legal basis. It concluded that the second and third applicants, since they did not satisfy the requirements of the Law on aliens and stateless persons (entry and residence) (“the Aliens Act” – see paragraph 50 below), were also not entitled to obtain permanent residence permits. Consequently, the Senate set aside the judgment of 15 June 1999 and referred the case back to the appellate court. 32. For procedural reasons, the case was transferred to the Latgale Regional Court which, in a judgment of 10 January 2000, rejected the applicants’ application, reaffirming the reasons given by the Senate. Unlike the Tripartite Joint Committee, the Regional Court considered that the first applicant had Russian nationality under the Russian Federation’s Nationality Act. With regard to the second applicant, it considered that the fact that an individual was on the list of retired army personnel merely attested to the fact that the person concerned actually resided in Latvia and was in receipt of a Russian military pension; it did not in any sense confer entitlement to a residence permit. 33. In a judgment of 12 April 2000, the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law, endorsing in substance the arguments of the Regional Court. 34. In two letters dated 17 May and 26 June 2000, the Directorate reminded the applicants that they were required to leave Latvia. 35. On the morning of 6 March 2002, the first applicant, Svetlana Sisojeva, was summoned to the regional headquarters of the security police (Drošības policija). An officer of the security police asked her a number of questions, some of them relating to her application to the Court and to an interview she had given to journalists from a Russian television channel on the subject. In particular, the police asked the first applicant how the Russian journalists had made contact with her, how she had heard about the possibility of lodging an individual application with the Court, how she had found lawyers to represent her before the Court, and how she had known that certain persons had bribed Directorate officials in order to obtain Latvian residence permits. In addition, the police officer asked her several questions about her professional career and about the members of her family. 36. The dialogue between the first applicant and the police officer, as reconstructed by the applicant and sent to her lawyers on 4 April 2002, ran as follows: “Police officer: How did the television channel ORT find you? Applicant: We had had telephone calls in November [and] December. At the time, we had refused to meet them, but journalists are bloodhounds, they always get what they want. Police officer: And then? Applicant: They telephoned from Riga and said they wanted to meet us and talk to us. I agreed. They wanted to talk to several [people] who had brought cases before the courts. Police officer: When did they phone? Applicant: It was a Saturday night, about 10 p.m. They came round on the Sunday, at about 3.30 p.m. If you want to come round [too], you’re welcome. Our door is always open. Police officer: You said that you’d taken the case all the way to the European Court, didn’t you? Applicant: Yes, I did. There were fourteen sets of proceedings; we fought and fought [again], and eventually we turned to the European Court, because of the people in charge in the [Directorate]. They saw it as a game to get us deported from the country, while we wanted to prove that we were in the right. [Their] attitude towards us was based on prejudice: we hadn’t broken any laws in Latvia. Police officer: How and where did you find out that you could apply to the European Court? Applicant: The issue of our regularisation was discussed several times by the Tripartite Joint Committee. We had approached the Human Rights Committee. We had lawyers. The representatives of the Ministry of the Interior and the [Directorate] had told us at the last meeting that they had no objections to raise or accusations to make as far as we were concerned, and that everything would be fine. Unfortunately, they haven’t kept their promises so far. The Committee advised us to lodge an application with the European Court about the length of the proceedings if the case wasn’t resolved. Police officer: And how did you find those lawyers? Applicant: With the help of the lawyers in the social welfare office we were registered with. Police officer: Perhaps your lawyers threatened you, saying that if you didn’t give information to ORT they would stop working with you? Applicant: That’s nonsense. They told us not to give information to anyone without their consent, not even to ORT... Police officer: You said that over forty people had lodged applications? Applicant: Yes, I did. Actually, there are even more people involved: I meant that there were forty families. We’ve all been through the courts: some of us once, some twice, and some even three times. A lot of people solved the problem by paying backhanders. Police officer: How do you know that? Applicant: We were all in the same boat and we helped one another. We used to say to one another that if someone had money, it was better for him to pay, to avoid a trial. [The first applicant then gave the example of two families whose status had been regularised after they had bribed Directorate officials; she named one of the officials concerned.] Police officer: And why did you not come to us? Applicant: We didn’t know you could help us. Police officer: How did you come by the information that forty people had lodged applications? Applicant: Actually, the figure is higher. We’ve all had a lot of problems. [The applicant dwelt in detail on five specific cases concerning the regularisation of persons in a similar situation to her own.] Police officer: What does your husband think about the case? Applicant: He supports [me]: what would you do? [The police officer then asked the applicant a series of questions about her education, her work, her husband’s work and the family’s financial situation.] Police officer: Once more, how did you find out that you could take your case to the European Court? Applicant: We read the papers, we watch television; the cases of Podkolzina, Kulakova, Slivenko and several other families were reported in the media. We approached the Human Rights Committee, who gave us advice and even offered to [help us] find a lawyer. Strange, isn’t it? It was very hard for us, having to bring a case against Latvia before the European Court, but all the avenues open to us to try and resolve the problem in Latvia had been exhausted. It’s the fault of the [Directorate and its officials], who flout the law and force people to leave Latvia. They’re the ones who bring shame on Latvia. We haven’t broken any law. Police officer: When is the case going to be examined? Applicant: We don’t know. Police officer: What documents have you sent them? Applicant: The courts’ decisions.” 37. The Government contested the accuracy of this record, particularly in view of the length of time that had elapsed between the interview itself and the drafting of the document. The first applicant conceded that the document was probably less than perfect, given that it had been drafted from memory almost a month after the fact; she acknowledged that several other questions (which she could not recall) might have been asked during the interview. However, she contended that her record reflected with sufficient accuracy the content and tone of the interview. 38. On 11 November 2003 the Head of the Directorate sent a letter to each of the applicants explaining the procedure to be followed in order to regularise their stay in Latvia. The relevant passages of the letter sent to the first applicant (Svetlana Sisojeva) read as follows: “... The [Directorate] ... would remind you that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, no order has hitherto been made for your deportation, and that it is open to you to regularise your stay in the Republic of Latvia in accordance with the [country’s] legislation. Under sections 1 and 2 of the Status of Stateless Persons Act, persons who are not considered to be nationals of any State under the laws of that State ... and who are legally resident in Latvia, may obtain stateless-person status. You satisfy the above requirements ... In view of the above, the Directorate is prepared to regularise your stay in Latvia by entering your name in the register of residents as a stateless person [resident] in Latvia and by issuing you with an identity document on that basis. In order to complete the necessary formalities, you will need to go in person to the Alūksne district office of the Directorate, bringing with you your identity papers, your birth certificate and two photographs ...” 39. The letters sent to the other two applicants were similar in content. The letter to the second applicant (Arkady Sisojev) stated in particular: “... If your wife, Mrs Svetlana Sisojeva, avails herself of the opportunity to regularise her stay in the Republic of Latvia in accordance with the provisions in force, you will be entitled, under the Immigration Act, to obtain a residence permit. The Directorate is not aware of any reason which would prevent you from applying for and obtaining a residence permit in Latvia. Under the terms of section 32 of the Immigration Act, only aliens residing in Latvia on the basis of a residence permit may apply to the Directorate for a residence permit ... In other cases, and where such a move accords with international human rights provisions and the interests of the Latvian State, or on humanitarian grounds, the Head of the Directorate may authorise the person concerned to submit the relevant papers to the Directorate in order to apply for a residence permit. As no order has hitherto been made for your deportation, you may submit the relevant papers ... to the Alūksne district office of the Directorate ... ... In view of the above, the Directorate is prepared to issue you with a residence permit at your wife’s place of residence, in accordance with section 26 of the Immigration Act, on condition that S. Sisojeva completes the necessary formalities in order to regularise her stay in Latvia as a stateless person, and that she responds to the invitation from the Alūksne office of the Directorate ...” 40. Lastly, the letter to the third applicant (Aksana Sisojeva) contained the following passages: “ ... If your mother, Mrs Svetlana Sisojeva, avails herself of the opportunity offered to her and, after completing the necessary formalities, regularises her stay in the Republic of Latvia in accordance with the provisions in force, you will be entitled, under the Immigration Act, to obtain a residence permit. The Directorate is not aware of any reason which would prevent you from applying for and obtaining a residence permit in Latvia. ... The Directorate would further inform you that, in accordance with section 23(3) of the Immigration Act, in cases not provided for by the Act, a temporary residence permit may be issued by the Minister of the Interior, where such a move is in accordance with the provisions of international law. Consequently, you are also entitled to apply to the Minister of the Interior for a residence permit valid for a period longer than that specified in section 23(1), sub-paragraph 1, of the Immigration Act. Furthermore, after a period of residence of ten years on the basis of a temporary residence permit, you may apply for a permanent residence permit in accordance with section 24(1), sub-paragraph 7, of the Immigration Act ...” 41. In addition, a letter containing the above information concerning the three applicants was sent to the Government’s Agent. On the same date, 11 November 2003, the Head of the Directorate signed three decisions formally regularising the applicants’ status in Latvia. More specifically, he ordered that the first applicant be entered in the register of residents as a “stateless person”, that she be issued with an identity document valid for two years, and that the second and third applicants be issued with temporary residence permits valid for one year and six months respectively. However, regularisation of the status of the second and third applicants was contingent upon that of the first applicant. In other words, in order for Arkady Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva to obtain residence permits, Svetlana Sisojeva first had to submit the relevant documents to the Directorate. None of the applicants complied with the instructions outlined above in order to obtain residence permits. 42. By Decree no. 15 of 22 March 2005, the Cabinet of Ministers (Ministru kabinets) instructed the Minister of the Interior to issue Arkady Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva with five-year temporary residence permits, “in accordance with section 23(3) of the Immigration Act”. In a letter sent on the same day, the Government informed the Court of the measure, pointing out that, after the five years had elapsed, the two applicants in question could obtain permanent residence permits 43. On 15 November 2005 the applicants applied to the Directorate to have their stay regularised on the basis they had requested initially, that is, for the first applicant to be granted the status of “permanently resident non‑citizen” and for the other two applicants to be issued with permanent residence permits. The Directorate replied on the following day, 16 November 2005. After outlining the background to the case before the domestic courts and in Strasbourg, the Directorate went on: “ ... On 11 December 2003 you stated that you would not consider the Directorate’s proposals until after the European Court of Human Rights had delivered its judgment. In accordance with ... the Status of Stateless Persons Act ... in force at the time, an order was given for Svetlana Sisojeva to be issued with an identity document for stateless persons, and she was told that the authorities were willing to grant her stateless-person status. It was [therefore] open to Mrs Sisojeva to take advantage of that option, but she failed to do so. However, in accordance with the principle of respect for personal rights and the principle of legitimate expectation, the Directorate has not set aside its decision of 11 November 2003 in respect of Svetlana Sisojeva. Consequently, it remains open to her to regularise her stay in Latvia under section 6(1) of the Stateless Persons Act and paragraph 2 of its transitional provisions. Since Svetlana Sisojeva’s entitlement to stateless-person status ... was recognised before the entry into force of that Act, were she to obtain an identity document for stateless persons she would also be issued with a permanent residence permit ... As for Arkady Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva, they would be entitled, on the same basis, to obtain temporary residence permits. ... The Directorate would further point out that, on 22 March 2005, the Cabinet of Ministers ... instructed the Minister of the Interior to issue Arkady Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva with five-year temporary residence permits, under section 23(3) of the Immigration Act. In view of the above, the Directorate would remind you of the possibility of regularising your stay in the Republic of Latvia, on the following basis: Svetlana Sisojeva may obtain stateless-person status and be issued with a permanent residence permit; Arkady Sisojev and Aksana Sisojeva, meanwhile, may apply for and obtain temporary residence permits, in accordance with section 23(3) of the Immigration Act. ...” The remainder of the letter explained in detail to each of the applicants the procedure to be followed and the documents to be submitted in order to have their stay regularised, and the tax rates which applied for that purpose. The applicants did not take the steps indicated by the Directorate. 44. On 2 and 3 November 2005, the relevant official of the border police questioned the applicants, asking them why they had not regularised their stay. Following that conversation, the Commander of the border police requested details from the Head of the Directorate concerning the applicants’ precise status in Latvia. By a letter of 22 November 2005, the latter explained that, since 2000, there had been sufficient legal basis for issuing orders for the applicants’ deportation, but that no such orders had been issued on the grounds of proportionality and in view of the proceedings pending before the European Court of Human Rights. By a letter of 16 December 2005, the Directorate reminded the applicants once more that they had the possibility of regularising their stay. No reply was forthcoming. 45. As matters stand, the applicants are resident in Latvia without valid residence permits. According to the information supplied by the applicants, which has not been disputed by the Government, Svetlana Sisojeva has been unemployed since 1992. Arkady Sisojev works as a technician in a municipal communal heating plant in Alūksne; despite being cautioned repeatedly by the authorities, his employer has consistently refused to dismiss him on the sole ground that he is illegally resident in Latvia. Aksana Sisojeva, meanwhile, obtained a law degree from the Baltic Russian Institute (Baltijas Krievu institūts) in July 2004. The applicants contend that, owing to her irregular status, she has to date been unable to find work.

9. The first applicant, Mr Daruish Auni Al-Nashif, a stateless person of Palestinian origin, was born in 1967 in Kuwait. He resided in Bulgaria between September 1992 and July 1999, when he was deported. He now lives in Syria. The second and third applicants, Abrar and Auni Al-Nashif, are the first applicant's children. They were born in Bulgaria in 1993 and 1994 respectively. They are of Bulgarian nationality and lived in the town of Smolyan, Bulgaria, with their mother, Mrs Hetam Ahmed Rashid Saleh, apparently also a stateless person, until June 2000. Thereafter, Mrs Saleh and the second and third applicants left Bulgaria and settled in Jordan. 10. The first applicant describes his personal circumstances as follows. His father, who died in 1986 in Kuwait, was a stateless person of Palestinian origin. His mother is a Syrian citizen. Despite the fact that he was born in Kuwait and that his mother is a Syrian citizen, the first applicant cannot acquire Kuwaiti or Syrian nationality because in both countries only offspring of male nationals of those States may obtain citizenship. 11. The first applicant lived in Kuwait until the age of 25. He attended high school there and obtained a degree in electronics. In 1992 he married Mrs Hetam Saleh. The parties have not stated the nationality of Mrs Saleh, whose parents live in Jordan. It appears undisputed, however, that the second and third applicants, her children, became Bulgarian nationals pursuant to a provision which confers Bulgarian citizenship on children born in Bulgaria to stateless parents. 12. Mr Al-Nashif has two sisters who live in Syria. His mother also lives in Syria, in the city of Hama. He also has a brother who lived in Kuwait at least until 1994 and has resided in Bulgaria, where he married a Bulgarian national, since 1998. 13. The first applicant submits that after the Gulf War many Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait as Palestinian leaders had supported the Iraqi invasion in 1990. He left Kuwait with his wife, Mrs Saleh, on 16 August 1992 and travelled to Syria and then, on 20 September 1992, to Bulgaria. The first applicant submits that he was in search of a country in which to settle. He could not stay in Syria as he was unable to provide for his family there. The choice of Bulgaria was made because of the existing job opportunities, the relatively easy procedure for obtaining legal status, and the fact that the family had friends of Palestinian origin living there. 14. Mr Al-Nashif and Mrs Saleh arrived in Bulgaria on 20 September 1992. The first applicant was in possession of a Syrian stateless person's identity document, valid until 1993, which he later renewed at the Syrian Embassy in Sofia. In an application form for a residence permit he indicated Hama, Syria, as his place of residence. 15. On an unspecified date shortly after his arrival the first applicant obtained a temporary residence permit. Mr Al-Nashif, together with other persons, ran a beverages production business. He and his wife initially resided in Sofia, where the second and the third applicants were born in 1993 and 1994. In February 1995 the first applicant obtained a permanent residence permit. 16. In February 1995 the first applicant contracted a Muslim religious marriage with a Ms M., a Bulgarian citizen. Under Bulgarian law that marriage has no legal effect. Ms M. lived in Sofia with her mother. During an unspecified period of time Mr Al-Nashif supported them financially. It is undisputed that after the religious marriage with Ms M. the first applicant continued living with Mrs Saleh and their children in Sofia. 17. At the end of 1995 he and Mrs Saleh, together with their children, moved to Smolyan, a town of about 34,000 inhabitants in Southern Bulgaria, some 300 km away from Sofia. There the first applicant ran a butcher's shop and beverages production unit until his deportation in July 1999. Between November 1998 and April 1999 he also taught Islamic classes. 18. At the beginning of 1996 Ms M. followed the first applicant to Smolyan, where she stayed several months in an apartment rented by him. She often joined Mr Al-Nashif during his business trips to towns in Bulgaria. The first applicant stated that while in Smolyan he had continued living “on a permanent basis” with his wife Hetam Saleh and their two children, the second and the third applicants. He submitted copies of two affidavits, made in June 2000 by his wife, Mrs Saleh, and by his sister-in-law, the wife of his brother, who had resided in Bulgaria since 1998, both confirming that Mr Al-Nashif lived in Smolyan with Mrs Saleh. In a statement made on 19 January 2001 at the request of the Government for the purposes of the hearing in the present case, Ms M. stated that the first applicant had lived with her in Smolyan. 19. Ms M. apparently suffered from a mental disturbance. In December 1996 she was hospitalised in a psychiatric clinic. Thereafter she did not return to Smolyan and stayed in Sofia. 20. Throughout 1997 the first applicant visited Ms M. in Sofia. Their relationship ended in early 1998. 21. On 14 January 1999 a police officer in Smolyan reported to his superiors (see paragraph 63 below) on Mr Al-Nashif's religious activities. On an unspecified date in 1999 the Regional Prosecutor's Office (окръжна прокуратура) in Smolyan opened file no. 18/99 which was later transmitted to the police. The local police in Smolyan, by a report of 18 March 1999 to the Identity Papers and Passport Regime Department (Направление “Документи за самоличност и паспортен режим”) of the National Police Directorate at the Ministry of the Interior (“the Passport Department”), proposed that the first applicant's residence permit be revoked. 22. On 19 April 1999 the Passport Department issued an order (“Order no. 63552”) revoking the first applicant's permanent residence permit. The order stated that it was based on Section 40 (1)(2) and Section 10 (1)(1) of the Aliens Act (Закон за чужденците), which provide for the revocation of the residence permit of a foreigner who poses a threat to “the security or the interests of the Bulgarian State” (see paragraph 68 below). No further details were mentioned. The order was transmitted to the Smolyan police with the instruction to inform the first applicant and to allow him 15 days to leave the country. Order no. 63552 was served on the first applicant on 27 April 1999. He was not given any additional information. 23. On 30 April 1999 two national newspapers, Duma and Monitor, published articles explaining that the first applicant did not have permission to teach the Muslim religion, that he had taken part in an unauthorised religious seminar in 1997 and that he was linked to “Muslim Brothers”, a fundamentalist organisation. 24. In May and June 1999 the local Muslim religious leader in Smolyan and the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims filed with the Ministry of the Interior and with other institutions letters supporting the first applicant. They confirmed that Mr Al-Nashif had been teaching with their authorisation, and in full conformity with Article 21 § 5 of the Statute of the Muslim religious denomination, which in turn had been approved by the Council of Ministers. The Chief Mufti also stated that the police in Smolyan had made defamatory statements to the press, falsely portraying Mr Al‑Nashif as a dangerous terrorist connected with a fundamentalist organisation. The local Muslim religious leader in Smolyan stated, inter alia, that the measures against Mr Al-Nashif constituted “a demonstration of, and incitement to, anti-Islamic and xenophobic tendencies”. 25. In May 1999 the first applicant requested and obtained a certificate that he had never been convicted of a criminal offence. He needed the certificate in order to apply for Bulgarian citizenship. 26. On 9 June 1999 the National Police Directorate issued Orders nos. 503 and 504 for the first applicant's deportation, his detention and his exclusion from Bulgarian territory. 27. Order no. 504 provided that the first applicant was to be deported based on Section 42 of the Aliens Act. It was further ordered that, in accordance with Section 44 (4) of the Aliens Act, the first applicant was to be placed at the Adults' Temporary Placement Centre (Дом за временно настаняване на пълнолетни лица) in Sofia. Order no. 504 finally stated that pursuant to Section 47 (1) of the Aliens Act the decision was not subject to appeal. Order no. 503 prohibited the first applicant's re-entry on Bulgarian territory. The two orders did not state any reasons. 28. They were served on the first applicant on 10 June 1999 in Smolyan, at the local police station, in the presence of his lawyer. He was not given further details of the reasons underlying the measures against him. He was immediately arrested and transferred to the detention centre in Sofia. 29. On the same day the Ministry of the Interior issued a press release announcing the orders for the first applicant's deportation and exclusion. It stated, inter alia: “In 1995 Mr Al-Nashif undertook steps ... with a view to opening an Islamic religious study centre. That provoked a significant negative public reaction, reflected in the media, and the interference of the ... State organs prevented the realisation of the project. In 1997 an Islamic study seminar was held in Narechenski Bani with Mr Al‑Nashif's active participation. Those activities of the organisers, including Mr Al Nahsif, were considered unlawful and were therefore terminated by the police. [The organisers and Mr Al-Nashif] were warned that they could not engage in such activities without permission and licence as required by law. In the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999 it became known that Mr Al-Nashif was teaching the Koran to ... minors, organised in groups of 10-15 children, with the financial assistance of the company ...[illegible]. An inquiry was undertaken, which disclosed that Mr Al-Nashif engaged in activities for which he had no permission or qualification. Therefore, and under ... the Aliens Act, his residence permit was withdrawn ... Orders for his deportation and exclusion were issued ... [and] served on 10 June 1999 ... Al-Nashif was transferred to the [detention centre] in Sofia and will be deported...” 30. The conditions at the detention centre, which is located in the proximity of the Sofia airport, were equivalent to prison conditions. Inmates were held permanently behind bars and could leave their cells for a daily one-hour walk and also for the time necessary to use the toilet, every morning and evening. 31. Mr Al-Nashif was detained there for 26 days in complete isolation. Despite numerous requests from his lawyer, human rights groups and representatives of the Muslim community, no visitor was allowed to meet him. 32. Following the first applicant's arrest on 10 June 1999 the competent authorities observed that he was not in possession of a document valid for international travel. On 14 June 1999 the Passport Department wrote to the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry requesting its assistance in obtaining of a laissez-passer from the Syrian Embassy in Sofia. The Syrian Embassy issued that document on 28 June 1999. On 1 July 1999 the Passport Department contacted Balkan Bulgarian Airlines. On 4 July 1999 the first applicant was deported from Bulgaria. He was brought to the airport and put on the first available direct flight to Damascus. 33. His wife, Mrs Saleh, and their children initially remained in Bulgaria. In May 2000 the second applicant, who was then seven years' old, completed first grade in the elementary school in Smolyan. The third applicant, who was six years old at that time, attended preparatory school. 34. As Mrs Saleh had no income in Bulgaria and the first applicant was unable to provide financial support from Syria, on 29 June 2000 Mrs Saleh and the second and third applicants left Bulgaria. They went initially to Syria where they stayed for a month with Mr Al-Nashif. As there was allegedly no room for the family there, Mrs Saleh and the children went to Jordan, to the home of Mrs Saleh's parents. Mr Al-Nashif travelled to Jordan on a one-month visa and on 5 September 2000 returned to Syria as he had allegedly no legal right of remaining in Jordan. 35. On 4 May 1999 counsel for Mr Al-Nashif submitted appeals against Order no. 63552 (the revocation of residence order) to the Supreme Administrative Court (Върховен административен съд) and to the Ministry of the Interior. 36. The latter appeal was rejected on 1 June 1999 by the National Police Directorate at the Ministry of the Interior. The decision stated that in accordance with Section 47 (1) of the Aliens Act an order concerning a matter of national security was not subject to review. 37. The appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court was transmitted by decision of the court to the Ministry of the Interior with instructions to complete the case-file. Thereafter it was transmitted to the Sofia City Court (Софийски градски съд), which was competent to deal with it. 38. On 28 June 1999 the Sofia City Court, sitting in camera, granted Mr Al-Nashif's lawyer's request for a stay of execution. The court noted that orders issued under the Aliens Act were not subject to judicial review if they directly concerned issues of national security. The court found, however, that the evidence submitted to it by the Ministry of the Interior did not support the allegation that the first applicant posed a threat to national security or to the national interests. In these circumstances the court considered that the appeal could not be declared inadmissible at that stage, the holding of a hearing being necessary. Pending such hearing it was appropriate to stay the execution of Order no. 63552 to avoid an infringement of the first applicant's rights. 39. On 30 June 1999 the Passport Department filed an objection with the Sofia City Court against its ruling of 28 June 1999 and submitted “certificate” no. 2701/30.6.99 which stated that Mr Al-Nashif “had committed acts against the national security and the interests of the Republic of Bulgaria, consisting in unlawful religious activity on the territory of the country encroaching on the national interests and the rights of the religious, ethnic and minority groups in the conservation of the national and cultural values and traditions”. 40. On 1 July 1999 the Sofia City Court, sitting in camera, reversed its ruling of 28 June 1999 and rejected the first applicant's appeal against Order no. 63552. The court noted that the Passport Department had certified that Mr Al-Nashif had committed acts against national security. The court also noted that the Passport Department had classified these acts as falling with the scope of Section 10 (1)(1) of the Aliens Act. It followed that Order no. 63552 concerned issues of national security and was not subject to judicial review. 41. Counsel for the first applicant learned about the rejection of Mr Al‑Nashif's appeal on 26 July 1999. On 28 July 1999 she appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. These proceedings ended by judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 4 April 2000, which found that orders issued under Section 40 (1)(2) in conjunction with Section 10 (1)(1) of the Aliens' Act were not subject to appeal and need not be reasoned. They should merely state the legal provision on which they were based. 42. On 17 June 1999 the first applicant's lawyer appealed to the Sofia City Court against his detention. She relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. On an unspecified date the President of the Sofia City Court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible. 43. On 19 June 1999 counsel for the first applicant complained to the competent prosecution authorities against the detention of Mr Al-Nashif and stated that she had been refused access to her client. On 27 July 1999 the competent prosecution authority dismissed the appeal. It found that the police had acted within their powers. 44. On 18 June 1999 counsel for the first applicant appealed to the Sofia City Court against Order no. 504 (the deportation and detention order). Counsel stated, inter alia, that the first applicant's appeal against the revocation of his residence permit (against Order no. 63552) was still pending, that he had never sought to abscond and that he had reported voluntarily to the Smolyan police station when summoned. She again relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and also requested a stay of execution. 45. These proceedings have not resulted in any decision. On 7 September 1999 the Passport Department filed an answer requesting the rejection of the appeal. There has been no hearing in the case. 46. On 11 June 1999 the first applicant's lawyer complained to the Ministry of the Interior, the Chief Public Prosecutor (Главен прокурор) and other institutions. She alleged violations of, inter alia, Article 8 of the Convention and Article 13 of the ICCPR. 47. In August 1997 Mr Al-Nashif took part in a religious seminar in Narechenski Bani. The seminar was attended by several Bulgarian Muslim religious leaders of national and regional level, including the person who in November 1997 was elected to the post of, and then registered by the competent Governmental agency as, Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims. At a certain point during the seminar the police arrived, and took away printed material and videotapes used at the seminar. No relevant criminal proceedings against any participant at the seminar have ever been brought. 48. In November 1998 the first applicant started teaching religious classes. They took place every Saturday and Sunday between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. in the building of the District Muslim Organisation in Smolyan, and were attended by Muslim children and occasionally by their parents. The classes were organised together with the board of the Muslim religious community in Smolyan. On 15 September 1998 the board had invited Mr Al-Nashif to teach a course in the Islamic religion to children and their parents. Its decision stated that the first applicant was suitable for the job as he knew the Bulgarian language and had a good reputation. On 5 November 1998 the District Mufti Office (районно мюфтийство) issued to the first applicant a certificate stating that he was authorised to preach on the territory of the Smolyan district in accordance, inter alia, with the Statute of the Muslim religious denomination in Bulgaria and the decisions of the Supreme Muslim Council (Висш мюсюлмански съвет). The certificate was later confirmed by the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims. 49. The Government asserted that shortly after his arrival in Smolyan in 1995 the first applicant, together with local Muslims, had sought to organise an Islamic study centre, that he had rented a house for that purpose, that his plans had provoked a negative public reaction and that after having established through an inquiry that the requirements of the Religious Denominations Act had not been met, the competent authorities had prevented the realisation of the project. There had been allegedly a danger that the Islamic centre would propagate extremist views. Mr Al-Nashif had been orally warned against engaging in unlawful religious activities. 50. In support of the above statement the Government submitted copies of several newspaper articles and four declarations, one of which was signed by 65 inhabitants of Smolyan protesting against the opening of an Islamic centre in town. The Court notes that the names on the list of those who signed the protest suggest that it was supported exclusively by persons of Bulgarian ethnic origin. 51. The Government have not submitted any information pertaining to the alleged inquiry undertaken by the competent authorities or the requirements of the Religious Denominations Act that had not allegedly been met. 52. The first applicant submitted that he had intended to open a computer training centre, but had abandoned his plans after meeting a hostile reaction from people who considered that the computer centre would be a front for religious courses. (b) Alleged aggressive fundamentalist proselytism 53. The Government alleged that the first applicant had sought to impose fundamentalist Islam on others through the use of force and threats. 54. In support of that allegation the Government submitted two statements by Ms M., the person whom the first applicant had married through a Muslim religious ceremony. The first statement was written by her on 2 September 1996. On that day Mr Al-Nashif had locked her up in her room in a hotel where they had been staying during a trip to Pleven. Ms M. had called the police. She and the first applicant had been brought to the police station where they had submitted written statements and had been released. No charges had been brought against Mr Al-Nashif on that occasion. He submitted that he had locked the door as Ms M. had been in a depressed state and could have hurt herself. 55. In her statement to the police Ms M. wrote that the first applicant had told her that she should believe in Mohamed or burn in Hell, but she had replied that she loved Jesus Christ. The first applicant had also told her to dress as a Muslim woman. She further stated that she had read in the local press about the threat of fundamentalism in Smolyan. She knew that people with “black briefcases full of 100 dollar notes” were entering Bulgaria with the purpose of spreading Islam, brainwashing Bulgarians and waging “Jihad - death to Christians”. She knew that they were using “bombs, guns, sedatives and other inadmissible means in order to smuggle into the country illegal [copies of the] Koran, drugs, and more”. 56. The Government submitted a second written statement by Ms M., which was made on 19 January 2001 and addressed to the Court, for the purposes of these proceedings. That statement repeated Ms M.'s earlier allegations and added that the first applicant had operated with large amounts of cash, had given charity for the building of mosques and religious schools and had distributed food and clothes. He had allegedly made video tapes recording the results of his activities and had sent them to his benefactors “in the Islamic states”. (c) Alleged links with fundamentalist organisations 57. The Government stated (in submissions to the Court and through the “information note” described below) that Mr Al-Nashif had been a representative of the Islamic foundation Tayba, which had allegedly continued the activities of the “banned” foundations Irshad and Al Wakf Al Islami. Further, Mr Al-Nashif had registered several commercial firms in Bulgaria and his partners in these firms had included persons who had been co-ordinators of fundamentalist organisations such as Tayba, Irshad and El‑Manar. Finally, there existed information that Mr Al-Nashif had performed management and co-ordination functions in the “illegitimate” Union of Islamic Organisations, Bulgarian branch. The Government did not provide further details about those organisations. 58. The first applicant replied that he had never been a representative for the Tayba foundation which, in any event, as of 2001, was still functioning lawfully in Bulgaria. It had been registered in Bulgaria in 1995. By Decision no. 325 of 7 July 1998 the Council of Ministers had authorised the foundation to engage in religious activities. The Irshad foundation was not a fundamentalist organisation either. It had been registered in Bulgaria in 1991 and as recently as 2001 the competent court had certified that its registration had not been terminated. The former Chief Mufti, whose election to that post had been registered by the Government in 1997, was a member of its managing board. The El-Manar foundation had indeed been dissolved on 15 February 1996 on the ground that its goals were unlawful. However, its representative had not been among the persons named by the Government as Mr Al‑Nashif's business partners. The applicants submitted copies of certificates issued by the legal persons' register at the competent court. (d) Alleged fundamentalist activities at the Narechenski Bani seminar 59. The Government stated that the seminar had been organised under the auspices of the Irshad foundation, which was allegedly known as one of the disguised creatures of the Muslim Brothers, a fundamentalist organisation. The police had considered the seminar unlawful and dangerous for national security. The printed and video material that had been confiscated had disclosed preaching of “religious and ethnic extremism”. The police had put an end to the seminar. Two of the instructors who had participated had been deported from Bulgaria. Mr Al‑Nashif had allegedly been one of the organisers. He and all other participants had received oral warnings. 60. In support of these allegations the Government submitted copies of newspaper articles. 61. The applicants submitted a declaration by the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims, dated 1 August 2000, apparently prepared for the purposes of the present case, stating that the only sponsor of the 1997 seminar had been the International Youth Assembly Nedua, registered in Saudi Arabia and in many other countries, including Bulgaria. The Chief Mufti further stated that the seminar had been devoted to traditional religious teaching. The police had gone there, apparently in response to an anonymous call. They had taken away material, part of which they had then returned. As the police had not established any wrongdoing, the seminar had continued after an interruption. (e) Alleged danger stemming from the Islamic lessons given by the first applicant from November 1998 to April 1999 62. The Government stated that against the background of the first applicant's religious activities between 1995 and 1998 the authorities had justifiably feared that the classes given by him to children could be dangerous. 63. In support of this allegation the Government submitted copies of newspaper articles and a copy of a one-page report by a police officer in Smolyan, addressed to his superiors. The report, dated 14 January 1999, stated as follows: “I report hereby that I received the following information through a third person: ...[A] Mr Daruish Auni, Syrian national, preaches to some of the inhabitants in [a] neighbourhood [in Smolyan]. He disseminates Arab literature and offers aid: money, as well as [sacrificial] meat, Kurban. There exist indications that audio cassettes with religious content are being distributed and that people listen to them in their homes.” 64. The first applicant categorically denied the allegation that he had offered money or any other incentive to encourage attendance at his religious courses. (f) The “information note” of the National Security Service 65. After the hearing on the admissibility and merits of the case the Government submitted an “information note” issued on 19 January 2001 by the National Security Service, apparently for the purposes of the proceedings in the present case. The note reiterated the allegations submitted by the Government as regards Mr Al-Nashif's religious activities, including Ms M.'s contention that he had been receiving money from abroad “in suitcases full of USD 100 bills”.

4. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bydgoszcz. 5. On 13 July 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of physical and mental cruelty towards his common-law wife. On 16 July 2005 he was detained on remand. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and documents. The court also relied on the risk that he might tamper with evidence, since the victim was his next of kin. 6. On 12 October 2005 the Bydgoszcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) extended his detention until 13 January 2006. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also relied on the risk that he might tamper with evidence. 7. On 4 January 2006 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 13 April 2006. On 10 April 2006 it ordered that the term should be extended until 13 July 2006. The court referred to the grounds for detention listed in the previous decisions. 8. In the meantime, the District Court had proceeded with the trial. The hearings were held on 29 November 2005, 4 January, 6 February and 8 May 2006. The court heard evidence from 12 witnesses and in the course of the proceedings two expert reports were given. 9. In the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention. 10. On 11 May 2006 the Bydgoszcz District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment. He appealed. 11. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions. 12. On 5 January 2007 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the trial court’s judgment. 13. On 17 August 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as being manifestly ill-founded. 14. On 2 October 2006 the applicant complained that the Court’s letter of 15 September 2006 had been censored by the authorities. The envelope of this letter, produced by the applicant, bears a red stamp that read: “Censored” (Cenzurowane).

5. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow. 6. On 28 September 2005 the applicant bought a 37.5 square metres flat in Moscow at 59 Novocheryomushkinskaya Street (“the flat”) and has been living there with her son born in 1998. The seller of the flat, Mr V., had bought it from Ms Ye., who had acquired it under the privatisation scheme. The facts relating to the ownership of the flat prior to the applicant’s acquisition of it and the subsequent invalidation of her title may be summarised as follows. 7. Before its privatisation the flat was owned by the City of Moscow. On 10 September 2004 the prefect of Yugo-Zapadnyy circuit allocated the flat to Mr M. as social housing. M. signed a social tenancy contract on 29 October 2004 and was registered as the flat’s principal, and only, tenant on 12 November 2004. No family members were indicated in the moving-in order. 8. On 19 November 2004 the Department of the Interior of the Cheryomushki District of Moscow registered M.’s spouse Ye. at his address. The registration was effected upon M.’s written application, certified by public notary R. on 17 November 2004, and accompanied by Ye.’s and M.’s marriage certificate issued in Kaluga on 15 October 2004. Ye.’s identity was confirmed upon presentation of her passport. 9. On 19 December 2004 M. was found dead. The inquest found that he had fallen out of the window of his flat and concluded that he had committed suicide, as no evidence of any other person’s involvement could be found. It was noted that M. was a former drug addict. 10. On 11 February 2005 Ye. issued a power of attorney to L., authorising him to represent her in all transactions related to the flat and in all privatisation and registration procedures before the property and residence registration authorities. The power of attorney was certified by public notary S., who had indicated in a standard clause that Ye. had signed the authority in her presence and that her identity and legal capacity had been confirmed. 11. On 30 March 2005 the Housing Policy and Housing Fund Department of the City of Moscow (Департамент жилищной политики и жилищного фонда г. Москвы, “the Moscow Housing Department”) concluded a social tenancy contract with Ye. and on the same day signed a privatisation agreement in respect of the flat. Ye. was represented by L. in these transactions. 12. On 6 May 2005 the Moscow Office of the Federal Authority for Registration of Property (Главное управление Федеральной регистрационной службы по г. Москве) registered Ye.’s ownership of the flat in the Consolidated State Register of Real Estate Titles and Transactions (Единый государственный реестр прав на недвижимое имущество и сделок с ним, “the Land Register”). 13. On 23 May 2005 Ye. sold the flat to V. On 6 June 2005 V.’s ownership was registered in the Land Register. 14. On 28 September 2005 V. sold the flat to the applicant. The terms of the purchase included the applicant’s obligation to pay the seller 990,000.00 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of the flat, an advance payment of 6,000 United States dollars (USD), plus a contribution of RUB 1,465,847 to renovation costs. It also included an undertaking by the seller to buy the applicant an equivalent flat in the event that the applicant lost the title for reasons relating to any defects of the title which pre-dated the purchase of the flat by the applicant. 15. The transfer of title was registered at the Moscow Office of the Federal Authority for the Registration of Property. 16. The applicant and her son moved into the flat and have been living there since. 17. On 3 May 2007 Ye. died, reportedly of natural causes. 18. On 30 January 2008 the Moscow Department of the Interior informed the Moscow Housing Department of suspected fraud in the privatisation of the flat. 19. On an unidentified date in 2008 the Moscow Housing Department brought an action against the applicant and the previous owners of the flat V. and Ye. They referred to a “check” that had revealed that no marriage had taken place between M. and Ye. and that Ye.’s passport used for the registration and privatisation procedures had been declared lost in 1996; they asked the court to establish that the flat had been fraudulently acquired by Ye. and to declare the privatisation and all the ensuing transactions in respect of the flat null and void. The applicant lodged a counterclaim to have her title to the flat recognised by the court. 20. On 25 July 2008 the Cheryomushkinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the authorities’ claim and granted the applicant’s counterclaim, recognising her as the legitimate owner of the flat. It noted, in particular, that the applicant had purchased the flat in good faith (a bona fide buyer) and paid a purchase price for it. Therefore there were no grounds to invalidate the transactions in question. No appeal was lodged within the ten-day statutory limitation period, and the judgment became final and enforceable. 21. On 11 August 2008 the applicant complained to the police that Mr A.B., an official at the Moscow Housing Department, was trying to extort USD 50,000 from her in return for a promise that the Department would not appeal against the judgment of 25 July 2008. On 12 August 2008 the police carried out a covert operation, during which A.B. was caught receiving the aforementioned sum of money from the applicant, who had been primed by the police. On 10 December 2008 A.B. was convicted of embezzlement on account of that episode, and received a custodial sentence. 22. In the meantime, the Moscow Housing Department submitted a request for an extension of the time-limit for appeal against the judgment of 25 July 2008, on the grounds that the prosecution of A.B., who had been in charge of the file, left the Department understaffed and unable to comply with the deadlines. On 14 November 2008 the District Court granted the request and extended the time-limit for the appeal. The appeal hearing took place on 18 December 2008 before the Moscow City Court, which quashed the judgment and remitted the matter back to the District Court for a fresh first-instance examination. It instructed the first-instance court to clarify whether the claims concerned the invalidation of the transactions regulated by Article 167 of the Civil Code, or the reclaiming of property under Article 302 of the Code. 23. On 15 December 2008 criminal proceedings against an “unidentified perpetrator” were instituted on suspicion of fraud in the process of privatisation of the flat. The applicant requested to be granted victim status in these proceedings, but this was refused on the grounds that the damage resulting from the fraud was caused to the Moscow Housing Department, not to the applicant. The decision refusing the applicant victim status was taken by the Moscow City Court on 27 July 2009. 24. On 9 July 2009 the District Court found that the privatisation of the flat by Ye. had been fraudulent. It established, in particular, that the civil act registration authority had found no record of a marriage between M. and Ye. and concluded that their marriage certificate had been forged. Therefore Ye. had had no right to be registered at M.’s address or to privatise his flat after his death. In respect of the applicant, it found that she was a bona fide buyer, within the meaning of Article 302 of the Civil Code. However, it found that the flat, having been fraudulently privatised, had left the possession of the City of Moscow, its lawful owner, without that body having the intention to divest itself of it. Thus, by application of Article 302 of the Civil Code and Constitutional Court ruling 6-P of 21 April 2003, the case fell under one of the two exceptions to the protection of a bona fide buyer’s title, which required that precedence be given to the previous owner. The applicant’s title to the flat was accordingly revoked and the City of Moscow declared the flat’s lawful owner. The court ordered the applicant’s eviction without compensation or an offer of alternative housing. The applicant appealed. 25. On 21 December 2009 the Moscow City Ombudsman wrote to the Mayor of Moscow, asking him to consider offering the applicant a social tenancy of the flat. However, on 19 January 2010 the Moscow Housing Department replied in the negative, stating that this would undermine the order of priority on the waiting list. 26. On 12 February 2010 the investigating authority decided to grant the applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned her in this capacity. On 23 March 2011, however, they overruled that decision as unfounded, following an order by the prosecutor that they should do so. 27. The criminal investigation of the suspected fraud was then suspended on the grounds that no culprit had been identified. The file, however, contained certain material on the basis of which the courts were able to establish that the privatisation had been carried out improperly. It included, in particular, the finding that all acts relating to Ye.’s registration as a resident of the flat, its privatisation and sale to V. had been carried out using Ye.’s passport, which had been declared lost in 1996. It also contained a reply from the municipal authorities of Kaluga that they had no record of Ye.’s and M.’s marriage having been registered in 2004. The Kaluga passport authorities had replied to the investigator that Ye. had been previously registered as a resident of Kaluga, and her registration there had not been removed until her death in 2007. There was also a reply from public notary R. that she had had no records of M.’s application in her register and she denied having certified it. 28. On 13 May 2010 the appeal against the judgment of 9 July 2009 was rejected in the final instance by the Moscow City Court. 29. The applicant requested a suspension of the execution of the judgment in so far as it concerned the eviction. On 22 July 2010 the court granted her request and adjourned the eviction until 1 February 2011. This term was later extended until 1 June 2011. 30. On 14 December 2010 the Deputy Prosecutor General requested the Supreme Court to examine the applicant’s case in supervisory review proceedings. He considered the revocation of her ownership of the flat unlawful and unjustified. First, he argued that the rule contained in Article 302 § 1 of the Civil Code ordering reinstatement of ownership of the property which was removed from its owner’s possession without the owner’s intention to divest itself of it was inapplicable in her case. He pointed out that the Moscow Housing Department was a party to the transaction in which the flat had been privatised and could not be unaware of it; the Department had never claimed that the official in charge of the privatisation had gone beyond her authority or acted contrary to instructions. Hence it could not be said that the flat had been privatised without the Department having that intention. Therefore, the applicant, as a bona fide buyer, should not have been required to return the flat to its earlier owner, the City of Moscow. Secondly, the Deputy Prosecutor General considered that the judicial decisions had not balanced the interests of the municipality against the lawful rights and interests of the applicant, whereas the protection of individual citizens should have taken priority, in accordance with the Constitution. As a result of a third-party fraud, a single mother and her child faced eviction without compensation and without an offer of alternative housing. He noted that she had no other housing and that all her savings had been put into the purchase of the flat and the costly litigation. Finally, he pointed out that the courts had exceeded their responsibility in applying Article 302 of the Civil Code, in lieu of Article 167 on which the plaintiff had relied, and had thereby granted the award beyond the scope of the claim. 31. On 24 December 2010 the Supreme Court refused the request by the Deputy Prosecutor General, declining to reconsider the case in supervisory-review proceedings. It noted that the applicant’s status as a bona fide buyer had not been in doubt at any stage. However, the courts had correctly applied the law and granted the plaintiff’s lawful claims. It added that the applicant remained free to sue V. for damages. 32. On 31 May 2011 the Cheryomushkinskiy District Court of Moscow rejected the applicant’s application for further suspension of the execution of the judgment of 9 July 2009, noting that there had already been two extensions and there were no grounds for another. 33. On 30 June 2011 the Moscow City Ombudsman wrote to the Mayor of Moscow, alerting him to a growing number of cases of flats being repossessed by the City of Moscow against bona fide buyers on account of irregular privatisation by the previous owners of the flats; all of them were being denied any compensation or substitute housing. In his view, the incidents of fraudulent privatisation should not have been treated by courts as cases where property was removed from possession “without the owner’s intention to divest” within the meaning of Article 302 § 1 of the Civil Code. He pointed out that privatisations were transactions entered into by the State, represented by its public officials, whose duty was to make all the necessary checks and to ensure the procedural integrity of the transaction. The responsibility of the State was thus engaged wherever they failed in this task. In any event, failure to identify documents as forged could not in such circumstances be classified as passage of title without the owner’s intention to divest. He referred to the applicant’s case as one flagrant example of a wrong and unjust outcome of the erroneous interpretation adopted by Moscow courts in such cases. On the same day he sent letters to the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office and the head of the Moscow Department of the Interior, citing the applicant’s case, calling for the thorough investigation of fraud cases of this type, and requesting that the applicant’s victim status be reassessed in the relevant criminal proceedings. 34. According to the applicant’s latest submissions, she has not yet been evicted but considers it imminent.

4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the village of Tenistoye, Crimea, Ukraine. 5. On 19 July 2001 the applicant's son, Mr Fedin, who was born in 1969, was fishing in the River Karacha with a teenager, D. According to D.'s testimony in the subsequent proceedings, the water started to “bite” their feet when they reached Ayvove village. They saw a wire hanging from a wooden support pole for power lines, dangling in the water. Mr Fedin, saying that the wire was not dangerous and should be removed, stepped into the water and tried to pull the wire from the river. When he grasped the wire he cried out, fell into the water and died. D. tried to pull the wire out of Mr Fedin's hands. Unable to do so, he ran to the village for help. 6. Mr Z., an engineer with the Bakhchisaray District Electricity Network (hereinafter “the Network”) – forming a part of the public company, Krymenergo, owned by the Ukrainian State – carried out an initial, immediate investigation into the accident. In his report of 26 July 2001, Mr Z. concluded that the applicant's son had died as a result of electrocution. This occurred because a live wire, which had been incorrectly fixed to a wooden support pole, had come loose during strong winds. He further concluded that the security trip switch had failed on account of an ineffective earth connection. 7. A further internal inquiry was subsequently carried out by a commission composed of six Network officials (hereinafter “the commission”). Its report, drawn up on 20 August 2001, states that the Network owned two wooden poles on opposite banks of the River Karacha, supporting a power line strung across the river. In addition to that power line, those two poles also supported a bare radio wire that had been attached to the poles – above the power line – by the local telecommunications service of the Ukrtelecom Company. Owing to stormy weather conditions, the hook with which the radio wire had been attached had come loose, the wire had snapped and one end had fallen into the river. The commission found that, although in principle it was not unlawful to attach a power line and a radio wire to a single pole, the local telecommunications service had failed to obtain the relevant consent from the Network. 8. On 6 August 2001 the applicant asked the Bakhchisaray District Prosecutor's Office (hereafter “the Prosecutor's Office”) to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of her son's death, claiming that his death had been caused by negligence and carelessness on the part of the Network in that it had failed to repair a broken power line, whereas the Ayvove villagers had already reported a power failure as early as 5 July 2001. 9. The autopsy report, issued on 20 August 2001 by an expert with the local Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations at the request of the Prosecutor's Office, stated that Mr Fedin had suffered a sudden death as a result of an electric shock. 10. On 20 August 2001 the Prosecutor's Office asked the Network to make available documents relating to the accident, including the records of previous inspections and repairs of the power line. In its reply of 30 August 2001 the Network stated, inter alia, that it had not given its consent to the radio wire being attached to the pole, and that the manner in which it had been done contravened technical safety rules. It further stated that it had notified the telecommunications service several times of the potential danger of the installation and had unsuccessfully sought to have it comply with the relevant safety regulations. 11. On 3 September 2001 the Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that there was no reason for the Office to take any criminal proceedings against the Network's management. None of the Ayvove villagers had called the Network between 5 and 19 July 2001 to report a power supply failure, and the required annual inspections and general revision of the power supply network had been conducted regularly and timely by the Network. The last annual inspection had taken place on 22 August 2000 and the last general overhaul in October 1995 which was within the prescribed six years' interval. Also taking into account the findings of the internal inquiry carried out by the Network's commission and statements given by various Ayvove villagers – according to whom the 0.4 Kilowatt radio wire had come loose on 18 July 2001 – the Prosecutor found no wrongdoing on the part of the Network's staff. 12. On 19 November 2001 the applicant asked the Prosecutor's Office to conduct an additional criminal investigation into the death of her son and to take criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. In a decision of 23 November 2001, the investigator from the Prosecutor's Office decided against taking criminal proceedings against the Network's staff as there was no evidence of a criminal offence. That decision was based on statements taken by the investigator from the applicant, her son's widow, her son's friend D., two Ayvove villagers and Ms T., a nurse who had been called for help on 19 July 2001. The two villagers had stated that, although Ayvove had experienced certain power supply problems as early as 13 July 2001, it was only on 18 July 2001 that the radio wire had come loose from the pole, and that nobody had informed the Network about this. The investigator further noted that the applicant's claim that her son had died as a result of negligence and carelessness on the part of the Network in that it had failed to repair a power line broken on 5 July 2001 was not supported by the findings made by the Network's commission. 14. The applicant filed a complaint against that decision with the Prosecutor's Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (hereafter “the POARC”) as well as an appeal with the Bakhchisaray District Court (hereafter “the Bakhchisaray Court”). 15. On 29 May 2002, the POARC quashed the decision of 23 November 2001, finding that further inquiries were called for. It instructed the investigator to question officials of Ukrtelecom, to question again the villagers as to when the radio wire had come loose and whether someone had informed the Network about this, and to attach a copy of the on‑site inspection of the scene of the accident and the report on the forensic post-mortem examination of the body of the applicant's son. In view of that decision, the Bakhchisaray Court did not deal with the applicant's appeal against the decision of 23 November 2001. 16. On 17 June 2002 the investigator of the Prosecutor's Office, after having heard an Ukrtelecom employee – according to whom the radio wire had been attached to the pole in conformity with the relevant technical requirements – and after having heard the applicant, her son's friend D., the two Ayvove villagers already heard previously, and the nurse, Ms T., who gave the same testimonies as before, decided against taking any criminal proceedings because there was no evidence of a criminal offence. 17. On 20 December 2002, acting on an appeal filed by the applicant, the Bakhchisaray Court quashed the decision of 17 June 2002. It found that the inquiry carried out by the Prosecutor's Office was incomplete, in that the case file contained no record of an on-site inspection of the scene of the accident and no report on post-mortem examinations of the body of the applicant's son, and in that the investigation had failed to establish the reason why a dangerous live wire had been hanging in the river and who bore responsibility for this. 18. On 3 February 2003, after having added to the case file the report on the post-mortem examination of Mr Fedin's body and an undated statement taken from the local electrician, the Prosecutor's Office took a fresh decision not to initiate any criminal proceedings, which was based on essentially the same grounds as the decision of 17 June 2002. According to the statement given by the electrician, he had received no complaints or information about a wire hanging in the river. He did know that wires had come loose from their support, but did not know who was responsible for it. 19. On 27 March 2003, acting on a complaint filed by the applicant, the POARC quashed the decision of 3 February 2003 and remitted the case to the Prosecutor's Office for further inquires in that, inter alia, the case file did not contain an internal investigation report from the company responsible for electricity network maintenance, and the investigation had not made any findings about who was responsible for the network's maintenance. 20. In the course of the subsequent additional criminal investigation, the investigator of the Prosecutor's Office examined the internal regulations governing the duties and responsibilities of the Network's staff, and identified and questioned two officials responsible for the maintenance of power lines, as well as two Network employees who had repaired the power supply network after Mr Fedin's death. It further examined information about the meteorological conditions at the material time and concluded that the power cut had been caused by adverse weather conditions. On 16 April 2003, having found no evidence of negligence or involuntary manslaughter, the Prosecutor's Office decided not to bring any charges against the Network staff responsible for electricity network maintenance. According to the Prosecutor's Office, the wire network in the Ayvove village had been maintained in accordance with the relevant technical rules and regulations. 21. On 1 August 2004, acting on a complaint filed by the applicant, the POARC quashed the decision of 16 April 2003 and remitted the case once more for additional investigations. It found that the investigator had failed to question a number of Network employees and that, despite repeated instruction, no on-site inspection report had been drawn up. 22. Accordingly, the Prosecutor's Office conducted an on-site inspection at the scene of the incident. According to the inspection report, an unprotected radio wire, strung across the River Karacha, had been attached to a wooden support pole. That pole also had an electricity power line attached to it. The Prosecutor's Office concluded that such an installation was permissible under the relevant technical regulations. It further found that a storm had caused the radio wire to come loose and fall into the river. 23. On 27 August 2004 the Prosecutor's Office concluded that Mr Fedin's death had been the result of a tragic accident and decided not to institute any criminal proceedings. The applicant again filed a complaint against that decision. On 23 November 2004 the POARC accepted the applicant's complaint, quashed the decision of 27 August 2004 and ordered further inquiries to be made, including a forensic technical examination of the cause of the accident. 24. On 6 December 2004 the Prosecutor's Office again decided against bringing any charges, having found no evidence that any criminal offence had been committed by officials of the Network. The applicant challenged the decision of 6 December 2004 before the POARC. On 24 February 2005 the POARC quashed the decision of the Prosecutor's Office of 6 December 2004, finding that the criminal inquiry conducted had not been sufficiently thorough. It noted that, in the internal investigation into the incident carried out by the Network's commission in 2001, it had been found that the radio wire had been attached to the poles in a manner contrary to relevant technical regulations, whereas the Prosecutor's Office had found that the relevant rules and regulations had been respected. The POARC further found it unacceptable that no documentary evidence had been obtained from the Network concerning inspections of the Ayvove village electricity supply network prior to the accident, and that the identity of the persons who were responsible for the maintenance of the Network wires had not been established. 25. In its subsequent decision of 23 March 2005 the Prosecutor's Office maintained its conclusion that there were no reasons for taking any criminal proceedings. As to the installation of wires and poles, the investigation found that they had originally been installed in 1968 and the relevant installation company no longer existed. It further stated that the forensic technical examination could be conducted by the Kharkiv Forensic Examinations Institute (Харківський науково-дослідний інститут судових експертиз), however, such examination would require pre-payment of fees and the Prosecutor's Office did not have funds available to cover those costs. The applicant was offered an opportunity to meet those costs. 26. On 19 July 2005 the Bakhchisaray Court quashed the decision of 23 March 2005 and ordered further investigation on the ground that technical expertise was required to establish whether there had been irregularities in the installation and use of wires that could have a causal link with the electrocution and death of the applicant's son. 27. On 28 July 2005 the Prosecutor's Office sent the case file material to the Kharkiv Forensic Examinations Institute, but the examination was not conducted owing to non-payment of fees. 28. On 31 March 2006 the Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings on the same grounds as in its decision of 23 March 2005. The Prosecutor's Office noted that it had no available funds to pay for the forensic examination and the interested parties were not willing to meet the costs either. 29. On 13 December 2006 the POARC quashed the decision of 31 March 2006 and remitted the case for additional investigation. 30. On 28 December 2006 the Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings on the same grounds as in its decisions of 23 March 2005 and 31 March 2006. 31. On 24 January 2007 the POARC quashed the decision of 28 December 2006 and remitted the case for additional investigation. 32. On 2 February 2007 the Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the Network officials under Article 367 of the Criminal Code. The Prosecutor's Office repeatedly noted that they had no funds available for forensic examination and the interested party refused to pay for it. 33. On 14 February 2007 the applicant complained about that decision to the POARC. She did not, however, provide information about any decision taken regarding her complaint. 34. On 6 September 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Bakhchisaray Court against Krymenergo, the public company of which the Network formed a part. In those proceedings, the applicant claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the death of her son. 35. On 14 September 2001 the Bakhchisaray Court, for reasons of territorial jurisdiction, remitted the case to the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopil. On 25 March 2002, acting at the applicant's request, the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the "Court of Appeal of the ARC") ruled that the Bakhchisaray Court had jurisdiction over the case. 36. On 30 April 2002 the Bakhchisaray Court assumed jurisdiction over the case and scheduled a first hearing for 28 August 2002. On that day, it granted the applicant's request to stay those proceedings pending the criminal investigation into the death of her son. It did not fix any date for a future hearing. 37. On 14 May 2004, the Bakhchisaray Court granted another request to stay the proceedings filed by the applicant, who had expected to receive further information from the Prosecutor's Office. 38. On 18 March 2005, the Bakhchisaray Court considered the proceedings and asked the Prosecutor's Office for information about the state of proceedings in the criminal investigation. On 6 April 2005, after having received a copy of the decision taken by the Prosecutor's Office on 23 March 2005, the Bakhchisaray Court resumed its examination of the applicant's case. 39. On 4 June 2007 the Bakhchisaray Court found against the applicant. 40. On 27 August 2007 the Crimea Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the first-instance court, having held that under the law the owner of a source of the increased hazard could be exempted from liability in two conditions: force majeure or the intentional actions of the victim. Neither of the two had been established in the case. The court also noted that the prosecutor had refused to institute criminal proceedings owing to a lack of proof of a crime and not because there had been any doubt that the event had taken place. Therefore, the Network, regardless of guilt, bore liability and had to provide compensation for the death of the applicant's son. Therefore, it awarded 80,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) to the applicant, UAH 50,000 to her daughter-in-law and UAH 20,000 to her granddaughter. 41. On 4 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the court of appeal.

4. The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Hrob. 5. On 25 November 1992 the applicant applied under the Land Ownership Act to the Teplice Land Office (pozemkový úřad) for the restitution of a building and plot of land in Hrob, which had been confiscated from her parents in 1961. On 10 August 1993 some documents identifying the property at issue, prepared ex officio by the Teplice Land Registry (katastrální úřad) because the applicant had not included them with her original restitution claim, were sent to her. 6. On 15 October 1993 she requested the current owner, the District Housing Association (okresní bytový podnik)[1], a State-owned entity, to restore the property to her. Upon its refusal, she requested the Land Office to commence restitution proceedings on 19 November 1993. 7. On 7 December 1993 the applicant was requested to submit supplementary documents. 8. The District Housing Association, despite its knowledge of the applicant’s restitution claim, transferred the property to the Hrob Municipality, which on 11 January 1994 sold it to other individuals. 9. On 24 February 1994 the Land Office interrupted the proceedings in order to appoint an expert, who drew up his opinion on 15 May 1994. In the meantime, on 10 March 1994, the Land Office had carried out an inspection of the site. 10. On 8 September 1994 it granted the applicant’s restitution claim, with the exception of one of the buildings at issue. 11. On 1 December 1994 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud), upon the applicant’s appeal of 26 October 1994, quashed the Land Office’s decision and remitted the case to it, due to an insufficient establishment of the facts. 12. On 3 July 1995 the Land Office granted the applicant’s restitution claim, except for the building which had been substantially rebuilt. 13. On 29 November 1995 the Regional Court, on the Hrob Municipality’s appeal, quashed the Land Office’s decision and remitted the case to it, due to an insufficient establishment of the facts. 14. On 7 April 1997 the Land Office dismissed the applicant’s restitution claim after obtaining an amended version of the expert opinion, on 12 November 1996, which had assessed the character of the building. 15. On 7 April 1998 the Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal sent to it on 7 May 1997, quashed the Land Office’s decision finding, inter alia, that the expert opinion had been drafted without the applicant’s participation, and that its conclusion had not been supported by objective measurements. It remitted the case to the Land Office. 16. On 29 September 1998 the Land Office ordered a new expert opinion, which was submitted on 8 February 1999. 17. On 19 April 1999 the Land Office granted the applicant’s restitution claim for the plot of land but not for the building since it had undergone substantial reconstruction. 18. On 17 May 2001 the Regional Court, having received on 19 May 1999 the applicant’s appeal in which she complained of an unsatisfactory establishment of the facts, as well as incorrect expert opinions and assessment of evidence, upheld the Land Office’s decision, finding that the latter’s admission and assessment of the evidence and the decision were in accordance with the law. 19. On 18 October 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) of 20 July 2001 against the Regional Court’s judgment as being manifestly ill-founded, concluding that the court had conducted the proceedings in accordance with the domestic law. On 22 October 2001 the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant.

5. The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Kranj. 6. On 26 August 1949, in the framework of criminal proceedings, the applicant’s father J.D. was sentenced, inter alia, to forfeiture of his property to the State. On 26 December 1949 that judgment was executed by the decision of the Kranj Local Court. 7. On 30 October 1991, after the establishment of independence of the Republic of Slovenia and the change of the political regime, the Supreme Court partly granted the request for protection of legality (zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti) filed by the Public Prosecutor in respect of the criminal judgment of 26 August 1949 and acquitted J.D. of some of the charges. 8. As for the remaining part of the conviction, including the part relating to forfeiture of property to the State, the applicant and his brother filed a request for reopening of the criminal proceedings, which was granted by the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota v Ljubljani) on 19 November 1993. Further to the withdrawal of charges by the Public Prosecutor, the Ljubljana Basic Court on 15 December 1993 discontinued the criminal proceedings and set aside the judgment of 26 August 1949. 9. On 27 December 1993 the applicant then requested the Kranj Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Kranju) to set aside also the decision of 26 December 1949, executing the initial criminal judgment and forfeiting the property to the State, and to enter the transfer of ownership of the forfeited property back to J.D. in the land register. 10. In addition, on 7 June 1994, the J.D.’s heirs, including the applicant, started proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia for restitution of the property forfeited to J.D. before the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju). They requested that all the forfeited immovable property be returned in natura. 11. On 9 March 1995 the Kranj Local Court granted the applicant’s request for the annulment of the execution decision of 26 December 1949, but not for the entry of the transfer of ownership of the forfeited property in the land register. The applicant lodged an appeal, which was dismissed on 6 August 1996 by the Kranj Local Court as lodged out of time. 12. On 9 February 1996, in reply to a summons by the Kranj District Court, the applicant informed it that he objected to the institution and continuation of the proceedings for the restitution of forfeited property, started on 7 June 1994 by a group of heirs of J.D., claiming that the restitution of the property could already be carried out on the basis of the decision of the Kranj Local Court of 9 March 1995 alone, which had quashed the decision on execution of the sentence of forfeiture of property. 13. On 13 February 1996 the applicant requested cancellation of the scheduled hearing, which was granted by the court. 14. On the same date the applicant also lodged a request for the designation of another court to decide on the case, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on 12 June 1996. 15. On 16 March 1998, the applicant again requested the land register to enter the transfer of ownership back to J.D. on the basis of the decision of Kranj Local Court of 9 March 1995, which had quashed the decision on execution of the sentence of forfeiture of property of 26 December 1949. On 26 August 1998 the Kranj District Court rejected his request, stating that property in cases such as the applicant’s could only be returned in the non-contentious proceedings provided for in respect of the restitution of forfeited property, and further, that two sets of such proceedings were already pending before the court further to the applicant’s request. The applicant filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 11 November 1998. 16. On 25 August 1998 the applicant lodged a request for the land register to prohibit the disposal and encumbrance of the property in question, which was rejected by the Kranj Local Court on 20 March 2000. 17. On 29 March 1999 the Kranj District Court joined different sets of proceedings for restitution of the forfeited property, to which the applicant, as well as other family members, were parties. 18. Between 17 May 1999 and 15 March 2001 the court held five hearings. 19. On 18 July 1999 the applicant again lodged a request for the land register to prohibit the disposal and encumbrance of the property at issue. On 18 January 2000 the Kranj Local Court referred the applicant to its previous decisions, that the requested entry in the land register could only be approved after the final decision had been delivered in the restitution proceedings. 20. On 17 April 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with regard to not being granted the requested entry in the land register, which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 30 May 2000 as incomplete. 21. On 16 August 2000 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Ministry of Justice, which replied on 14 November 2000. 22. In the years 2000 and 2001, the applicant lodged complaints concerning the refusal of the land register to enter the transfer of ownership back to his father J.D. and the length of the restitution proceedings with the Slovenian Parliament, the Government, the Ministry for Justice, the Supreme Court, the Public Prosecutor and the Ombudsman. 23. On 15 March 2001 the Kranj District Court issued a partial decision granting compensation for the forfeited movable property to J.D.’s heirs, including the applicant. It awarded each of them 112,879 Slovenian tolars (SIT) (EUR 471), payable in State bonds. The decision was upheld by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 18 July 2001. 24. On 24 January 2003 the court held another hearing, at which it decided on the remainder of the restitution claims, concerning the forfeited immovable property. The court established that restitution in natura was no longer possible, since on the claimed plots of land at Brdo at Kranj (Brdo pri Kranju) several buildings had been built after their forfeiture to the State, some of which were used also by the State for its ceremonial events. The claimants were therefore granted compensation for the forfeited immovable property in the amount of SIT 424,270 (EUR 1770,50), payable in State bonds. The applicant appealed. 25. On 3 September 2003 the decision was upheld by the Ljubljana Higher Court. On 13 April 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for revision. 26. On 21 December 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. It is not clear from the case file when the decision was served on the applicant. 27. On 8 April 2004 the applicant again requested the land register to enter the transfer of ownership of the forfeited property back to his father J.D., which was rejected by the court on 14 July 2004.

6. The applicants were born in 1961 and 1946 respectively and live in the Tula Region. 7. The applicants are a married couple and have a daughter born in 1992. The first applicant also has a daughter from her previous marriage, born in 1985. Both daughters are Russian nationals. 8. Prior to their arrival in Russia, the applicants and their daughter were living in Turkmenistan. There the second applicant and their daughter acquired Russian citizenship in 2002. On 15 November 2005 criminal proceedings were brought against the first applicant's employer on economic charges. The first applicant was questioned as a witness on several occasions and allegedly threatened by the investigator. 9. On 10 December 2005 the applicants and their daughter moved to Russia. The first applicant's elder daughter was already living in Russia. 10. The applicants purchased a house in the Tula Region. In May 2006 the first applicant obtained a temporary residence permit. In September 2006 the first applicant also applied for Russian citizenship. 11. On 22 February 2007 her application for Russian citizenship was refused on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending against her in the State of her nationality. It does not appear that the first applicant appealed against this decision to a court. 12. On 24 July 2007 the first applicant applied to the Federal Migration Service (the FMS) seeking refugee status. 13. On 26 July 2007 the FMS refused to examine the merits of the request, on the ground that the first applicant had a temporary residence permit, was married to a Russian national and was on a wanted list in Turkmenistan. 14. The first applicant complained about the refusal to the Central District Court of Tula. In her complaint she did not raise any arguments concerning her fears that in Turkmenistan she would be subjected to ill-treatment and separated from her family. 15. On 28 January 2008 the Central District Court of Tula upheld the decision of the FMS and dismissed the first applicant's complaint. The first applicant appealed. 16. On 29 May 2008 the Tula Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. 17. On 2 July 2008 the first applicant applied for temporary asylum in Russia. In her application she stated briefly that she would be subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment if expelled to Turkmenistan. 18. On 23 July 2008 the first applicant was interviewed in this connection while in custody. 19. On 25 July 2008 her application was accepted for examination, and on 22 October 2008 the FMS refused the application. The first applicant appealed, referring to a threat of inhuman treatment in Turkmenistan and to family ties in Russia. 20. On 17 February 2009 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow ruled that the FMS decision should be upheld. The first applicant did not appeal against this decision to a higher court. 21. On 28 January 2006 the Turkmen authorities, in the context of the criminal proceedings commenced in 2005, charged the first applicant with economic crimes and fraud and placed her on a wanted list. 22. On 6 September 2006 the prosecutor of the Kopetdagsky District of Ashgabat remanded the first applicant in custody. 23. On 10 October 2006 the Turkmen authorities sent the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia a request to extradite the first applicant. 24. On 15 December 2006 the first applicant learned from the deputy prosecutor of Donskoy town that an “extradition check” was being conducted. Thereafter she contacted various branches of Russian authorities asking for protection from allegedly unlawful persecution by Turkmen authorities. 25. On 28 August 2007 the Moscow Inter-District Transport Prosecutor's Office drafted a report on the results of the “extradition check”. The report stated, inter alia: “As it follows from the documents submitted by [the Turkmen authorities], [the first applicant] is wanted for crimes [punishable under Turkmen law]... [The first applicant] is not persecuted in Turkmenistan on political, religious, ethnic or racial grounds, she does not possess information which constitutes any State or military secret of the Russian Federation, and she has not applied to the Russian competent authorities for either political asylum or refugee status. She has applied for ... Russian nationality. However, her request has been refused ... on the ground of criminal prosecution by competent authorities of a foreign State. [The first applicant] is aware of the grounds for ... the criminal prosecution.” 26. On 22 February 2008 the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan sent a letter to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia, guaranteeing that if extradited to Turkmenistan the first applicant would not be subjected to persecution on political grounds. 27. On 11 March 2008 the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia ordered the first applicant's extradition to Turkmenistan on charges under Articles 33 part 5, 218 parts 1, 2, 3 and 229 part 4 (a) of the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan. The document stated that the first applicant had been charged in Turkmenistan with embezzlement and use of forged documents, which entailed serious damage. It compared these acts with the crimes as described in the Russian Criminal Code, found no obstacles to the extradition and granted the request. 28. The first applicant challenged the extradition order before the Moscow City Court. In her complaint she submitted that her extradition to Turkmenistan might entail “catastrophic consequences to the point of physical elimination”. There were no other arguments regarding her fears of ill-treatment in Turkmenistan, the grounds for her fears, or arguments concerning her removal from the family. 29. On 5 June 2008 the Moscow City Court rejected the first applicant's complaint as unfounded. 30. The first applicant appealed against the decision on the same date. In her appeal statement she mentioned her fears of ill-treatment in Turkmenistan. 31. On 9 June 2008 the first applicant applied to the Court with a request to apply interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to stay her extradition. 32. On 27 June 2008 the Court granted the request and indicated to the Government of the Russian Federation that the first applicant should not be extradited to Turkmenistan until further notice. 33. On 17 July 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia allowed the first applicant's appeal, set aside the decision of 5 June 2008 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. At the same time the Supreme Court set the time-limit for the first applicant's detention at 8 August 2008. 34. On 1 August 2008 the Moscow City Court again rejected the first applicant's complaint against the extradition order. 35. On 16 October 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia, on an appeal by the first applicant, quashed and remitted the decision of the Moscow City Court. It found that the City Court had failed to examine the first applicant's arguments that she risked ill-treatment and that her family was living in Russia. 36. In November and December 2009 the Moscow City Court requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan to comment on the first applicant's complaints about the threat of ill-treatment and about the allegations of unfair trial. In reply, on 15 January 2009 the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan stated that in the event of extradition the first applicant would not be subjected to political persecution, nor to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. The letter referred to Turkmenistan's obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the fact that the death penalty had been abolished in Turkmenistan in 1999. Furthermore, the letter stated that under the legislation of 1999, every year at the time of a Muslim festival there was an amnesty for convicted criminals if they had repented and taken the path to reform. On 9 February 2009, responding to a question from the Moscow City Court, the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan forwarded to the City Court a letter from the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of that country, by which their initial request had been forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office. 37. On 13 February 2009 the Moscow City Court again found the decision of the General Prosecutor's Office of 11 March 2008 to be valid. The City Court heard the applicant and her lawyer, as well as Ms Ryabinina, who made a statement as an expert on the situation in Central Asia and in Turkmenistan in particular. The court reviewed the documents submitted by the applicants, including copies of the relevant international reports about the situation in Turkmenistan. The court also examined the decisions by which the applicant's request for temporary asylum had been rejected. The court found that the first applicant's allegations of the danger of ill-treatment in Turkmenistan were based on general information and unsubstantiated. It relied on the assurances provided by the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan and found that they had been issued by a competent body. It also took into account information about the legal framework of the criminal proceedings and detention in Turkmenistan, which appeared to be consistent with the requirements of fair trial and lawfulness of detention. The court took note of the annual amnesties announced in Turkmenistan for convicted persons. The City Court refused to consider the first applicant's arguments concerning the circumstances of the imputed actions, noting that she had been charged with a criminal offence in Turkmenistan and that the question of her involvement would be decided by the competent court in that country. 38. The first applicant appealed. On 31 March 2009 the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of 13 February 2009. 39. On 14 May 2007 the first applicant was arrested by Russian police. 40. On 16 May 2007 the deputy prosecutor of Donskoy town applied to the Donskoy Town Court seeking authorisation to remand the applicant in custody. 41. On 18 May 2007 the Donskoy Town Court dismissed the deputy prosecutor's request and the first applicant was released in the courtroom. The court found, inter alia, that at the time of her departure from Turkmenistan the first applicant had not been suspected of or charged with any criminal offences, no preventive measures had been applied to her and her freedom of movement had not been restricted. It also noted that the first applicant herself had contacted the Tula Regional department of the interior in relation to her placement on the wanted list by Turkmenistan. 42. On 21 May 2007 the Donskoy Town Prosecutor's Office appealed. On 4 July 2007 the Tula Regional Court set aside the decision of the Donskoy Town Court and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 43. On 19 August 2007, when attempting to leave for Ukraine to visit her relatives, the first applicant was arrested and placed in remand prison IZ-77/6 in Moscow. 44. On 21 August 2007 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow examined the documents concerning the first applicant's extradition and granted the prosecutor's request to detain her provisionally until 24 August 2007. The first applicant and her counsel stated that they agreed with the prosecutor's request. 45. On 24 August 2007 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the first applicant's detention pending extradition proceedings. The court set no time-limits for her detention. The first applicant did not appeal against this order. 46. In October 2007 the first applicant complained to the Moscow Lyublinskiy District Court arguing that the administration of remand prison IZ-77/6 had held her in custody unlawfully, since the term of her detention had already expired. 47. On 11 January 2008 the Lyublinskiy District Court granted the complaint. It found that the term of the first applicant's detention had expired on 19 October 2007 and that her detention after that date was unlawful. The first applicant was neither summoned to the hearing nor released. The administration of remand prison IZ-77/6 appealed. 48. On 28 February 2008 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal, set aside the decision of 11 January 2008 and delivered a new decision. The appeal court held that the time-limits provided in Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply to the first applicant since she had not been charged with an offence within the territory of Russia. At the same time, since the order of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court provided no time-limits for her detention, her complaint should be dismissed. 49. On 19 February 2008 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow again ordered the first applicant's detention pending extradition proceedings, although by that time she had already been detained for several months. The decision did not set time-limits and did not refer to Articles 108 or 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first applicant appealed against the order. 50. On 19 March 2008 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of 19 February 2008. No time-limits were fixed for the first applicant's detention. 51. On 11 August 2008 the Moskovsko-Smolenskiy Office of the Transport Prosecutor ordered the release of the first applicant in accordance with the instructions of the Office of the Prosecutor General, on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision of 17 July 2008 setting the time-limit for her detention at 8 August 2008. 52. On 12 August 2008 the first applicant was released, having spent eleven months and twenty-five days in custody.

7. The applicants are: 8. They live in Staryye Atagi, the Chechen Republic. 9. According to the applicants, from 6 to 11 March 2002 federal military officers, acting under the command of General Borisov, conducted a sweeping operation (зачистка) involving around 10,000 servicemen, 50 armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and several military helicopters in the village of Stariye Atagi. General Moltenskiy, the commander of the United Group Alignment (UGA) in the Northern Caucasus (командующий Объединенной группой войск на Северном Кавказе) visited the village twice during the operation. 10. Throughout the said period the military besieged Stariye Atagi and restricted freedom of movement in the village. They organised a filtering point at the poultry yard and the mill at the outskirts of Stariye Atagi where they held residents detained during the operation. 11. In total fifteen men residing in Stariye Atagi were apprehended between 6 and 11 March 2002. Whilst some of them were subsequently released, eleven residents disappeared. The applicants are relatives of nine of those who disappeared. (b) Detention of Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev 12. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, born in 1979, who was a student at Grozny University. They and other relatives lived at 261 Nuradilova Street and were neighbours of the second applicant, who resided with her nephew, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, born in 1983, and other family members at 9 Polevaya Street. 13. On 6 March 2002, between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev and several other residents of Stariye Atagi were standing in the street when a group of masked and armed federal servicemen arrived in three APCs, two UAZ cars and an Ural vehicle. The APCs’ hull numbers were covered with mud and the vehicles’ registration plates were wrapped in a rag. The servicemen started beating Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev without any explanation. Several women, including Mr Aslan Akhmadov’s seventy-five-year-old grandmother, attempted to intervene, but the military threw smoke bombs and fired in front of the women’s feet and above their heads. 14. According to the first applicant, while she was at home she heard women and children screaming and rushed into the street. She saw her son and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev on their knees with their hands behind their heads. Both of them were bleeding. 15. Then the military escorted Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev to their houses. Without introducing themselves or producing any documents to justify their actions, the servicemen searched the houses and the courtyards. The first applicant inquired about the charges against her son, whereupon one of the soldiers replied that they were servicemen of the 405th regiment stationed in the village of Khatuni and had an order “to take away everyone they met on their way”. 16. According to the first and second applicants, the military promised to release Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev in exchange for money. The Akhmadov family gave them 200 US dollars (USD), which Aslan Amkhadov’s grandmother had been saving for her funeral. One of the servicemen took the money and said into his radio transmitter: “Plus I have their son and money”. The Kanayev family gave them USD 300. Having received the money, the military nevertheless took Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev away “for a computer check of their identities”. The first two applicants had no news of their relatives thereafter. 17. The first and second applicants enclosed statements of eight witnesses to confirm their account of the events. Ms Kh. Kh., Ms Kh. Ch., Ms B. Ch., Ms R. S., Ms P. M. and Ms Kh. A., residents of Stariye Atagi, and Ms A. A., Mr Aslan Akhmadov’s grandmother, stated that they had witnessed the apprehension of Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev by servicemen in the circumstances described by the applicants. Ms L. Ya. stated that on the date in question she was selling bread in the village market. At about 12.30 p.m. military vehicles approached the market. Five minutes later the first applicant had run up and said that her son had been out in one of those vehicles. Then the first applicant, Ms L. Ya. and other residents had asked the officer in charge to release him. The officer had replied that if Mr Aslan Akhmadov was innocent, they would let him go after checking the documents. (c) Detention of Mr Amir Pokayev 18. The third applicant is the father of Mr Amir Pokayev, born in 1982. They lived with other family members at 91 Nuradilova Street. 19. On 6 March 2002, at around 12.30 p.m., three APCs, two UAZ cars and a UAZ armoured vehicle arrived at 91 Nuradilova Street. All the registration numbers were concealed. A group of about twenty servicemen entered the courtyard of the third applicant’s house. They were wearing masks and khaki uniforms resembling those of the Main Intelligence Department (Главное Разведывательное Управление) and those of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”, Федеральная Служба Безопасности) and its special units such as Alfa, Don and others. The servicemen had short Kedr machine-guns, Stechkin pistols, machine guns fastened to their legs and switchblade knives bearing the owners’ initials. 20. The military forced all the men of the third applicant’s family into the courtyard and checked their papers. The soldiers seized Mr Amir Pokayev’s temporary identity document and took it to one of the UAZ cars. Then they said that they would take the third applicant’s son with them so as to check his documents through a computer database. The military further stated that they would bring Mr Amir Pokayev back after the check, put him into the APC and left. 21. While his son was being apprehended, the third applicant talked to two officers. One of them introduced himself as Oleg and promised that Mr Amir Pokayev would be released as soon as the operation was over. According to the third applicant, he saw Oleg on TV on 9 and 12 March 2002 standing next to General Moltenskiy, who was giving an interview. The other officer’s surname was Tolstykin. The third applicant also saw him on TV in the news report on the military operation in the village of Uluskert. The third applicant submitted that he was able and willing to identify those two officers. 22. On 12 March 2002 the third applicant talked to another resident of Stariye Atagi, Mr R. D., who had been detained on 10 March 2002 and then released. The latter told the third applicant that he had been kept in the basement of the mill and had seen a note scratched on the ceiling to the effect that Mr Amir Pokayev had been held there. On his release Mr R. D. asked a security guard about the detainees who had been held in the basement before him. The guard replied that on 9 March 2002, at around 12 noon, the military had taken them away, having told the guard that they would be releasing them. 23. The third applicant enclosed a statement by Ms V. S., a resident of Stariye Atagi, who had witnessed Mr Amir Pokayev being apprehended by servicemen. (d) Detention of Mr Islam Chagayev 24. The fourth and fifth applicants are husband and wife and live at 97 Nuradilova Street. They are the parents of Mr Islam Chagayev, who was born in 1982 and developed a disability during childhood. At the material time he worked in Nazran, the capital of neighbouring Ingushetia. On 4 March 2002 he came to Stariye Atagi for several days to visit his family. 25. On 6 March 2002, at around 1.30 p.m., the same servicemen who had detained Mr Amir Pokayev entered the Chagayev family house. They requested all the men to go outside. Then the military took Mr Islam Chagayev’s documents and escorted him into the street. The fourth applicant’s sister attempted to obstruct the detention of Mr Islam Chagayev, but the soldiers explained to her that she should not be afraid and that if her nephew was innocent he would soon be released. The military officers then put Mr Islam Chagayev into an APC, which left in the direction of the mill. 26. Later that day the servicemen returned and searched the house. The next day, after throwing the Chagayev family’s belongings around and breaking them, they conducted another search. 27. The fourth and fifth applicants submitted that one of the officers in charge of the operation was the acting commander Zdanovich. They enclosed statements of Ms L. Ch., Mr Islam Chagayev’s aunt, and Ms Z. U., a resident of Stariye Atagi who had witnessed Mr Islam Chagayev being apprehended by servicemen and confirmed the applicants’ account of the events. Ms V. S. (see paragraph 23 above) also submitted that she had seen Mr Islam Chagayev being taken away by servicemen in the above-described circumstances. (e) Detention of Mr Ibragim Magomadov 28. The sixth applicant is the father of Mr Ibragim Magomadov, born in 1982, who was a student at the Economics and Management College. 29. On 8 March 2002, in the afternoon, a group of federal servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms forcibly entered the Magomadov family house at 19 Beregovaya Street. The sixth applicant, his wife and Mr Ibragim Magomadov were at home at the time. 30. The servicemen did not introduce themselves or present any documents authorising their actions and ordered the sixth applicant, his wife and Mr Ibragim Magomadov to raise their hands and step outside. Then they subjected each member of the Magomadov family to a body search and checked their identity documents. 31. One of the servicemen said into his radio transmitter that there were two men in the house, an old one and a young one. In reply he was ordered to take away the young one. According to the sixth applicant, the officer was around 25–32 years old and of Slavic appearance. Then another serviceman escorted Mr Ibragim Magomadov, who was wearing black jeans, a jeans shirt, a sports vest and shoes with thick soles, into the street and put him into an APC. This soldier was of Ossetian origin and about 19 years old. The sixth applicant submitted that he was able and willing to identify those two servicemen. 32. The sixth applicant and his wife tried to obstruct the detention of their son, but the military officers threatened them with their firearms. One of the servicemen injured his wife, who had attempted to follow the servicemen and her son. Later that day the military returned to the sixth applicant’s house. They were drunk and laughed in reply to the sixth applicant’s questions about his son. (f) Detention of Mr Magomed Isambayev 33. The seventh applicant is the father of Mr Magomed Isambayev, born in 1981. 34. On 9 March 2002, at 8.30 a.m., about ten servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns entered the house of the Isambayev family at 53 Ambulatornaya Street. The seventh applicant, his wife and their six children, including Mr Magomed Isambayev and the seventh applicant’s brother, were inside at the time. Some of the servicemen were masked and none of them had shoulder stripes or any other marks of distinction. According to the seventh applicant, they spoke Russian without an accent. 35. The servicemen did not produce any documents justifying their actions or give any explanations. They woke Mr Magomed Isambayev up and ordered him to show them his identity documents. He explained that he had turned twenty last December and had not yet received the new passport that was due at that age. The servicemen then took the seventh applicant’s son with them, having reassured the other members of the Isambayev family that they would release him as soon as they had found out whether he was a local resident. 36. The seventh applicant and his wife attempted to follow Mr Magomed Isambayev, but the military did not allow them to leave the courtyard. The seventh applicant’s wife managed to see through the fence that the servicemen then visited three neighbouring houses and took her son to the courtyard of each of those houses. One of the neighbours, a police officer, told the servicemen that he had known Mr Magomed Isambayev since the latter’s childhood and that he had never been involved in any offence. It appears that the soldiers ignored this statement. 37. Thereafter two armoured UAZ vehicles and a car resembling an ambulance arrived. Their registration plates were either painted over or wrapped in a rag. The servicemen put the seventh applicant’s son into one of the vehicles and left. (g) Detention of Mr Adlan Baysarov 38. The eighth applicant is the wife of Mr Adlan Baysarov, born in 1972, and the mother of their two minor children. At the material time Mr Adlan Baysarov, a resident of Grozny and a student at the Economics and Management College, was living in Stariye Atagi as an internally displaced person. The Baysarov family lived with their relatives, including the ninth applicant, who was the wife of Mr Adlan Baysarov’s cousin, in the premises of an abandoned hospital in Pochtovaya Street. 39. On 10 March 2002 the federal military officers arrived at Pochtovaya Street in three APCs and an UAZ car with tinted windows and entered the house in which Mr Adlan Baysarov and his relatives lived. The soldiers were wearing camouflage uniform and had helmets, portable radio transmitters and sawn-off machine guns. The ninth applicant believed that they represented special task forces. 40. The servicemen searched the house and forced Mr Adlan Baysarov to go outside for a check of his identity documents. The ninth applicant saw two or three servicemen talking to Mr Adlan Baysarov. They intimidated and threatened him, swearing at him. Then they put Mr Adlan Baysarov into an APC, which left an hour and a half later. 41. The ninth applicant submitted that she was able and ready to identify two officers who had apprehended Mr Adlan Baysarov. One of them had a moustache. She also submitted that on 11 March 2002 Mr G., the head of the administration of Stariye Atagi (председатель сельсовета), who, according to the ninth applicant, had witnessed the events, had stated that the surname of one of those officers was Suvorov. (h) Detention of Mr Timur Khadzhayev 42. The tenth applicant is the mother of Mr Timur Khadzhayev, born in 1976. 43. On 10 March 2002, in the morning, a group of armed federal servicemen entered the courtyard of the tenth applicant’s house at 16 Shkolnaya Street. The tenth applicant, her other son, his wife and their three children, the tenth applicant’s daughter and Mr Timur Khadzhayev were in the house. 44. The military officers refused to introduce themselves and ordered the Khadzhayev men to step out into the courtyard for an identity check. The latter complied and produced their documents. The tenth applicant also furnished the military officers with a medical certificate confirming that Mr Timur Khadzhayev had a disability dating from his childhood which consisted in an impaired ability to move his left arm. The servicemen took the certificate as well as the Khadzhayev brothers’ identity documents. According to the tenth applicant, some of the servicemen were masked and they were mostly young, apart from the officer who checked the documents, who was middle-aged. 45. After the check the military escorted the tenth applicant’s sons to the courtyard of one of the neighbouring houses and ordered them to get undressed. The soldiers searched the Khadzhayev brothers and beat them. The tenth applicant screamed, asking the military why they were beating her sons. In reply, the servicemen ordered her to keep quiet, threatening to blow up her house. Thereafter they took the tenth applicant’s sons and two men who lived in the neighbouring house away. The tenth applicant referred to the account given by her neighbours, who stated that the Khadzhayev brothers were put into an APC. Some time later that day the tenth applicant’s other son returned home. He had been beaten. Mr Timur Khadzhayev has been missing since that day. 46. During the detention of her sons the tenth applicant managed to talk to an officer who introduced himself as “Zhigan” and told her that he could be found in the military commander’s office (военная комендатура). After the sweeping operation was over, the tenth applicant visited the military commander’s office and inquired after “Zhigan”. She was told that he had already left and that he was a FSB officer. 47. The tenth applicant’s account of the events is supported by statements of Ms B. E. and Ms L. M., residents of Stariye Atagi, who had witnessed Mr Timur Khadzhayev being beaten and apprehended by servicemen. (i) Detention of Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev 48. The eleventh applicant is the mother of Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev, born in 1965. They both lived at 14 Uchitelskaya Street. 49. On 10 March 2002, at around 3 p.m., Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev was standing in the street when federal servicemen arrived in two APCs and an UAZ vehicle with tinted windows. The APCs hull numbers were smudged and the UAZ car had no registration plates. 50. When the eleventh applicant’s son saw the military approaching, he entered the courtyard of one of the neighbouring houses. The servicemen followed him. They were wearing camouflage uniforms of the armed forces of Russia and had firearms. They spoke Russian. Some of the military had portable radio transmitters. Without introducing themselves or producing any documents to justify their actions, the servicemen threatened to use their firearms and ordered Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev and two other men who lived in that house to raise their hands and stand against the wall. The soldiers subjected the three men to a body search and checked their passports. Then they took Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev away “for a computer check of his identity”. 51. The eleventh applicant enclosed a statement by Mr R. M., one of the two men whose documents had been checked together with Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev’s, to support her account of the events. (j) Other incidents in Stariye Atagi during the sweeping operation of 6-10 March 2002 52. On 6 March 2002 federal servicemen also detained two other residents of Stariye Atagi – Mr Ismail Dzhamayev, born in 1981 (see Dzhamayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 43170/04) and Mr Imran Kuntayev, born in 1976 – who subsequently disappeared. The disappearance of these two people does not form part of the present application. 53. On 7 March 2002 the residents of Stariye Atagi found five bodies in an abandoned house at 81 Nagornaya Street, on the outskirts of the village. According to the eyewitness statements, the house was burnt but there were no bullet holes or shell marks on the walls. The bodies were severely burnt, and only one of them was identified – as Mr Imran Kuntayev. It was impossible to identify the other corpses. 54. According to the ninth applicant, on 9 March 2002 federal military officers seized a red VAZ 21099 car belonging to a resident of Stariye Atagi. The servicemen hitched the car, which was parked in the vicinity of the poultry yard, to an APC and towed it away. 55. The next day the villagers found the vehicle outside Stariye Atagi. It was burnt and flattened. There were three bodies inside. They had been burnt to a degree that made it impossible to identify them. The applicants submitted photographs of the destroyed car with the burnt bodies in it. 56. Before the operation was over, the federal military officers forced the council of elders and the head of administration of Stariye Atagi to sign a declaration to the effect that there had been no incidents during the operation. 57. On 13 March 2002, when the restrictions were lifted, the villagers brought all the unidentified corpses to Grozny. It appears that they did not manage to contact the authorities, and later that day they returned the bodies to Stariye Atagi. 58. On 14 or 15 March 2002 officers of the Grozny district office of the Interior (РОВД Грозненского района) took the corpses to the village of Tolstoy-Yurt intending to send them on to Mozdok for a forensic examination. 59. On 1 April 2002 D., an investigator from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic, delivered the bodies back to Stariye Atagi. The corpses were wrapped in bags and were decomposed. They remained unidentified. D. explained to the villagers that the prosecutor’s office had insufficient funds to conduct the forensic examination of the corpses and that the refrigerators in the forensic examination department in which they had been kept had been out of order. 60. On 3 April 2002 the residents of Stariye Atagi buried the unidentified bodies. 61. The Government confirmed that a sweeping operation had been conducted in the village of Stariye Atagi from 6 to 13 March 2002. The aim of the operation had been to find and arrest members of illegal armed groups who had abducted and killed four servicemen of the FSB on 12 February 2002. 62. On 7 March 2002, at around 2 p.m., a fight broke out between members of the illegal armed groups and federal servicemen in a house at 81 Nagornaya Street. As a result of the use of small arms and grenade dispensers, four members of the illegal armed group were killed. As the house was set on fire, bodies were severely burnt; after an inspection by law-enforcement officers they were handed over to the local administration for burial. 63. On 9 March 2002 a group of servicemen was fired at from a car that was driving along the road between Grozny and Shatoy within three kilometres of Stariye Atagi. The servicemen fired back. The car was set on fire and the three members of illegal armed groups in it were killed. Their bodies were also severely burnt and handed over to the local administration for burial. 64. After the operation had been completed, village residents lodged applications concerning the apprehension and subsequent disappearance of eleven residents of Stariye Atagi, including nine relatives of the present applicants. 65. Immediately after their family members had been apprehended, the applicants started searching for them. Before the end of the sweeping operation, the search was mostly conducted by women since it was dangerous for men to be seen in the village. 66. Between 6 and 11 March 2002 the mothers and other women from the families of the apprehended persons repeatedly went to the poultry yard and the mill and inquired after their relatives. One of the servicemen confirmed that all the detained persons were being kept in the mill. 67. On 9 March 2002, in reply to a query by Said-Selim Kanyaev’s relatives, an officer of the rank of general, who introduced himself as Nikolay Artemovich (in the applicants’ opinion, General N.A. Kolbaskin), stated that he had delivered all the detainees to the police and the FSB. 68. On 11 March 2002 a representative of the federal military stated, in the presence of Mr G., the head of the village administration, that all the detainees had been taken to the village of Tolstoy-Yurt. 69. The applicants lodged numerous separate and joint applications with prosecutors of various levels, public bodies, including the President of Russia, regional administrative authorities, including a deputy of the State Duma, the Director of the FSB, the Head of the General Headquarters of the Armed Forces of Russia (начальник Генерального штаба Вооруженных сил РФ), and the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms (Специальный представитель Президента РФ по обеспечению прав и свобод человека и гражданина в Чеченской Республике). They also visited a number of State bodies. The applicants were supported in their efforts by various human rights NGOs such as the SRJI, Memorial and Human Rights Watch. In their letters to the authorities the applicants and the NGOs referred to the facts of the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives, provided a description of them, asked for assistance in searching for them, requested that the applicants be granted victim status and complained of the absence of any developments in the investigation and the lack of information on its progress. The applicants mainly received formal responses informing them that their requests had been forwarded to various prosecutor’s offices for examination. 70. On 13 March 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Grozny District (прокуратура Грозненского района) instituted a criminal investigation under Article 105 § 2 (a) of the Russian Criminal Code (murder of two or more persons) into the disappearance of 13 residents of Stariye Atagi, including the applicants’ relatives and Mr Ismail Dzhamayev, Mr Imran Kuntayev, Mr V. D. and Mr R. D., between 6 and 11 March 2002. The file was assigned the number 56031. 71. By decision of 13 March 2002 the Government of the Chechen Republic set up a commission for the investigation of the allegations of disappearance of residents of Stariye Atagi during passport checks. 72. On 15 March 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor’s Office granted victim status to Mr A. Kh., a brother of Mr Timur Khadzhayev and to Mr S. K., the father of Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, who were questioned on the same date. 73. Mr A. Kh. submitted: “...[Mr] Timur Khadzhayev was my brother. He was disabled ... He was not a member of any illegal armed group. He had no job. He lived in Nazran as a refugee. He came [to Stariye Atagi to visit his family] on 4 March 2002... On 10 March 2002, at around 10 a.m., armed men wearing camouflage and helmets rushed into our house through the orchard. One of them was wearing a black sports cap and a black uniform... At that time my mother, my sister, my brother Timur and my wife with the children were in the yard. This man in black uniform took me and Timur outside the gates and checked our passports after which he took us to house no. 22... There [in the yard] they stood us with our face against the wall and made us stand with our legs apart. They put [Mr R. D.] and [Mr V. D.] alongside us. For an hour and a half they beat us all over our bodies. They did not ask any questions while they did this... Then one of them, using a portable radio transmitter, asked for our personal details and, after he received a reply, said that everything was fine. They let the three of us go, but took my brother Timur. We still do not know anything about his fate. On the same day they took ... [Mr R. D.] and [Mr V. D.]. Then they let [Mr R. D.] go... and, according to rumour,[Mr V. D.] is being held in Chernokozovo. [Mr R. D.] says he does not know anything about my brother’s fate. I don’t remember whether [the armed men] called each other by their names. One of them, who was wearing a camouflage uniform and a helmet, had ... a scar across his nose. I could recognise him and the other one who was wearing a black uniform...” 74. Mr S. K. submitted: “[Mr] Said-Selim Kanayev... is my son. On 6 March 2002, at around 1 p.m., my son and [Mr] Aslan Akhmadov were taken away when they were in the yard of house no. 19 in Polevaya Street. [Later] my son was escorted home and [the servicemen] searched our house but did not find anything. I was not at home during the search. When I learnt that my son had been apprehended, I went to the head of the village administration. When I returned home I learnt that... my wife had paid USD 300. It was Said-Selim who had asked for money in the amount of 10,000 roubles to be given to them. [H]e had said that he would then be released. His mother had given him the money. Then one of [the servicemen] had permitted my son to talk to his relatives. He had assured everybody that he would be released after the documents had been checked. Nevertheless, they beat him and took him to the APC and [then] took him away with them. Since then I have not had any news of my son and I still do not know where he is. On that day there were three APCs and other military vehicles in our street, including an Ural and a UAZ, in which, according to the residents, there was a general who was in charge of the operation in our village. According to the eyewitnesses, ... the vehicles’ registration plates were deliberately covered with mud. On 11 March, when the military convoy was leaving the village after the operation, the mother of [Mr] Aslan Akhmadov and some other women were standing on a bridge as the convoy passed by. They recognised several people in an APC as the ones who had taken my son Said-Selim and [Mr] Aslan Akhmadov away. They could remember the registration plates of two APCs: no. 225 and no. 207. Some of the servicemen who had apprehended my son and [Mr] Aslan Akhmadov were in those very APCs. One of them, who was the head of the group that had entered our house, I could identify by his height and features. My son was not a member of any illegal armed group... He helped me at home...” 75. On 16 March 2002 victim status was granted to the first applicant, who was questioned on the same date. She submitted: “...[Mr] Aslan Akhmadov is my son. He was a fourth-year student at the oil college. Throughout the whole year he studied full time and did not skip lectures. He came home two days before the “sweeping” operation and stayed at home. When he left home, he did not go far and always let me or his father know where he was going. On 6 March, at around 11 a.m. or 12 noon, my son and [Mr] Said-Selim Kanayev were apprehended by servicemen of the Russian federal authorities in the yard of no. 19 Polevaya Street. The people who took them away were accompanied by three APCs, an Ural vehicle, a light grey four-wheel drive UAZ vehicle and a blue UAZ car. The vehicles’ registration plates were deliberately covered with mud... I was at home and when I heard that my son and [Mr] Said-Selim Kanayev had been apprehended, I went to the street and saw [them] standing at the western side of the neighbours’ mosque with their hands against the wall. One of us was allowed to approach our sons. After a while five or six people surrounded my son Alsan and brought him to our home. Then Aslan told me that they wanted money in the amount of 10,000 roubles and that he knew that we did have this money. My mother-in-law entered the house and came out with USD 200 in two notes. She gave this money to the senior officer. She told him that she had saved this money for her funeral... The officer took the money and promised to let my son go after the documents had been checked. I could recognise this officer; he was around forty years old, about 1.90 metres tall, big and fat, and was wearing sunglasses and a black headscarf; he had a long thin nose. He did not give his name. They put Aslan in an APC and took him away. In the evening [somebody] brought me his college record book that some women had found in Ambulatornaya Street. When Aslan was apprehended, he had the record book in his pocket together with his passport. Since the day of Aslan’s apprehension, I and some other women have stayed [everyday] until evening ... near the filtration point. On 9 [March] I and some other women saw a red VAZ 21099 car being removed from the territory of the filtration point. [I]t was hitched to an APC and taken down the road in the direction of the town. After the sweeping operation this car was found six or seven kilometres away from the village, 500 metres from the road. It was burnt and burnt bodies were in it. To date I have no information about my son and his fate. He was not a member of any illegal armed group...” 76. On 18 March 2002 victim status was granted to the seventh applicant, to Ms R. P., the mother of Mr Amir Pokayev, to Ms L. K., a sister of Mr Imran Kuntayev, and to Ms Kh. D., a relative of Mr V. D. 77. The seventh applicant submitted: “...On 6 March 2002 a “sweeping” operation started in Stariye Atagi. On 9 March, at 8.30 a.m., the servicemen who conducted the “sweeping” operation took my son, Magomed, away... I still do not know anything about his fate. When he was apprehended he had a birth certificate... with him. He was taken away in two grey UAZ four-wheel-drive vehicles and a green UAZ-469 car. The people who took my son had firearms and were not wearing masks. I could recognise them. They did not find anything at our home. They asked for his personal details using a portable radio transmitter and said that he had to be apprehended... They treated us in a polite manner. They promised that they would check the houses and then let him go. Apart from him, nobody was taken from this street. We were not let in to the filtration point and I do not know whether he was taken there at all...” 78. Ms R. P. submitted: “[Mr] Amir Pokayev was my son. On 6 March 2002 a “sweeping” operation started in our village. That day I was in Grozny and came back only in the evening. When I came home, I learnt that at around 1.30 p.m. servicemen had arrived in armoured vehicles with registration plates covered with mud, including three APCs, a green UAZ-469 car and a grey four-wheel-drive UAZ vehicle. They had checked the passports of all the men. They had kept my son Amir’s passport and when my husband had asked what they needed it for, they had explained that they had a computer in the car. There they would check [the passport] and then let [Amir] go. At the same time [Mr I. S.], my husband’s nephew, had been taken from his house and they had both been taken to the filtration point. According to [Mr I. S.], when they had reached [the filtration point], they had been placed in different APCs, following which [Mr I. S.] had been taken to [the filtration point]. He did not know anything about my son’s fate. According to my husband, the name of the person who had taken our son away was Oleg. [O]n 9 March at 6 p.m. “Oleg” was shown in the TV programme Vesti next to the UGA commander Moltenskiy. [My husband said] that [Oleg] was wearing a moustache and that he recognised him at once, as well as some other people. All the servicemen who had taken my son away were armed with Stechkin guns, machine guns with short barrels and other weapons; some of them had armoured shields. On 10 [March] [Mr R. D.], who lived at Shkolnaya Street, was also apprehended and held at the mill. In the pit [he was held in] he saw an inscription “[M.] and Amir were here]”. My son had nothing to do with members of illegal armed groups; he was repairing his car together with his father and was helping me at home. When they took him away he was wearing a black polo-neck, blue jeans, a beige sweater and dark blue trainers...” 79. On 5 April 2002 the local administration of Stariye Atagi (местная администрация села Старые Атаги) issued the applicants with a certificate confirming that their nine relatives and Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been apprehended and taken away by federal military officers between 6 and 11 March 2002 and had then disappeared. The certificate was signed by the acting head of administration of Stariye Atagi and bore an official stamp of the administration. It read as follows: “[The present] certificate is issued by the local administration of the village Stariye Atagi in respect of written applications by the village’s residents, whose children were apprehended and taken for passport check in the period between 6 and 10 March 2002 during the special operation conducted by the federal troops. The local administration thereby confirms that: 1. The following residents of Stariye Atagi were apprehended by the federal troops and taken to an unknown destination: on 6 March 2002 – Akhmadov Aslan Pavlovichm born in 1982; – Kanayev Said-Selim Saidovich, born in 1983, – Dzhamayev Ismail Issayevich, born in 1981, – Chagayev Islam Akhmadovich, born in 1982, – Pokayev Amir Sharfutdinovich, born in 1982, on 8 March 2002 – Magomadov Ibragim Salmanovich, born in 1982, on 9 March 2002 – Isambayev Magomed Khasanovich, born in 1981, on 10 March 2002 – Zakayev Abdul-Naser Mustapayevich, born in 1965, – Baysarov Adlan Sharputdinovich, born in 1972, – Khadzhayev Timur Sultanovich, born in 1976. 2. On 13 March 2002 the Grozny Military Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings no. 56031 in respect of the disappearance of the above-named persons following their relatives’ applications; the investigation is under way. 3. A governmental commission headed by the deputy chairman of the Government of the Chechen Republic, Magomadov Nasrudin Nozhayevich, was created (by governmental decree no. 188-rp of 13 March 2002) [to investigate] the events.” 80. On 7 April 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic answered a request received from Memorial, stating that on 13 March 2002 a criminal investigation had been instituted under Article 105 § 2 (a) of the Russian Criminal Code into the disappearance of 13 residents of Stariye Atagi, including the applicants’ relatives, between 6 and 11 March 2002. The letter also stated that: “On 9 March 2002, at around 1 p.m., four burnt corpses of unknown persons had been found in the mosque of Stariye Atagi. An ensuing investigation established that on 7 March 2002, at around 1 p.m., fighting had broken out between servicemen and members of illegal armed groups in the courtyard of the house at 81 Nagornaya Street. Both parties opened heavy fire using various kinds of firearm, missile, grenade and grenade launcher with the result that the house was burnt down. On the same day, at around 6 p.m., ... the local residents found and apparently took to the mosque four corpses of unknown persons bearing signs of a violent death. The identification of those persons is being conducted in the context of the criminal proceedings in case no. 56028 instituted by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Grozny District under Articles 317, 30, 105 § 2 (a) and (e) of the Russian Criminal Code. On 9 March 2002, at around 3 p.m., a VAZ 21099 vehicle approached a checkpoint of military unit 3179 situated about 4 km away from the outskirts of Stariye Atagi on the road between Chechen-Aul and Stariye Atagi. In response to [the servicemen’s] order to stop the car and produce identity papers, shots were fired from the car. During the shoot-out four passengers were killed and the car was burnt. During the examination of the vehicle the remains of a AKM machine gun, a hand grenade launcher and RGD-5 grenades without fuses were found and seized. In this connection, on 12 March 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Grozny District initiated criminal proceedings in case no. 56030 under Article 317 of the Russian Criminal Code. The identities of the persons killed in the car have not yet been established.” 81. The applicants alleged that the VAZ 21099 car referred to in the letter was the one seized by the federal military on 9 March 2002. 82. On 13 May 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Grozny District suspended the criminal proceedings in case no. 56031 on account of the failure to establish the identity of the culprits. 83. On 26 June 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision to suspend the investigation. On 17 July 2002 the case was taken up again by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Grozny District. 84. In letters of 18 July 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic notified the first and ninth applicants and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev’s mother that on 13 March 2002 criminal proceedings in case no. 56031 had been brought in connection with the disappearance of their relatives and that the preliminary investigation had been resumed on 22 June 2002 and was now in progress. 85. On 25 July 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Grozny District informed the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 that the preliminary investigation in criminal case no. 56031 had established, inter alia, that the servicemen who had detained Mr Said-Selim Kanayev had travelled in APCs with hull numbers 225, 207 and 313, and requested, in this connection, to verify to what detachment and military unit those APCs belonged, the person or persons who had been in charge of the operation and the persons who had formed the crew of the said vehicles. 86. On 21 August 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicants that their allegations that their relatives had disappeared during the sweeping operation in Stariye Atagi had been investigated and that criminal proceedings in criminal cases nos. 14/33/0184-02 and 14/33/0185-02 had been instituted in connection with the combat between the servicemen and the members of the illegal armed groups and as regards the discovery of four bodies bearing signs of a violent death in a burnt car on the road from Chechen-Aul to Stariye Atagi. The letter continued as follows: “The preliminary investigation established that on 9 March 2002, during the special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi, the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 under the command of Senior Lieutenant Z. were checking vehicles going out of the village of Stariye Atagi, since, in accordance with intelligence received, members of illegal armed groups stationed in Stariye Atagi were planning an attack on this road. At around 3 p.m. a VAZ 21099 car approached the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 under the command of Z. In reply to the servicemen’s order to stop, machine-gun fire was opened from the car. The servicemen opened return fire with the result that the car started burning. Subsequently three burnt corpses of unidentified persons were found in it. On 18 May 2002 the criminal proceedings brought in connection with the servicemen’s use of firearms were discontinued... The preliminary investigation in case no. 14/33/0185-02 established that on 7 March 2002, at around 1 p.m., in the courtyard of the house at 81 Nagornaya Street, in the course of the operation to locate and detain members of illegal armed groups, fighting had broken out between the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 under the command of Major V. and rebel fighters (boyevik), the latter having hidden in the house and opened machine-gun fire. The servicemen inflicted fire damage, using, inter alia, RPG-26 weapons with the result that the house caught fire. During the ensuing examination of the house four burnt bodies were found, one of whom was identified by [Ms K.] as her brother, [Mr] Imran Kuntayev. On 10 May 2002 the criminal proceedings brought in connection with the servicemen’s use of firearms were discontinued... Accordingly, no involvement on the part of the servicemen in the abduction of [the applicants’ relatives] has ever been established ...” 87. On 9 October 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Grozny District sent the case file to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 for investigation. The case file was given the number 34/33/0657-02. 88. By a letter of 14 October 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 replied to a query of the SRJI concerning the search for Mr Said-Selim Kanayev. It stated that, upon the termination of the special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi, the head of the administration, Mr G., signed a statement to the effect that he had no complaints in respect of the servicemen, but lacked information as regards six residents of Stariye Atagi, including Mr Said-Selim Kanayev. The letter went on to say that the investigating authorities had inspected the scene of the crime and questioned the relatives of the missing persons on several occasions so as to verify the version that residents of the village, including Mr Kanayev, had been among the members of the illegal armed groups killed during the combat. However, the identities of the persons killed during the combat had not yet been established. The letter further stated that the allegations to the effect that the servicemen who had detained Mr Said-Selim Kanayev had claimed money for his release were unfounded, and that – according to the information provided by the Chechen Department of the FSB (Управление ФСБ РФ по Чеченской Республике) – Mr Said-Selim Kanayev had been a member of an illegal armed group. Finally, the letter re-stated the events of 7 and 9 March 2002 concerning the combat between the federal servicemen and the alleged rebel fighters as this had been described in the letter of the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 dated 21 August 2002. 89. On 25 October 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 replied in a similar vein to a query by the NGO Human Rights Watch relating to the identification of the remains found in Stariye Atagi during the sweeping operation of 6 – 11 March 2002. The letter stated, in particular, that there was no evidence to confirm that the federal military had detained the six residents of Stariye Atagi listed in the statement of the head of administration and that, according to the Chechen Department of the FSB of Russia, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev and Mr Aslan Akhmadov had participated in the activities of illegal armed groups. 90. On 26 October 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 suspended the investigation on account of the failure to establish the identity of the culprits. The decision read, in particular: “During the period from 6 to 10 March 2002, in the course of a special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi, unidentified servicemen abducted thirteen residents of the village: A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I. Kuntayev, I. A. Chagayev, A. Sh. Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T. S. Khadzhayev, [V. D.], [R. D.], N. Zakayev. Upon the completion of the operation on 13 March 2002 [V. D.] and [R. D.] were released. The whereabouts of the other residents of Stariye Atagi who were apprehended has not been established... In the course of the investigative actions ... person(s) who had committed the offence were not identified...” 91. Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision to suspend the investigation. 92. In a letter of 11 November 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the OSCE assistance group (Группа содействия ОБСЕ в Чечне) that criminal proceedings had been initiated on 13 March 2002 in connection with the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives and an investigation was currently under way. 93. On 14 December 2002 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA quashed the decision to suspend the investigation for the following reasons: “The decision was unfounded since in the course of the preliminary investigation not all the investigative measures aimed at identifying persons involved in the disappearance of the named residents of Stariye Atagi were taken. [In particular,] the military units that had conducted the special operation in the village were not identified, the commanders of these units were not questioned, the persons who had conducted a check and apprehended the [disappeared residents] were not identified. Therefore, the preliminary investigation should be reopened.” 94. On 23 December 2002 the case was taken up again by the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102. Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified of the reopening of the investigation. 95. On 23 January 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 suspended the investigation on account of the failure to identify persons to be charged with the offence. Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision to suspend the investigation. 96. By letter of 18 March 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 replied to the query lodged by the SRJI on the applicants’ behalf and stated that in the file of criminal case no. 56031 opened in relation to the abduction of the applicants’ relatives there was no indication that the federal servicemen had been involved in the alleged offence. 97. On 2 April 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 notified the SRJI that the case file of the investigation instituted in connection with the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives had been returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic, as the military prosecutor had no competence over the case in the absence of evidence of the military personnel’s involvement in the alleged offence. 98. On 24 April 2003 the SRJI requested the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic to grant the applicants victim status and inform them of the latest developments in the case. 99. On 26 June 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 quashed the decision of 23 January 2003 and reopened the investigation. Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified of the reopening. 100. On 27 July 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 suspended the investigation on account of the failure to identify persons to be charged with the offence. Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision. 101. On 7 August 2003 the SRJI sent a request to the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA. The request read as follows: “From 6 to 11 March 2002 a special operation of the federal forces was conducted in the village of Stariye Atagi. In the course of the operation representatives of the federal forces apprehended and took to an unknown destination the following residents of Stariye Atagi: A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, A. Sh. Pokayev, I. A. Chagayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T. S. Khadzhayev, A. N. Zakayev... Upon the completion of the operation six unidentified bodies were found in Stariye Atagi. On 14 or 15 March 2002 officers of the Grozny District Office of the Interior took the unidentified bodies away. On 1 April 2002 investigator [U. D.] of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic brought the decomposed bodies back to Stariye Atagi. He told the residents of the village that the bodies had been brought from Mozdok where they had allegedly had to be identified by means of a forensic medical examination. However, no examination had taken place because, according to [U. D.], the refrigerators in the bureau of forensic examination had not been working and, furthermore, the prosecutor’s office had not had sufficient funds for the examination. After that the residents of Stariye Atagi buried the bodies in a common grave. ...[w]e ask you: - to grant victim status to [the close relatives] of the disappeared persons and to provide them with copies of the [relevant] decision; - to provide us with an update of the investigation; - to inform us whether relatives of the persons apprehended during the special operation in Stariye Atagi between 6 and 11 Match 2002 and other eyewitnesses were questioned; - to order exhumation of the remains of the unidentified bodies buried by the residents of Stariye Atagi in a common grave and refer them to a forensic examination in order to identify them.” 102. On 29 October 2003 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA quashed the decision of 27 July 2003 to suspend the investigation on the ground that the whereabouts of unspecified witnesses had been established which required further investigative actions. Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified of the reopening. 103. On 1 December 2003 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA informed the second applicant that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction of the missing persons had not been established. It was also stated that all questions concerning the investigation should be addressed to the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office. 104. On 9 December 2003 the FSB Department in the Chechen Republic informed the first, second and tenth applicants that it had no information about the whereabouts of A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I. A. Chagayev, A. Sh. Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T. S. Khadzhayev or A. N. Zakayev. They had neither been placed on a wanted list nor suspected of unlawful activity. They had not been detained by FSB officers either. 105. On 17 January 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA granted victim status to the tenth applicant. 106. On 16 February 2002 the Ministry of the Interior informed the second applicant that since March 2002 its officers had not conducted any special operations in Stariye Atagi and had not detained any of the village’s residents. 107. On 19 March 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA suspended the investigation. The decision read: “During the period from 6 to 13 March 2002 servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB conducted a special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi... aimed at the identification, arrest and extermination of members of an illegal armed group and the search for four servicemen of the FSB who had gone missing. The special operation was headed by the Deputy Commander of the UGA Major-General G. S. Borisov. At around 2 p.m. on 7 March 2002 fighting broke out with members of illegal armed groups in Nagornaya Street. Servicemen of the units Alpha and 1 pSpN (1 пСпН) were involved in the fight. The scene of the fighting was blocked by servicemen of the unit 48 PON (48 ПОН). As a result of the fighting six members of the illegal armed group who had resisted with arms were killed. [Their] bodies were severely burnt [and were not] identified. On 8 March 2002 in Stariye Atagi servicemen of the units 1 pSpN, 348 and 349 OBON (348 и 349 ОБОН) killed two members of an illegal armed group, E. B. and Z. S., who had resisted them with arms. At around 4 p.m. on 9 March 2002 in Stariye Atagi servicemen of the unit 1 pSpN killed three members of the illegal armed group who were in a car and resisted with arms. [Their] bodies were severely damaged and burnt [and were not] identified. During the period when the special operation was being conducted unidentified persons in camouflage uniform accompanied by cars and armoured vehicles abducted [the following] residents of Stariye Atagi: A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I. Kuntayev, I. A. Chagayev, A. Sh. Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T. S. Khadzhayev, A. N. Zakayev. Taking into account that the term of the preliminary investigation has expired and that the investigative measures that could be taken in the absence of a suspect have been completed, [the investigation should be suspended].” 108. Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision to suspend the investigation. 109. On 22 May 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA quashed the decision and reopened the investigation. Relatives of the disappeared persons were informed accordingly. 110. On 24 May 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA ordered a forensic molecular-genetic expert examination of six unidentified bodies out of the seven bodies buried at the village cemetery. 111. On 17 June 2004 a forensic report was drawn up according to which the remains of the six bodies found at the cemetery were those of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam Chagayev, Mr Ibragim Magomadov and Mr Ismail Dzhamayev. 112. On 22 June 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA again suspended the investigation. The decision read: “During the period from 6 to 13 March 2002 servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB conducted a special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi... aimed at the identification, arrest and extermination of members of an illegal armed group and the search for four servicemen of the FSB who had gone missing. According to the materials from the case file, at around 2 p.m. on 7 March 2002 fighting broke out with members of illegal armed groups in Nagornaya Street. Servicemen of the FSB and the military unit 3179 were involved in the fighting. The scene of the fighting was blocked by servicemen of military unit 3656. In the course of the fight six members of the illegal armed group were killed. [Their] bodies were severely burnt. No measures were taken to identify them. On 8 March 2002 in the same village servicemen of military units 3179, 6779 and 6780 killed two members of the illegal armed group, E. B. and Z. S., who had resisted them with arms. At around 4 p.m. on 9 March 2002 in Stariye Atagi servicemen of military unit 3179 killed three members of the illegal armed group who were in a car. [Their] bodies were severely damaged and burnt. No measures were taken to identify them. At the same time, according to applications and statements by residents of Stariye Atagi, during the period when the special operation was being conducted unidentified persons in camouflage uniform accompanied by cars and armoured vehicles abducted A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I. Kuntayev, I. A. Chagayev, A. Sh. Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T. S. Khadzhayev, A. N. Zakayev. In the course of the investigation the bodies of the members of the illegal armed groups buried in the cemetery of Stariye Atagi were exhumed and body tissue taken from them; blood samples were taken from relatives of the abducted persons. According to the medical opinion no. 52/2004, the forensic (molecular-genetic) expert examination showed that the remains found at the cemetery were those of I. A. Chagayev, A. Sh. Pokayev, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, A. P. Akhmadov and I. S. Magomadov... Taking into account that the term of the preliminary investigation has expired and that the investigative measures that could be taken in the absence of a suspect have been completed, [the investigation should be suspended].” 113. Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision to suspend the investigation. It appears, however, that they were not provided with copies of the expert reports. On 8 October 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA invited relatives of Mr Islam Chagayev, Mr Magomed Isambayev and Mr Timur Khadzhayev to study the expert report at the investigation department in Khankala. However, on 12 October 2004 it wrote to relatives of the ten disappeared persons telling them that the investigator’s refusal to provide them with copies of the expert report had been lawful since they could only study the case file upon the completion of the preliminary investigation. 114. On 6 November 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA quashed the decision and reopened the investigation. Relatives of the disappeared persons were informed accordingly. 115. On 6 December 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA suspended the investigation again. Apart from restating the facts set out in the decision of 22 June 2004, the decision also contained the following information: “According to the FSB, Akhmadov and Zakayev were members of an illegal armed group, and the sister of [Mr] Kuntayev, a resident of Stariye Atagi, ... had been trained for a terrorist suicide attack and in the beginning of October 2003 had left for an unknown destination in order to commit an act of terrorism as a “kamikaze”.” 116. Relatives of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision. 117. On 31 December 2005 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA wrote to the SRJI stating, in particular, that while the seventh and tenth applicants had been granted victim status, the eighth and eleventh applicants would be granted victim status if it were established that there were grounds for such a decision. 118. According to the Government, on an unspecified date the sixth applicant was granted victim status. 119. On 10 January 2006 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA quashed the decision of 6 December 2004 and reopened the investigation on the following grounds: “In the course of the investigation significant discrepancies between statements by residents of Stariye Atagi and servicemen concerning the detention of the [disappeared] persons and their possible death as a result of the fighting on 7 and 9 March 2002 ... were not resolved. Witness statements in this regard were not duly verified and recorded. The investigating authorities did not take comprehensive measures in order to establish the specific places where the bodies of A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I. A. Chagayev, A. Sh. Pokayev, and I. S. Magomadov, who, according to their relatives, had been apprehended together with the other residents of the village, had been found. Up until now the whereabouts and the fate of other residents of Stariye Atagi who have been missing since the operation was conducted in March 2002 have not been established. In such circumstances the decision to suspend the preliminary investigation should be quashed and the investigation resumed.” 120. On 7 July 2006 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA ordered a forensic molecular-genetic expert examination in order to establish whether the bodies of Mr Timur Khadzhayev, Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev and Mr Shamsudi Baysarov could have been among the unidentified bodies transferred to the 16th State Centre of Forensic Expert Examination of the North-Caucasia Military District (16 ГЦ СМ и КЭ СКВО) after 13 March 2002. The conclusions of the forensic report were negative. 121. On 9 September 2006 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA ordered another forensic molecular-genetic expert examination. The order read, in particular: “During the period from 6 to 13 March 2002 servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the FSB conducted a special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi... aimed at the identification, arrest and extermination of members of illegal armed groups. During the operation unidentified persons in camouflage uniform accompanied by cars and armoured vehicles abducted A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. I. Dzhamayev, I. A. Chagayev, A. Sh. Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Sh. Baysarov, T. S. Khadzhayev, A. N. Zakayev. In the course of the operation a house situated in Nagornaya Street was shelled and blown up, a red VAZ 21099 car with members of an illegal armed group in it was burned and crushed by an APC. On 7 March 2002 four burnt bodies were found in the house in Nagornaya Street. On 10 March 2002 three other burnt bodies were found in a car on the outskirts of Stariye Atagi... Hitherto the whereabouts of A. N. Zakayev, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Sh. Baysarov and T. S. Khadzhayev have not been established. On 17 March 2004 two unidentified bodies were found in Stariye Atagi; their hair fascicles were seized.” The experts had to establish whether the hair fascicles could belong to Mr Timur Khadzhayev, Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev or Mr Shamsudi Baysarov. The conclusions of the forensic report were negative. 122. In their submissions made prior to the decision as to admissibility of the present application, the applicants submitted that they had no information about any results of the investigation. The tenth applicant also submitted that her requests for a confrontation with the representatives of the federal armed forces had remained unanswered and that the investigating authorities had never questioned her son and daughter who had witnessed the apprehension of Mr Timur Khadzhayev. Together with their submissions made after the decision as to admissibility the applicant enclosed copies of the three reports of forensic molecular-genetic expert examinations. 123. In their submissions made prior to the decision as to admissibility, the Government stated that the case was being investigated by the military prosecuting authorities and that the case file had been given no. 34/00/0014-03. They further noted that the case file contained conflicting statements by the residents of Stariye Atagi and federal servicemen who had participated in the special operation and in the fighting with the members of illegal armed groups. At the same time some of the residents living next to 81 Nagornaya Street confirmed that there had been fighting with members of illegal armed groups who had resisted the servicemen. 124. In their submissions made after the decision as to admissibility, the Government informed the Court that the investigation in case no. 34/00/0014-03 had been discontinued on 26 March 2007 on account of the absence of any indication of a crime allegedly committed by servicemen. 125. On 3 June 2005 the SRJI notified the Court that on 31 May 2005 a large group of federal servicemen had arrived in ten UAZ cars and several armoured UAZ vehicles at the first applicant’s house in Stariye Atagi. According to eyewitness statements, about 100 military officers surrounded and then searched the first applicant’s house and seven neighbouring ones, producing no search warrants. The military had camouflage uniforms and spoke Russian. 126. Having entered the first applicant’s house, the military ordered the first applicant’s husband, Mr Pavel Akhmadov, to lie down and pointed their rifles at him. The first applicant’s youngest son, Mr Rustam Akhmadov, was forced to stand against the wall. The first applicant and other residents attempted to find out the reasons for the servicemen’s actions, but the latter ignored their questions. 127. The servicemen had photographs of the first applicant’s third son, Mr Magomed Akhmadov, a student at Grozny University, who was away at that time, and seized some more from the applicant’s house. They compared the photographs and repeatedly asked the local residents about Mr Magomed Akhmadov’s distinguishing marks. After the search the military left. The whole operation lasted for three hours and was well organised. 128. On the same day the military stopped and searched a student shuttle bus running between Stariye Atagi and Grozny. According to the statements of the students who were in the bus at that time, the servicemen inquired after Mr Magomed Akhmadov and asked where he could be found. Following those events, the first applicant’s son, Mr Magomed Akhmadov, had to leave his home in Stariye Atagi and was unable to go to Grozny University to take his final exams in June 2005, fearing for his safety. 129. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, on 3 June 2005 the Court invited the Russian Government to submit comments on the SRJI’s letter. 130. On 24 June 2005 the Government submitted a reply prepared by the Prosecutor General’s Office stating that on 31 May 2005 the federal servicemen had conducted a search for members of the illegal armed groups who had participated in a clash that had taken place in Stariye Atagi on 18 May 2005. During the search the servicemen came to the first applicant’s house and inquired where the other members of her family were and whether any members of the illegal armed groups were hiding at her house. According to the Government, the first applicant herself decided to show a photograph of her son to the servicemen and suggested that she bring him to the local police station upon his return from Grozny, but the servicemen insisted that he was not the person they were looking for. They were polite and did not ask any questions concerning the Court. 131. On 19 July 2005 the SRJI furnished the Court with the first applicant’s comments and a number of witness statements, including those of the first applicant’s daughter. The first applicant stated that on 10 June 2005 a group of servicemen and officers of a district prosecutor’s office arrived at her house and interrogated her about the events of 31 May 2005. According to the first applicant, in the group there were several servicemen who had raided her house on 31 May 2005. They asked her why she had complained to higher instances, why she had indicated that there had been persons of Russian origin and whether anybody had been beaten or anything had been stolen from her. According to the first applicant’s daughter, Mr Magomed Akhmadov managed to take his final exam on 11 June 2005. 132. On 30 May 2006 the Grozny District Office of the Interior (ROVD) replied in writing to the Chairman of the Bar of the Urus-Martan District. The reply read: “[We hereby] inform you that Magomed Pavlovich Akhmadov born in 1981 residing in Stariye Atagi ... is not on the wanted list of [the Grozny ROVD]. He is not charged in connection with criminal proceedings conducted by [the Grozny ROVD] or the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office. However, [the Grozny ROVD] has information that Magomed Pavlovich Akhmadov is an active member of an illegal armed group which formed part of a gang under the command of emir Timur Alviyevich Maayev, killed on 9 May 2006. At present Magomed Pavlovich Akhmadov is hiding from the authorities.” 133. On 12 February 2008 the first applicant wrote to the SRJI and said that on 1 February 2008 she and her husband and on 9 February 2008 she and her daughter had been questioned in respect of her son, Mr Magomed Akhmadov. They had been asked, in particular, about his whereabouts and when they had last talked to him. 134. Despite specific requests made by the Court on several occasions, the Government did not submit a copy of the file in criminal case no. 56031 (at present no. 34/00/0014-03), having provided only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status and of the records of the interviews held in March 2002. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that 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 or other participants in the criminal proceedings. At the same time the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted, with the exception of “the documents [disclosing military information and personal data of the witnesses], and without the right to make copies of the case file and transmit it to others”.

4. The applicant was born in 1963 and is presently detained in the Lublin Detention Centre. 5. On 17 July 2001 the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery acting in an organised criminal group. The court also considered that the measure was justified by the severity of the penalty that could be expected and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. 6. Subsequently, the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention on several occasions. 7. On 5 September 2002 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal, upon the prosecutor’s request, decided to prolong the applicant’s detention relying, in addition to the earlier grounds, on the complexity of the case. 8. On 21 December 2002, the applicant was indicted before the Opole Regional Court. The bill of indictment was directed against 22 co‑accused. 9. On 30 December 2002 the Opole Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention relying on the strong probability that the applicant and 13 co-accused had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of the sentence that could be imposed. The court further submitted that only detention would secure the applicant’s appearance at the trial. 10. On 14 May 2003 the Regional Court made an application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postepowania karnego) to the Wroclaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking that the applicant’s detention be prolonged beyond the statutory time-limit of two years. 11. On 21 May 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal granted that application and prolonged the detention of the applicant until 27 November 2003. The Court justified its decision with reference to the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences and the complexity of the case which concerned an organised criminal group and involved several co‑accused. 12. At the hearing held by the Opole Regional Court on 22 October 2003 the applicant’s application for release was dismissed. 13. On 26 November 2003 the Court of Appeal, upon another application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 22 January 2004. It reiterated the grounds previously given for keeping him in custody. The court also considered that, given the severity of the penalty that might be expected, the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. 14. That decision was upheld on appeal on 13 January 2004. 15. On 16 January 2004 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court stressed that, due to the complex nature of the case, the applicant should be kept in custody since the grounds previously given for his detention were still valid. 16. That decision was upheld on appeal on 10 February 2004. The Court of Appeal noted that the exemplary behaviour of the applicant during the proceedings ‑ the fact that he had confessed and had been clarifying important details concerning the alleged crimes - would justify releasing him from detention. Nevertheless, the court found that there were “pragmatic” reasons for keeping him in detention, since he had been simultaneously detained by the Lublin Regional Court in connection with another set of criminal proceedings. If released, the applicant would have been transferred to a detention centre in Lublin, which, in the Court’s view, would make it impossible to complete the trial. 17. On 8 April 2004 the Regional Court made yet another application asking the Court of Appeal to prolong the applicant’s detention. On 16 April 2004 the court granted that application, finding that the grounds given previously were still valid. The court particularly referred to the complexity of the case, the type of offences at issue and the severity of the anticipated penalty. 18. The applicant’s numerous applications for release and his appeals against the decisions prolonging detention were to no avail. 19. In total, the trial court held 43 hearings during which it heard 86 witnesses and the depositions of 130 other witnesses were read at the hearings. On 21 July 2004 the Opole Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to 3 ½ years’ imprisonment. On the same date the court decided to place the applicant under police supervision finding that, given his low sentence, there were no grounds for prolonging the applicant’s detention. 20. On 21 November 2002 the Strzelce Opolskie District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a robbery, the severity of the penalty which could be expected and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. 21. Subsequently, the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on several occasions. 22. On 13 February 2003 the applicant was indicted before the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges brought against 8 co-accused. 23. On 18 February and 14 October 2003 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention, finding that the grounds originally given for keeping him in custody were still valid. The court further decided to examine the applicant’s case separately due to the fact that the applicant was being simultaneously tried before the Opole Regional Court. 24. On 27 January and 6 April 2004 the Lublin Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court gave identical grounds for continuing the applicant’s detention and dismissed his application for release for personal reasons. 25. It appears that the trial started on 6 October 2004. 26. The trial court held in total 7 hearings and on 30 May 2005 it gave judgment. The applicant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

5. The applicants are agricultural firms operating in northern and/or disadvantaged areas in Italy as defined in the relevant Italian laws. 6. In the 1980s the Italian legislator instituted a series of norms to favour economic activity in general and, more specifically, agricultural activity. 7. More precisely, Article 1(6) of Law no. 48 of 1988 (Legislative Decree no. 536 of 30 December 1987) (see “Relevant domestic law”, below) provided a concession (fiscalizzazione), namely, that as of 1 January 1987 the State would bear a portion of the contributions paid by employers in the agricultural sector for the purposes of Article 31(1) of Law no. 41/48 in respect of each employee. 8. Furthermore, Article 9(5) of Law No. 67 of 1988 (Legge finanziaria 1988) (see “Relevant domestic law” below) introduced a system of exemptions (sgravi contributivi) in respect of payments for the purposes of premiums and contributions related to welfare and assistance. Such payments were due in the measure of 15% (later 30%) by employers in the agricultural sector in northern regions and 40% (later 60%) by employers in the agricultural sector working in disadvantaged agricultural zones in the south of Italy. 9. According to the applicant companies, Article 9(6) of Law No. 67 of 1988 (see “Relevant domestic law” below) indicated that the latter benefit was not alternative to the one provided for by Law no. 48 of 1988. That sub-article specified that for the purposes of the calculation of the exemption mentioned above, the concession was not to be taken into account. This, they considered, was also clear from the explanatory memorandum (scheda di lettura) to the law (see “Relevant domestic law” below). 10. Following further normative changes between 1988 and 1996, the burden to be taken over by the State amounted to the following: a) 85,000 Italian lire (approximately 44 euros (EUR)) per employee for twelve monthly salaries; b) a global 5.62 percentage points for exemptions in respect of contributions for the purposes of TBC (Tuberculosis), ENAOLI (Orphans of Italian Employees) and the SSN (National Health Service); c) a global 4.92 percentage points for exemptions regarding the said contributions in respect of labourers and 5.02 percentage points for employees and directors, as from 1 June 1996. 11. Despite the law, by circular no. 160 of 18 July 1988 the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”), an Italian welfare entity, considered that the two benefits (concession and exemption) could not be accumulated and had to be considered as alternative. 12. In fact, the applicant companies benefited only from the exemption (sgravi contributivi) and not from the concession (fiscalizzazione). They considered that this interpretation was contrary to what was provided for in the law. 13. Indeed, from as early as 1994 a number of agricultural firms (in particular Floramiata Spa) instituted proceedings (following administrative refusals) complaining about the matter, and consistent case-law in favour of the agricultural firms was established by the Italian courts, including the Court of Cassation. The applicant companies submitted that between 1997 and 2003 more than twenty-five first-instance judgments and more than five appeal judgments on the same subject matter had been delivered, together with two Court of Cassation judgments (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, below) finding in favour of the agricultural firms. 14. In this light, in 2000/2002 the applicant companies instituted proceedings as explained below. Pending these judicial proceedings Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 (hereinafter Law no. 326/03) was enacted (see “Relevant domestic law” below), providing that the benefits could not be accumulated. 15. By judgment no. 274 of 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court considered that Law no. 326/03 was legitimate and not unconstitutional (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). 16. On 7 November 2000 the applicant company requested the INPS to return the monies which it had held contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect, for the period between 1 April 1990 and 31 December 1997, amounting to 173,738,951 Italian lire (approximately EUR 90,000) plus interest and subject to revaluation. 17. The INPS’s failure to reply amounting to an implicit rejection (silenzio-rifiuto), on 26 June 2001 the applicant company instituted an administrative procedure before the INPS. The latter again failed to reply. 18. Thus, on 4 January 2002 the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due (as mentioned above) for the period not covered by prescription (2000 onwards). 19. By a judgment (no. 56/2003) of 13 February 2003 the Bergamo Tribunal found in favour of the applicant company. Considering that the two benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant company had paid the relevant dues, it ordered the INPS to pay back the misappropriated sums (from 2000 onwards), with interest and subject to revaluation, and to pay its share of the costs of the proceedings. 20. By a judgment (no. 276/03) of 25 September 2003 filed in the relevant registry on 4 November 2003 the Brescia Court of Appeal dismissed the INPS’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 21. Following the entry into force of Law no. 326/03 the INPS appealed to the Court of Cassation. 22. The applicant company cross-appealed, arguing that the application of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 to its case would amount to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and a violation of the Italian Constitution in so far as it obliged the State to abide by the European Convention, a matter which had not been considered at all by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 7 July 2006. 23. By a judgment (no. 10110/07) filed in the relevant registry on 2 May 2007 the INPS’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Cassation on the basis of Law no. 326/03. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed on the basis that Law no. 326/03 had an authentic interpretative nature and was therefore only apparently retroactive, it having now been given the original intended meaning of the law. Indeed, as a thorough examination of the relevant laws revealed, the benefits at issue could not be awarded cumulatively; rather, one had to identify the most favourable benefits to a firm according to its specific position. Furthermore, the State had legitimate discretion to decide whether benefits could be granted cumulatively or not, thus no issue relating to a fair trial could be considered to arise. Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings. 24. On 9 July 2001 and again on 29 January 2002 the applicant company requested the INPS to return the monies which it had witheld contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect, for the period between 1 April 1990 and 31 December 1997, amounting to 413,928,856 Italian lire (approximately EUR 213,776) plus interest and subject to revaluation. 25. The INPS’s failure to reply amounting to an implicit rejection (silenzio-rifiuto), on 7 June 2002 the applicant company instituted an administrative procedure before the INPS. The latter again failed to reply. 26. Thus, on 11 June 2002 the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due (as mentioned above) for the period not covered by prescription. 27. By a judgment (no. 58/2003) of 13 February 2003 the Bergamo Tribunal found in favour of the applicant company. Holding that the two benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant had paid the relevant dues, it ordered the INPS to pay back the misappropriated sums (from 2001 onwards, the date on which prescription was interrupted), with interest and subject to revaluation, and to pay its share of the costs of the proceedings. 28. By a judgment (no. 277/03) of 25 September 2003 filed in the relevant registry on 4 November 2003 the Brescia Court of Appeal dismissed the INPS’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 29. Following the entry into force of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 the INPS appealed to the Court of Cassation. 30. The applicant company cross-appealed along the lines mentioned above. 31. By a judgment (no. 12863/07) filed in the relevant registry on 1 June 2007 the INPS’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Cassation on the basis of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed for the same reasons outlined above. Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings. 32. On 14 and 30 July 1999 the applicant company requested the INPS to return the monies which it had withheld contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect, for the period between 1 January 1989 and 31 December 1997, amounting to 210,609,000 Italian lire (approximately EUR 108,770) plus interest and subject to revaluation. 33. The INPS failed to reply. 34. Thus, on 25 January 2000 the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due (as mentioned above) for the period not covered by prescription. 35. By a judgment (no. 8/2001) of 3 April 2001 the Siena Tribunal found in favour of the applicant company. Considering that the two benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant had paid the relevant dues, it ordered the INPS to pay back the misappropriated sums, with interest and revaluation (from 1999, the date of its administrative claim, onwards), together with the full costs of the proceedings. 36. By a judgment (no. 249/02) of 16 April 2002 filed in the relevant registry on 24 April 2002 the Florence Court of Appeal dismissed the INPS’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 37. Following the entry into force of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 the INPS appealed to the Court of Cassation. 38. The applicant company cross-appealed along the lines mentioned above. 39. By a judgment (no. 13291/07) filed in the relevant registry on 7 June 2007 the INPS’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Cassation on the basis of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed for the same reasons outlined above. Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings. 40. On 10 December 2001 the applicant company requested the INPS to return the monies which it had withheld contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect, for the period between 1 April 1991 and 31 December 1997, amounting to 163,373,972 Italian lire (approximately EUR 84,375) plus interest and revaluation. 41. The INPS’s failure to reply amounting to an implicit rejection (silenzio-rifiuto), on 15 May 2002 the applicant company instituted an administrative procedure before the INPS. The latter again failed to reply. 42. Thus, on 11 September 2002 the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due (as mentioned above) for the period not covered by prescription (2001 onwards). 43. By a judgment (no. 57/2003) of 13 February 2003 the Bergamo Tribunal found in favour of the applicant company. Considering that the two benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant had paid the relevant dues, it ordered the INPS to pay back the misappropriated sums, with interest and subject to revaluation (from 2001 onwards), and to pay its share of the costs of the proceedings. 44. By a judgment (no. 278/03) of 25 September 2003 filed in the relevant registry on 4 November 2003 the Brescia Court of Appeal dismissed the INPS’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 45. Following the entry into force of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 the INPS appealed to the Court of Cassation. 46. The applicant company cross-appealed along the lines mentioned above. 47. By a judgment (no. 12864/07) filed in the relevant registry on 1 June 2007 the INPS’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Cassation on the basis of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed for the same reasons outlined above. Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings.

5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Subotica. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 9 March 1994 the Municipal Court in Sombor (Opštinski sud u Somboru) ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered S.B., her former husband, to pay her a monthly maintenance allowance in the amount of 25% of the minimum salary in Serbia, starting from 10 December 1993, plus the arrears of that allowance which had already accrued, together with statutory interest. 8. By 31 May 1994 this judgment had become final. 9. On 9 September 1996 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment and specified that the amount of maintenance due was 5,226 Yugoslav Dinars plus statutory interest. She proposed, in particular, that this enforcement be carried out through the auctioning of the debtors movable assets. 10. On 12 September 1996 the Municipal Court in Sombor (“the Municipal Court”) accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. 11. On 26 September 1996 S.B. filed a complaint against this order, stating that it was not clear how the applicant had calculated the exact amount of the maintenance sought. 12. On 3 February 1998 the Municipal Court instructed S.B. to institute separate civil proceedings wherein he could request that the proposed enforcement be declared “inadmissible” (nedopušteno). 13. On 13 April 1998 S.B. filed a claim to this effect. 14. On 27 November 1998 the Municipal Court ordered the stay of the enforcement proceedings until the conclusion of the separate civil suit. 15. On 23 December 2002 the Municipal Court resumed the enforcement proceedings ex officio, having found, inter alia, that as of 30 June 1999 the separate civil suit had itself been suspended pending the outcome of another case. 16. On 25 February 2003 S.B. again requested that the enforcement proceedings be stayed, given the subsequent re-opening of the separate civil suit. 17. On 25 July 2003 the Social Care Centre appointed a temporary guardian to act on behalf of the applicant, who had in the meantime been stripped of her legal capacity. 18. On 2 December 2003 the applicant’s guardian requested that the enforcement proceedings be continued and stated that the separate civil claim filed by S.B. had been dismissed. 19. On 6 April 2004 the Municipal Court rejected the request for the stay of the enforcement proceedings filed on 25 February 2003. 20. On 14 April 2004 S.B. lodged a complaint against this decision. 21. On 25 October 2006 the Municipal Court noted, in an internal document, that the entire enforcement file had, by mistake, been placed in another case file, which was why the complaint of 14 April 2004 had not yet been considered. 22. On 26 October 2006 the three-judge panel of the Municipal Court rejected this complaint and upheld the decision of 6 April 2004. 23. On 1 March 2007 the bailiffs attempted to enter S.B.’s home in order seize his movable assets. They were, however, apparently unable to do so as the “premises were locked”. 24. On 27 April 2007 S.B. informed the bailiffs that he had, in the meantime, fully covered his debt to the applicant. 25. On 17 May 2007 the applicant withdrew her enforcement request filed with the Municipal Court, stating that S.B. had paid his debt with costs and interest. 26. On the same date the applicant signed a separate statement to the same effect. 27. On 23 May 2007 the President of the Municipal Court sent a letter to the applicant’s lawyer which read as follows: “As regards ... [your client’s] ... enforcement case[,] ... we would like to apologise for ... [its] ... long duration, ... for which there are several reasons such as ... [her] ... failure to appear at scheduled hearings, the lawful stay of these proceedings which had lasted for five years, the ... [time needed to appoint] ... a guardian ... and the unjustifiably long time which the court took to decide in respect of the complaint ... [filed by S.B.] ... against the ... [court’s] ... decision of 6 April 2004.”

3. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Istanbul. 4. Following the privatisation of the public institute where he was employed as an inspector, on 19 March 1999 the applicant was appointed to a new post at the Social Security Institution for the Self‑Employed (Bağ‑Kur). 5. On 16 April 1999 the applicant brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court against the Prime Minister's Office and Bağ-Kur to challenge his appointment. 6. On 2 December 1999 the administrative court dismissed the applicant's request, holding that his appointment had been effected in accordance with the relevant domestic law. 7. On 14 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the administrative court and on 1 February 2006 it rejected the applicant's rectification request.

5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Sosnowiec. 6. On 12 June 1994 he was arrested on suspicion of murdering his common-law wife. 7. On 13 June 1994 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with homicide and remanded him in custody until 12 August 1994 in connection with the investigation against him. The prosecutor considered that, given the serious nature of the offence in question, keeping the applicant in custody was necessary to ensure that the process of obtaining evidence followed its proper course. On the same day the prosecutor ordered an autopsy. 8. On 23 June 1994 the applicant appealed and requested his release. 9. On 24 June and 4 July 1994 the prosecutor ordered expert opinions. On 6 July 1994 the prosecutor ordered a reconstitution of the events which had taken place on the day of the death. 10. On 11 July 1994 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 23 June 1994. It found the same justification for the applicant’s detention: the reasonable suspicion against him, the serious nature of the offence in question and the fear that the applicant might tamper with the evidence. 11. On 28 July 1994 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor prolonged the applicant’s detention until 12 September 1994. 12. On 29 July 1994 the Sosnowiec District Court ordered that two psychiatric reports be obtained in order to establish the applicant’s criminal responsibility. 13. On 27 and 28 August 1994 the prosecutor ordered that two other medical reports be obtained. 14. On 5 September 1994 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 October 1994, relying on the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court referred also to the fact that two expert reports had to be prepared. They were submitted to the court on 9 September and 24 October 1994. 15. On 24 October 1994 the applicant obtained access to the case-file. 16. On 28 October 1994 the District Prosecutor submitted the bill of indictment to the Regional Court. The prosecutor asked the court to hear evidence from 38 witnesses. 17. The trial court held hearings on 12 January, 16 March, 21 March, 28 March, 1 June, 8 June, 20 June, 12 October and 12 December 1995, as well as on 28 March 1996. 18. On 28 March 1996 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant as charged, and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. 19. On 30 May 1996 the applicant appealed. 20. On 13 August 1996 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. It pointed out that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and that certain facts required further clarification. 21. In the course of the retrial, the Regional Court held hearings on 10 December 1996, 27 February, 28 February, 26 March, 30 April, 8 May and 28 October 1997, as well as on 14 and 22 January 1998. The hearing scheduled for 17 February 1998 was adjourned. 22. At the hearings of 30 April 1997, 28 October 1997 and 17 February 1998 the applicant’s counsel applied for his release, but to no avail. 23. On 1 June 1998 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 November 1998. It made reference to the reasonableness of the suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court stressed the serious nature of that offence and the necessity to consider further evidence. 24. On 10 June 1998 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against that decision. He contested the reasonableness of the charge against his client, maintaining that it was solely based on presumptive evidence. He also submitted that the applicant’s prolonged detention no longer served the purpose of securing the proper course of the proceedings since all necessary evidence had been obtained by the courts. 25. On 24 June 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. It pointed out that the principle referred to by the applicant, whereby detention exceeding two years could be prolonged only by the Supreme Court, did not apply to his case. The court observed that that principle concerned only the proceedings before the trial court and it was no longer valid once that court had delivered its judgment, even if the judgment was subsequently quashed by the appellate court. 26. On 30 July 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision. 27. On 3 August 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal informed the applicant that no appeal lay against a decision given by an appellate court. 28. On 24 September 1998 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. It again convicted the applicant of homicide and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The court deducted from the sentence the period spent by the applicant in detention. 29. On 26 November 1998 the applicant’s lawyer appealed. 30. On 27 November 198 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 29 January 1999 in view of the applicant’s conviction and sentence the month before. 31. On 8 December 1998 the applicant challenged that decision before a court which did not have the necessary jurisdiction. Accordingly, on 11 January 1999 the matter was transferred to the Katowice Court of Appeal, which on 25 February 1999 dismissed both of his appeals. 32. On 26 April 1999 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court concerning the conviction and sentence. 33. On 6 March 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal.

9. The ten applicants are all citizens of Serbia and Montenegro, which was known at the time of the events in question as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the FRY”). The first two applicants, Dusan and Zoran Markovic, were born in 1924 and 1952 respectively, and applied to the Court on behalf of Dejan Markovic, deceased son of Dusan Markovic and brother of Zoran Markovic. The third and fourth applicants, Dusika and Vladimir Jontic, were born in 1948 and 1978 respectively, and applied to the Court on behalf of Slobodan Jontic, deceased husband of Dusika Jontic and father of Vladimir Jontic. The fifth applicant, Draga Jankovic, was born in 1947 and applied to the Court on behalf of her deceased husband, Milovan Jankovic. The sixth and seventh applicants, Mirjana and Slavica Stevanovic, were born in 1945 and 1974 respectively, and applied to the Court on behalf of Slavisa Stevanovic, deceased son of Mirjana Stevanovic and brother of Slavica Stevanovic. The eighth, ninth and tenth applicants, Milena, Obrad and Dejan Dragojevic, were born in 1953, 1946 and 1975 respectively, and applied to the Court on behalf of Dragorad Dragojevic, deceased son of Milena and Obrad Dragojevic and brother of Dejan Dragojevic. 10. The applicants lodged the present application to complain of the outcome of an action in damages which they had brought in the Italian courts in respect of an air strike against the FRY. 11. The facts of the case relate to the same events as those considered by the Court in its decision in the case of Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others ((dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII). The facts in that case were summarised as follows: “6. The conflict in Kosovo between Serbian and Kosovar Albanian forces during 1998 and 1999 is well documented. Against the background of the escalating conflict, together with the growing concerns and unsuccessful diplomatic initiatives of the international community, the six-nation Contact Group (established in 1992 by the London Conference) met and agreed to convene negotiations between the parties to the conflict. 7. On 30 January 1999, and following a decision of its North Atlantic Council (NAC), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) announced air strikes on the territory of the FRY in the case of non-compliance with the demands of the international community. Negotiations consequently took place between the parties to the conflict from 6 to 23 February 1999 in Rambouillet and from 15 to 18 March 1999 in Paris. The resulting proposed peace agreement was signed by the Kosovar Albanian delegation but not by the Serbian delegation. 8. Considering that all efforts to achieve a negotiated political solution to the Kosovo crisis had failed, the NAC decided on, and on 23 March 1999 the Secretary General of NATO announced, the beginning of air strikes (Operation Allied Force) against the FRY. The air strikes lasted from 24 March to 8 June 1999. ... 9. Three television channels and four radio stations operated from the RTS facilities in Belgrade. The main production facilities were housed in three buildings at Takovska Street. The master control room was housed on the first floor of one of the buildings and was staffed mainly by technical staff. 10. On 23 April 1999, just after 2 a.m. approximately, one of the RTS buildings at Takovska Street was hit by a missile launched from a NATO forces’ aircraft. Two of the four floors of the building collapsed and the master control room was destroyed. 12. The partial collapse of the RTS building caused the deaths of sixteen people, including the five relatives of the applicants. 13. On 31 May 2000 the first four applicants brought an action in damages in the Rome District Court under Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code. The other six applicants applied to be joined to the proceedings on 3 November 2000. 14. The applicants believed that civil liability for the deaths of their relatives lay with the Italian Prime Minister’s Office and Ministry of Defence and with the Command of NATO’s Allied Forces in Southern Europe (AFSOUTH). They argued that the Italian courts had jurisdiction to hear the case. In particular, on the basis of the wording of Article 6 of the Italian Criminal Code, they submitted that the unlawful act that had caused the alleged damage should be regarded as having been committed in Italy inasmuch as the military action had been organised on Italian territory and part of it had taken place there. They based this argument on the extent of Italy’s commitment – involving substantial political and logistical support – to the military mission in question. Specifically, Italy, unlike other NATO members, had provided the air bases from which the aircraft that had bombed Belgrade and the RTS had taken off. They also relied in support of their claim on Article 174 of the Wartime Military Criminal Code and on the London Convention of 1951 and the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions. 15. The defendants argued that the Italian courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The proceedings against AFSOUTH were discontinued by the applicants. 16. The Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Defence subsequently sought a preliminary ruling from the Court of Cassation on the question of jurisdiction (regolamento preventivo di giurisdizione) under Article 41 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. 17. In written submissions dated 16 November 2001, Assistant Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation argued that the application for a preliminary ruling should be declared inadmissible as it concerned the merits of the claim, not the issue of jurisdiction. He stated as follows: “The governmental bodies defending this claim have requested a preliminary ruling on the issue of jurisdiction, arguing that: (a) since the action is brought against the Italian State as a specific (unitary) subject of international law for acts performed in the exercise of its imperium (iure imperii), it cannot be brought in the Italian courts; (b) paragraph 5 of Article VIII of the London Convention of 19 June 1951, which Italy ratified by Law no. 1335 of 1955, does not provide any basis for the action either, as it applies to damage caused in the receiving State. The government seek to show through this jurisdictional issue that the Italian legal system does not contain any provision or principle capable of providing a basis for the alleged personal right [diritto soggettivo perfetto] or of guaranteeing it in the abstract. Accordingly, the position is that: (a) the government argue that the Italian State cannot be held liable for acts carried out in the exercise of its imperium; (b) in addition, they deny that the said London Convention can be used to determine the place where the acts which caused the alleged damage took place (it is not by accident that the applicant has cited the provisions of the Criminal Code referring to the place where the offence was committed). It follows that the questions thus raised go to the merits, not to the issue of jurisdiction (see judgment no. 903 of 17 December 1999 of the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court). For these reasons, the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court, is asked to declare the application inadmissible, with all the consequences which that entails in law.” 18. In a ruling (no. 8157) of 8 February 2002, which was deposited with the registry on 5 June 2002 and conveyed to the applicants on 11 June 2002, the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court (Sezioni Unite), found that the Italian courts had no jurisdiction. It reasoned as follows: “... 2. The claim seeks to impute liability to the Italian State on the basis of an act of war, in particular the conduct of hostilities through aerial warfare. The choice of the means that will be used to conduct hostilities is an act of government. These are acts through which political functions are performed and the Constitution provides for them to be assigned to a constitutional body. The nature of such functions precludes any claim to a protected interest in relation thereto, so that the acts by which they are carried out may or may not have a specific content – see the judgments of the full court of 12 July 1968 (no. 2452), 17 October 1980 (no. 5583) and 8 January 1993 (no. 124). With respect to acts of this type, no court has the power to review the manner in which the function was performed. 3. While the purpose of the provisions of international agreements governing the conduct of hostilities – the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (Articles 35.2, 48, 49, 51, 52 and 57) and the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 2 and 15 § 2) – is to protect civilians in the event of attack, they are rules of international law, and so also regulate relations between States. These same treaties lay down the procedure for finding a violation and the sanctions in the event of liability (Article 91 of the Protocol and Article 41 of the Convention); they also designate the international courts and tribunals with jurisdiction to make such a finding. However, the legislation implementing these rules in the Italian State does not contain any express provision enabling injured parties to seek reparation from the State for damage sustained as a result of a violation of the rules of international law. The notion that provisions to that effect may implicitly have been introduced into the system through the implementation of rules of international law is at odds with the converse principle that has been mentioned which holds that protected individual interests are no bar to carrying out functions of a political nature. Indeed, in order to enable reparation to be provided in the domestic system for loss sustained as a result of a violation of the ‘reasonable time’ requirement under Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights, [the State] introduced appropriate legislation (Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001). 4. No entitlement to a review of the government’s decision concerning the conduct of hostilities with respect to the NATO aerial operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia can be found in the London Convention of 1951. The fact that the aircraft used to bomb the Belgrade radio and television station were able to use bases situated on Italian territory constitutes but one element of the highly complex operation whose lawfulness it is sought to review and is not therefore relevant to the application of the rule laid down in paragraph 5 of Article VIII of the Convention, which on the contrary presupposes the commission of an act that is amenable to review.” 19. The Court of Cassation’s ruling brought to an end, ipso jure, the proceedings in the Rome District Court.

5. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Fałkowo, Poland. 6. On 24 December 1998 the applicant and his wife attended a dinner organised by their neighbours. An argument broke out between the applicant and his neighbour. They left the room and began struggling in the kitchen. Subsequently, they stopped the tussle and the applicant returned home. Apparently, a few minutes later, when the neighbour was on his way to a church, the applicant assaulted him and beat him unconscious. 7. On 25 December 1998 the applicant was arrested on charges of aggravated assault and placed in the Gdańsk District Detention Centre (Rejonowy Areszt Śledczy). 8. On the same date the applicant’s wife gave a statement to the police. She stated that she had attended the dinner, but she had not known anything about the struggle in which her husband had taken part, as she had stayed in the room with the other women. She had found out about it only after her husband had been arrested by the police. 9. On 26 December 1998 the applicant’s wife confirmed her previous statement. 10. The applicant’s wife applied for permission to visit the applicant in prison. On an unknown date the Sopot District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) refused her request. 11. On 4 February 1999 the applicant applied for permission to be visited by his wife. On 19 February 1999 the Sopot District Prosecutor refused this request. The prosecutor held that on account of the fact that the applicant’s wife had been called as a witness by the prosecution no such permission could be granted. 12. Meanwhile, on 11 February 1999 the applicant’s wife again gave a statement to the police. Having been duly informed of her rights, she refused to testify against her husband in the case. 13. On 18 March 1999 the prosecutor allowed the applicant’s wife to visit the applicant in prison. 14. On 23 March 1999 the applicant’s wife visited him in prison. However, they could communicate during the visit only by internal phone and she was not allowed to bring their four-year old son. 15. On 27 May 1999 the applicant requested the Gdańsk District Court to allow his wife to visit him. On 30 May 1999 he lodged a complaint with the District Court against the decision to refuse his wife permission to visit him. 16. On 23 June 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) informed the applicant that he should not be allowed to have any personal contact with his wife as she was a witness in the proceedings against him. However, the court stressed that the applicant could be visited by adults who were not witnesses in his case and by his four-year old son. The court further noted that the next hearing was set for 16 August 1999. If the applicant’s wife testified on that date she would be allowed to visit him in prison. 17. On 29 June 1999 the applicant asked the Regional Court to indicate a person who could accompany his son to the detention centre. The court in reply informed the applicant that he should indicate such a person. As the applicant failed to do so, his son did not visit him in prison. 18. On 8 July 1999 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant that his wife was not allowed to visit him in the detention centre since she had testified twice in the investigative stage of the proceedings and those testimonies were relevant to the offences with which the applicant had been charged. The date of the hearing in the applicant’s case had been set for 20 May 1999 and his wife ought to have testified on that date. However, a request by the applicant’s lawyer for an expert psychiatrist’s report caused an adjournment of the trial until 16 August 1999. The president further noted that until the applicant’s wife testified in the trial the court had the right to refuse her requests to visit the applicant, in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 19. The applicant’s wife failed to appear at the hearing held on 16 August 1999 before the Gdańsk Regional Court and in consequence she was fined. 20. The applicant’s wife subsequently applied again for permission to visit him in prison. 21. During the hearing held on 5 November 1999 the applicant’s wife refused to testify in the proceedings against her husband. 22. The applicant submitted that his wife was allowed to visit him in prison before the end of November 1999. 23. On 10 December 1999 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The court extended the applicant’s detention until the judgment became final. 24. On 24 March 2000 the applicant and his wife were deprived of their parental rights in respect of their son S. F. The child was placed in a care institution. The court held that the applicant was in prison and the mother was a regular abuser of alcohol. The court further pointed out that on 19 March 2000 the mother had left her son unattended in the street, which had considerably endangered her child’s security. 25. On 26 April 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction.

4. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. 5. The applicant was employed by the District National Committee (Okresný národný výbor) in Bardejov. In 1988 he was dismissed for breach of discipline. Subsequently courts at two levels of jurisdiction declared the dismissal unlawful. Their decisions became final on 2 August 1991. In 1990, while the above proceedings were pending, the national committees ceased to exist ex lege and their liquidation was formally completed on 31 July 1991. The national committees were replaced by district offices (okresné úrady) which were not, strictly speaking, the legal successors to the former. 6. On 2 September 1991 the Bardejov District Office terminated the applicant’s contract of employment on the ground that the district national committee which had formerly employed him had ceased to exist. The applicant challenged this decision. He argued, in particular, that the government regulations on the liquidation of the former national committees were unlawful, that he had become an employee of the Bardejov District Office after his dismissal in 1988 was declared unlawful on 2 August 1991, and that the District Office had paid his salary until the end of 1991. He claimed compensation for damage caused by the termination of his contract of employment. 7. On 6 March 1996 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment dismissing the action. 1.2.1 Execution proceedings of 1998 (Bardejov District Court files no. E 182/98 and no. 3 Er 210/06, Prešov District Court file no. 572/99) a) Applications of 25 May 1998 and 12 January 2006 8. On 25 May 1998 the applicant filed an application with the Bardejov District Court claiming enforcement of the District Court’s judgment of 16 January 1991 by which his dismissal of 1988 had been declared unlawful and the payment of his costs had been ordered to the defendant. The application was registered under file no. 182/98. 9. On 22 April 1999 the District Court invited the applicant to specify his claim. The applicant replied on 7 May 1999. 10. On 13 December 2005 the District Court admitted that the file had been misplaced and ordered its reconstruction. 11. On 12 January 2006 the applicant filed an application for the District Court’s judgment of 16 January 1991 to be enforced by an executions officer in accordance with new legislation enacted with effect from 1 September 2005. That application was registered under file no. 3 Er 210/06. 12. On 20 March 2006 the District Court transmitted the file to the executions officer. In doing so it concluded its proceedings under file no. 182/98 as under the new legislation the enforcement of judicial decisions was entrusted exclusively to executions officers. 13. On 19 July 2006 the District Court dismissed both parties’ objections to the execution. 14. The executions officer enforced the compensation for costs of the proceedings which had been awarded to the applicant in the judgment in issue. On 19 October 2006 the executions officer informed the applicant that the enforcement was thereby concluded. The applicant was invited to indicate to which bank account the sum in issue should be transferred. 15. In November 2006 the applicant objected that the execution had not been completed. He expressed the view that under the judgment in issue the defendant should be obliged to offer him a job. 16. On 22 November 2006 the executions officer transferred the sum enforced (the equivalent of approximately EUR 20), in accordance with the applicant’s request, to the bank account of the Orthodox Church Parish in Bardejov. 17. On 20 December 2006 the District Court informed the executions officer that no objections to the execution could be examined once the execution was completed. The executions officer was asked to return to the court the authorisation to carry out the enforcement. He complied with the request on 21 December 2006. b) Application of 10 June 1998 18. On 10 June 1998 the applicant submitted to the Bardejov District Court another application for enforcement of the same judgment of 16 January 1991. Until March 1999, the court did not consider the applicant’s application as a request for enforcement and attached it to the original case file. After having reconsidered the position, the court registered it as an application for enforcement under file no. E 83/99. 19. On 22 April 1999 the Bardejov District Court transferred the file to the Prešov District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. The case was registered under file no. E 572/99. 20. On 13 December 2005 the applicant was advised that he should submit his enforcement claim to an executions office in accordance with new legislation enacted with effect from 1 September 2005. 21. On 23 February 2006 the applicant informed the Prešov District Court that an executions officer had refused to deal with this request for the judgment in issue to be enforced. 22. On 27 March 2006 the Prešov District Court advised the applicant to seek redress with the Slovak Chamber of Executions Officers. The applicant was informed that the amended law in force from 1 September 2005 required in similar cases an application for enforcement to be submitted to an executions officer within six months and the court concerned to be informed accordingly. 23. On 17 September 2007 the Prešov District Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not complied with the above statutory requirement. 24. On 4 December 2005 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings under file no. E 182/98 to the Constitutional Court. 25. On 13 July 2006 the Constitutional Court (Second Chamber) held that the Bardejov District Court had violated the applicant’s right to have the case decided without undue delay in that it had remained entirely inactive for more than seven years. 26. The Constitutional Court decided not to award any just satisfaction to the applicant. It held that the applicant sought the enforcement of a judicial decision of a declaratory nature which did not, as such, impose any enforceable obligation on the defendant. In that respect his request had been devoid of any prospect of success from the very beginning. 27. As the applicant had failed to specify his claim for costs and expenses and since the lawyer whom the applicant had appointed to represent him had made no submission to the Constitutional Court, the latter decided not to make any award under that head. b) Complaint of 5 December 2005 28. On 5 December 2005 the applicant complained about the length of the Prešov District Court proceedings under file no. E 572/99. 29. On 28 June 2006 the Constitutional Court (First Chamber) held that the Prešov District Court had not violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The decision stated that the applicant had claimed the enforcement of a decision declaring his dismissal from a job unlawful. That decision was of a purely declaratory nature and it imposed no specific obligation on the defendant. In those circumstances the way in which the District Court had dealt with the request for enforcement could not affect the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. c) Complaint of 24 October 2006 30. On 24 October 2006 the applicant complained that the Bardejov District Court had violated his right to a fair hearing in that in proceedings under file no. 3 Er 210/06 it had failed to ensure respect for his right to work in accordance with the judgment of 16 January 1991. 31. On 15 March 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. As in the above decisions, it noted that under the judgment of 16 January 1991 the applicant had no enforceable right to obtain employment. In that connection the applicant should have initiated separate proceedings with a view to obliging the defendant to offer him a job. 1.3.1 Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 2 February 1996 (Bardejov District Court file no. 11C 129/96) 32. On 2 February 1996 the applicant brought proceedings against the State, represented by the Bardejov District Office, before the Bardejov District Court. He claimed that (i) the court should declare that the decision of the Bardejov District Office of 2 September 1991 to put an end to his contract of employment formally had been arbitrary and (ii) that the authorities had discriminated against him in that respect. 33. On 27 July 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings holding that it was the subject matter of two other sets of proceedings which were still pending. The applicant appealed. 34. On 20 December 2002 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the first claim and quashed the decision in respect of the applicant’s second claim concerning the alleged discrimination. The decision of the court of appeal became final on 21 February 2003. 35. On 28 February 2003 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision of 20 December 2002, alleging that it was erroneous. 36. On 28 April 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law in respect of the Regional Court’s decision to uphold the first-instance decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the first claim. The Supreme Court quashed the other part of the appeal decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The court of cassation held that the court of appeal should have either determined the issue or remitted the relevant part of the case at first instance or, if appropriate, transferred it to a different authority. 37. On 28 November 2005 the Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the District Court’s decision of 27 July 2001 concerning the alleged discrimination against the applicant and remitted the case to the District Court. 38. The parties submitted no information about further developments in the case. 39. On 10 March 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that in the proceedings leading to the decision of 20 December 2002 the Bardejov District Court and the Prešov Regional Court had violated his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. He also alleged a violation of his right to work. 40. On 4 June 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint. It based its decision on its established practice of examining length-of-proceedings complaints only where the proceedings complained of were still pending before the authority liable for the alleged violation when the complaint to the Constitutional Court was filed. That requirement had not been met, as the proceedings complained of had ended with the Regional Court’s decision, which had become final on 21 February 2003. 41. On 5 December 1997 execution proceedings were instituted for enforcement of the Bardejov District Court’s judgment of 15 March 1995, by which the applicant had been ordered to pay a debt to the Bardejov District Labour Office. 42. On 19 December 1997 the Bardejov District Court appointed an executions officer to enforce the judgment. In a letter of 2 January 1998, the executions officer informed the applicant about the execution proceedings. 43. On 23 January 1998 the applicant filed objections to the execution. 44. On 30 January 1998 the applicant paid the sum owed as well as the costs of the execution. 45. On 9 February 1998 the executions officer informed the District Court thereof and returned the authority to carry out the execution. 46. On 21 February 2003 the applicant complained about undue delays in the above execution proceedings to the Constitutional Court. He stated that the Bardejov District Court had not yet decided on his objections to the execution submitted on 23 January 1998. 47. On 20 October 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint as having been lodged out of time. With reference to the relevant law, it held that the execution proceedings had ended with final effect on 9 February 1998, when the District Court had been notified of the applicant’s compliance with his obligation. After that date, the District Court had not been authorised to take any further action in those proceedings. The applicant had thus failed to lodge his constitutional complaint within the statutory two-month time-limit, which had started running on 9 February 1998. 3.1 Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action for protection of his personal integrity of 1996 (Bardejov District Court file no. 4C 309/96) 48. Since 1968 the applicant has lived in a block of flats owned by a co-operative. In 1996 the co-operative published a list of tenants who owed rent. The applicant’s name was included in the list. 49. On 27 March 1996 the applicant sued the co-operative for defamation before the Bardejov District Court. He maintained that the publication of his name in the list of debtors had infringed his personal rights. 50. On 3 April 1996 the court invited the applicant to pay a court fee. On 29 April 1996 the defendant submitted comments on the action. 51. On 6 May 1996 the court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the fee. The applicant appealed and requested to be exempted from this obligation. 52. On 10 October 1996 the District Court granted the applicant’s request and quashed the decision to discontinue the proceedings. 53. The District Court held three hearings in October and November 1996. 54. On 2 December 1996 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of different proceedings in which the co-operative sued the applicant for arrears of rent. The applicant appealed. The court of appeal upheld the first-instance decision on 26 March 1997. 55. Between April 1997 and February 2000 the District Court made eighteen requests for information about the state of the above proceedings against the applicant. On 14 April 1999 the District Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the co-operative’s claim for arrears of rent. This decision became final on 17 March 2000. 56. In the meantime, on 20 February 2000, the applicant informed the District Court that he was ill and that he could not attend any hearings. 57. On 7 February 2003 the District Court decided to resume the proceedings in the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed, alleging that this decision was superfluous. The Regional Court rejected the appeal on 27 June 2003. 58. The District Court summoned the applicant to a hearing scheduled for 20 October 2003. The applicant informed the court that he did not wish to attend. 59. On 27 October 2003 the case was assigned to a different judge, as the judge originally involved felt biased due to the applicant’s verbal attacks. 60. On 14 April 2004 the District Court dismissed the action. The court held that there was no indication that the publication of the applicant’s name in the list of debtors was capable of infringing his right to personal integrity. Moreover, it had been proven that the information about the applicant’s debt was correct. The applicant appealed. 61. On 16 March 2005 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. The decision on the applicant’s claim became final on 10 November 2005. 62. On 29 November 2005 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. 63. On 19 January 2006 the applicant’s file was sent to the Constitutional Court at the latter’s request. 64. On 26 June 2007 the District Court appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings regarding his appeal on points of law. 65. No information is available about further developments in the case. 66. On 26 November 2002 the applicant complained to the Constitutional court about undue delays in the above proceedings before the Bardejov District Court. 67. On 7 May 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Bardejov District Court had violated the applicant’s right to have the case decided without undue delay. 68. The decision stated that the District Court had been inactive without any justification from 17 March 2000 until 26 November 2002 (the date of lodging the complaint to the Constitutional Court), that is, a total of two years and eight months. The applicant was partly responsible for that period in that, after he had informed the District Court of his inability to attend hearings on account of his illness on 20 February 2000, he had failed to inform the court when the period of that illness had come to an end. 69. The Constitutional Court therefore decided not to award any just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant. It ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s costs. b) Complaint of 19 December 2005 70. On 19 December 2005 complained about the excessive length of the above proceedings before the District Court and the Regional Court. He also complained that the change in judges had been contrary to his right to a hearing by a tribunal established by law and that the courts’ decisions were arbitrary. Finally, the applicant alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that the courts had failed to protect his personal rights. 71. On 17 May 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It found no unjustified delays in the proceedings during the period subsequent to its above judgment on 7 May 2003. As regards the complaint about the change of judges, the applicant should have first sought redress by means of an appeal on points of law. Since the applicant had filed an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s judgment of 16 March 2005, the remaining complaints to the Constitutional Court were premature. 72. On 25 May 2004 the applicant filed a criminal complaint in respect of a fraud. He alleged that the case file in the proceedings concerning his above defamation action of 1996 contained documents with a forged signature. 73. On 3 July 2004 the District Directorate of the Police Corps in Bardejov found no ground for bringing criminal proceedings. 74. On 6 August 2004 a prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office in Bardejov dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the above decision. 75. On 13 September 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint to the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention in respect of the above decisions of the District Directorate of the Police Corps and of the prosecutor. 76. On 8 December 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It held that the applicant should have first sought redress before a public prosecutor at a higher level in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Public Prosecution Act 2001. 77. On 28 March 2006 the applicant complained before the Constitutional Court that his rights under Article 6 of the Convention had been violated in that the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Prešov had failed to take appropriate action in his case. 78. As the complaint did not comply with the formal requirements, on 2 May 2006 the Constitutional Court asked the advocate appointed by the applicant to submit further information. In the absence of any reply from the advocate, on 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court, rejected the complaint as falling short of the statutory requirements. 79. On 19 July 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected a third complaint by the applicant. It concerned the refusal, by the Police Directorate in Bardejov and the Bardejov District Prosecutor’s Office, to prosecute persons responsible for the inclusion of a fraudulent document in the file concerning the above action for defamation. The decision stated that the prosecuting authorities had duly considered the applicant’s criminal complaint and had given sufficient reasons for their conclusion. The fact that they did not accept the applicant’s argument that an offence had been committed did not amount to a violation of his right to a fair hearing.

5. The applicant was born in 1947 and lived until his arrest in the city of Velikiy Novgorod, Novgorod Region. 6. On 30 October 2008 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. The prosecution authorities suspected that, having organised a criminal group and made threats of violence, the applicant had committed two counts of aggravated extortion. 7. In July 2009 an investigator issued a bill of indictment and a warrant for the applicant’s arrest. The applicant was placed on an international list of wanted persons because the authorities believed that he had left Russia. That assumption was based on the impossibility, on a number of occasions, to summon the applicant to a prosecutor’s office. He could not be found at the place of his permanent registration or any other known place of residence. 8. On 4 August 2009 the Novgorod Town Court, in his absence, authorised the applicant’s placement in custody on the grounds that the charges against him were very serious and that there was strong reason to believe that he had left his place of residence and fled Russia in 2007 in an attempt to abscond from the investigation and trial. There was evidence that the applicant intended to remain on the run and carefully hid any information which could disclose his whereabouts. The court also noted that several victims and witnesses had complained to the investigating authorities that acquaintances of the applicant had tried to convince them, either by threats or incentives, to make statements in his favour. The applicant’s lawyer objected to the decision, arguing that the applicant was undergoing in-patient treatment in Armenia and was not fit to travel to Russia. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Novgorod Regional Court, which found the Town Court’s reasoning well-founded. 9. On 27 August 2010, having learnt that the applicant was in Armenia, the deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation dealing with the case sent a letter to the relevant deputy Prosecutor General of Armenia, seeking the applicant’s arrest and extradition. Two weeks later, the Armenian authorities granted that request and on 24 September 2010 the applicant was apprehended and placed in the Nubarashen detention facility, where he remained until his extradition to Russia on 22 October 2010. 10. On 30 October 2010, as the applicant was suffering from a serious heart disease and there had been a deterioration in his state of health, he was admitted to the Gaaza Federal prison hospital in the Leningrad Region. Having suffered a stroke in the night of 24 November 2010, the applicant was transferred to the resuscitation unit of the hospital. On the following day, after release from the resuscitation unit, he was served with the bill of indictment in the presence of one of his lawyers. 11. The applicant’s lawyers lodged a complaint with the St. Petersburg Oktyabrskiy District Court about the investigator’s decision to serve the applicant with the bill of indictment in a hospital in disregard of his poor state of health and his being under the influence of strong sedatives. 12. On 10 December 2010 the District Court dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated. The court noted that the applicant’s attending doctor had consented to the service of the bill of indictment, considering the applicant’s health to be satisfactory, and that a lawyer had been present to assist the applicant when it was served. The decision was upheld on appeal by the St. Petersburg City Court on 14 March 2011. 13. According to the applicant, on 14 December 2010 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court in the Republic of Armenia declared his detention in Armenia unlawful as it had been authorised by an official who did not have the power to do so. 14. On 17 December 2010 the Novgorod Town Court granted the investigator’s request for the extension of the applicant’s detention until 22 February 2011. The District Court’s reasoning was as follows: “The court accepts the investigator’s arguments that the investigation in the present case is particularly complicated. Two particularly serious crimes were committed in 1998 and 2004. The law-enforcement authorities only learned about them in 2008. Two persons are charged with criminal offences within this criminal case. The case file has 40 volumes. [The applicant] is charged with two intentional particularly serious criminal offences which were directed against property [and] committed by a group of persons in concert; it is clear that the criminal offences present a serious danger to society. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation lays down a maximum penalty of fifteen years’ imprisonment for each of the crimes. [The applicant] has not been convicted before and is not charged with an administrative offence. He is not registered as a psychiatric patient or a drug addict. The following grounds were taken into account when detention was chosen as a preventive measure for [the applicant]: sufficient information to enable a conclusion that [the applicant] is liable to abscond from the investigation and trial and to interfere with the proceedings by tampering with witnesses [and] victims. Those circumstances, as listed in Article 97 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, have not changed. The case-file materials contain information indicating that [the applicant] was placed on a wanted persons’ list in the course of the pre-trial investigation – first, the federal warrant for his arrest [was issued], and then an international warrant [followed]; [he] did not respond to the investigator’s summonses to take part in investigative actions; for a long period of time [he] did not live at the place of his registration; he has a travel passport and also has immovable property in foreign countries; on a number of occasions between 2007 and 2009 he crossed the border out of the Russian Federation. The court therefore has sufficient evidence to conclude that, if released, [the applicant] may leave the territory of the Russian Federation, including by going to countries with which Russia has no visa policy. In these circumstances, a more lenient preventive measure cannot ensure [the applicant’s] participation in the criminal proceedings, also taking into account the gravity of the charges and the amount of damage caused by the crimes. The above-mentioned circumstances are confirmed by copies of the warrant for [the applicant’s] arrest, copies of the investigator’s summonses and records, copies of responses from the migration service and the airline companies ‘Armavia’ and ‘Aeroflot’, and also by certificates in reply to orders of the investigator. Moreover, the case-file materials contain sufficient evidence showing that if [the applicant’s] preventive measure is revoked or changed to a more lenient one, he will be able to interfere with the proceedings in the case by tampering with witnesses and victims either through his own actions or with the help of intermediaries. This conclusion is confirmed by the interview records [of two victims and two witnesses]; during [their questioning] the above-mentioned persons stated that [the applicant] had exerted pressure on them or that there was a possibility that such pressure would be applied by [the applicant] or individuals from his close circle. [The applicant] suffers from a number of illnesses; [this fact] is confirmed by medical documents. At the same time, the court has established that the applicant received and continues receiving the necessary medical and consultative assistance in detention. The defence did not present any evidence showing that [the applicant’s] state of health precludes his detention. It follows that the fact that [the applicant] suffers from a number of illnesses cannot be taken as an absolute ground calling for a change of the preventive measure to a more lenient one. The court does not take into account the information on [the applicant’s] state of health contained in the response by the cardiologist Mr B. from the State Mechnikov Medical Academy in St. Petersburg to a lawyer’s letter of 7 December 2010 because this medical specialist is not [the applicant’s] attending doctor, he does not [examine] the applicant on a daily basis but only provides consultative services. Moreover, [the applicant’s] attending doctor, when questioned by the investigators, did not indicate that there was a risk to [the applicant’s] life; to the contrary, he explained that [the applicant] was being provided with the necessary medical assistance and his numerous complaints about the state of his health were connected to his psychological and emotional condition. The court does not see any grounds to change the preventive measure [applied to the applicant] ... to a more lenient one, including bail, because such a lenient measure cannot comply with the purposes of the criminal proceedings in the present case, in particular it will not prevent the possibility of witness tampering, which [the applicant] is liable to do if released, and will not preclude his absconding. The measure chosen for [the applicant] corresponds to the gravity of the charges, his personality, his behaviour before and during the criminal proceedings, and the seriousness of the penalty which [he may face].” 15. The applicant’s lawyers appealed, arguing, among other things, that the applicant was seriously ill and his health was rapidly deteriorating in the conditions of the detention facility and in the absence of adequate medical care. 16. On 11 January 2011 the Novgorod Regional Court upheld the decision of 17 December 2010, endorsing the Town Court’s reasoning. 17. On 18 February 2011 the Novgorod Town Court again extended the applicant’s detention, until 24 April 2011. The Town Court’s reasoning was similar to that given in its previous detention order of 17 December 2010. The new extension decision, however, was based on additional evidence which, in the Town Court’s opinion, confirmed the reasonable suspicion that the applicant was liable to abscond. In particular, the Town Court noted that the case-file materials showed that the applicant, acting through intermediaries, had taken steps to transfer title to his property to other people. The Town Court also dismissed the lawyers’ arguments pertaining to the state of the applicant’s health, finding no evidence in support of the allegation that his life and health were at imminent risk in view of his continued detention in an ordinary detention facility or prison hospital. The applicant was absent from the hearing because a medical commission comprising three doctors from the Gaaza prison hospital had found him unfit to participate. 18. That detention order was upheld on appeal by the Novgorod Regional Court on 3 March 2011. The Regional Court also supported the Town Court’s conclusion that the applicant’s state of health was not such as to interfere with his further detention. 19. On 22 April 2011 another extension order was issued by the Novgorod Town Court. The reasoning was identical to that given in the previous detention decisions. The detention was extended until 24 July 2011. 20. The Novgorod Regional Court authorised further extensions of the applicant’s detention on 22 July and 22 August 2011. Each time it relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his liability to abscond and obstruct justice. The Town Court interpreted the fact that the applicant had obtained a new travel passport as an indication of his intention to abscond if released. The lawyers’ arguments pertaining to the deterioration of the applicant’s health were again dismissed as unfounded. 21. The detention order of 22 August 2011 was appealed against by the applicant’s lawyers three days later. According to the Government, having received the lawyers’ appeal on 25 August 2011 and the prosecutor’s comments on 8 September 2011, the Regional Court fixed a hearing for 28 September 2011. That hearing was postponed for two days because the applicant needed time to consult his defence team. On 30 September 2011 the appellate division of the Novgorod Regional Court upheld the detention order. 22. In the meantime, on 19 September 2011 the applicant was served with an amended version of the bill of indictment. On 3 November 2011 the investigation was completed and the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Novgorod Regional Court. 23. Another extension order followed, on 21 November 2011, with the Novgorod Regional Court concluding that the risk of the applicant absconding and interfering with the course of justice was still present and could not be mitigated by the applicant’s poor health. The Regional Court interpreted the receipt of a new travel passport by the applicant through a secret arrangement in St. Petersburg and not at the place of his registration in Novgorod, together with his selling or giving away property in Russia, as clear signs of his intention to flee the country if released. Finally, the Regional Court noted that there was no medical evidence that the applicant was not fit to continue being detained. 24. Having received the applicant’s lawyers’ appeal statement on 29 November 2011 and the prosecutor’s submissions in response on 12 December 2012, the appellate division of the Regional Court returned the case file to the lower court, stating that the matter was not ready for consideration. After the case file was returned on 22 December 2011, the appellate division scheduled the hearing for 11 January 2012, when it upheld the detention order of 21 November 2011. 25. A similar conclusion – that no preventive measure other than remand would ensure the applicant’s participation in the trial and prevent him from fleeing the country or tampering with witnesses – was reached by the Novgorod Regional Court on 21 February 2012. The applicant’s detention was extended until 24 May 2012. The court noted that the authorities had taken promptly all necessary steps to complete the investigation. There were no delays in the proceedings which could be attributed to them. The major stays in the proceedings had occurred in view of the necessity to respect the applicant’s right to health and his need to undergo various medical procedures. The applicant and his lawyers had been studying the case file since the end of November 2011 and had read through twenty-five out of its forty volumes. The Regional Court also took into account information received from police security officials pertaining to threats which had been made against investigators and the prosecutor in the applicant’s case. An inquiry was opened into the matter. 26. On 16 April 2012, in a lengthy and detailed decision, the appellate division of the Regional Court upheld the detention order of 21 February 2012. 27. The most recent detention order submitted to the Court by the parties was issued on 3 May 2012 by the Novgorod Regional Court. The applicant’s detention was extended until 24 August 2012. One of the reasons on which the court based its decision to authorise a further extension was the seriousness of the risk of collusion. In particular, the Regional Court took into consideration that security measures had been taken in respect of the prosecutor in the applicant’s case following threats which had been mounted against her by persons who could have been acting in the applicant’s interest. The court attributed particular weight to the applicant’s previous attempts to influence witnesses and victims and noted that the fact that the applicant had studied their pre-trial statements at the material time could make the witnesses and victims particularly vulnerable to further intimidation or tampering. The Regional Court did not establish any circumstances which could warrant the applicant’s release. 28. On 20 June 2012 the appellate division of the Regional Court heard the prosecution and the applicant’s lawyers. It rejected the lawyers’ argument that the investigating authorities were not efficient, that they had not taken any steps to expedite the proceedings, having deliberately extended the applicant’s detention for over two years, and that they had long collected every possible item of evidence, thus excluding any threat of collusion. However, the appellate bench was convinced by the prosecutor’s pleadings. In particular, as can be seen from the record of the appeal hearing, the prosecutor informed the court that one of the victims had left the country, fearing for her life and for the safety of her family members. She reminded the court that the victim had testified that the applicant had threatened her and the family member with violence, either personally or through intermediaries. Two other witnesses had testified that they had been approached by four armed men, who had threatened them and urged them to testify in favour of the applicant. One prosecutor involved in the case was under security surveillance following threats against her. According to the prosecutor, the applicant was doing everything possible to delay the trial, having been promised by his lawyers a judgment of the European Court by July 2012. He, a Russian national who had spent the major part of his life in Russia, had summoned an Armenian interpreter and forced the investigator to read him documents from the case-file while the interpreter gave a simultaneous translation. The applicant had refused to sign a form confirming that he had completed his study of the case-file and his preparation for the trial. The prosecutor concluded by citing medical records which showed that during the entire period of the applicant’s detention following his receiving second-degree disability status, his condition had not deteriorated. 29. Despite the applicant’s lawyers disputing every argument raised by the prosecutor, as well as the reasoning of the detention order, the appellate division upheld the order, being entirely convinced by its reasoning. As follows from materials available to the Court, the applicant is still detained on remand and the criminal case against him is still pending before the trial court. 30. Both parties provided the Court with an extensive medical file, put together after his arrest and including expert reports, opinions by various medical specialists and medical certificates. The file shows that the applicant suffers from coronary disease accompanied by severe stenocardia, arterial hypertension, blood circulation deficiency, disturbance of the blood supply to the brain, chronic encephalopathy, and post-ischemic stroke symptoms. 31. Following the applicant’s extradition from Armenia, on 30 October 2010 he was admitted to the Gaaza prison hospital on account of his acute heart condition. He was examined by the prison physician on duty, who recorded a further deterioration in his condition. The applicant signed a consent form stating that he had been informed of the state of his health, his illness, his diagnosis, the treatment methods and the risks he faced with the chosen type of treatment. He consented to any type of medical procedure made necessary by his condition. On a number of further occasions he confirmed, in writing, his consent to any medical procedure doctors considered necessary for his condition. The applicant was provided with urgent assistance. He remained in the hospital for intensive cardiovascular treatment, and also underwent a large number of tests, including frequent clinical blood testing, ultrasound examinations and electrocardiogram testing (ECG testing). 32. After the applicant suffered a stroke, he applied to the head of the Gaaza hospital asking to undergo a complex medical examination to determine the degree of his disability. That request was granted, as well as his request for an examination by a cardiologist, Mr B., from the State Mechnikov Medical Academy. The examination was performed on 18 November 2010. 33. The records drawn up at that time showed a long list of medicines which had been administered to the applicant. The hospital also allowed medicines which had been brought for the applicant by his relatives. The records meticulously recorded the schedule and dose for every medicine taken by the applicant. They also showed that he was attended on by prison doctors daily, frequently several times per day, and was seen by various medical specialists, including a cardiologist, a neurologist and resuscitation specialist; his blood pressure and temperature were measured every morning and evening. His complaints, including those which related to the refusal to take certain medicines, were listened to, recorded and addressed. The applicant was also systematically subjected to ECG testing, the results of which did not show any negative dynamics. The medical specialists who had regularly examined the applicant noted that his condition was “relatively satisfactory” and that he did not need any therapy in addition to that which he was already receiving. 34. On 30 November 2010 cardiologist B. from the State Mechnikov Medical Academy issued his report following an examination of the applicant. He confirmed the applicant’s diagnosis, noting that, given the risk of further cardiovascular complications, the applicant’s condition “absolutely called for another diagnostic coronary angiography followed by a consultation with a cardiologist and a heart surgeon to develop a further treatment plan and to choose a method of myocardial revascularisation”. Doctor B. also stated that the applicant required permanent active supervision by a cardiologist and another consultation with a neurologist to adjust the therapy and to determine whether it was necessary to perform a magnetic resonance tomography (MRT) of the brain and a duplex scan of the brachial arteries. Doctor B. compiled a list of medicines which were to be included in the applicant’s therapy. According to the same report, the applicant received all of them. 35. Another examination of the applicant by cardiologist B. took place on 3 December 2010. The doctor’s only recommendation was to continue regular medical supervision and to limit stressful situations which could affect the applicant’s emotional state. 36. In addition to being monitored by prison medical personnel, the applicant continued being regularly seen by cardiologist B. In December 2010 examinations took place at least once every three or four days. Recommendations by cardiologist B. concerning the drug therapy, various medical tests and supervision by other medical specialists, including a neurologist and a psychiatrist, were closely followed, the one exception being the recommendation of an MRT scan. Following a joint examination of the applicant on 24 December 2010, the head of the medical department of the prison hospital and cardiologist B. noted in the applicant’s medical record that his state of health precluded his participation in investigative actions. A medical commission comprising a number of prison doctors issued a report on 28 December 2010 confirming that the applicant’s condition remained relatively stable and did not exhibit any positive changes despite the treatment he had received in the hospital. The commission recommended continuing with the intensive therapy. Two days later cardiologist B. performed another examination of the applicant. Although noting no positive dynamic in his condition, he nevertheless stressed that consultations with the head of the Therapeutic Department of the State Mechnikov Medical Academy had confirmed the appropriateness of the therapy chosen for and administered to the applicant. 37. Cardiologist B. continued seeing the applicant regularly in January 2011, each time noting that the patient had received the prescribed therapy in full. He addressed the applicant’s complaints by amending the chemotherapy regimen or recommending consultations by other medical specialists. The applicant was examined by a surgeon and neurologist upon the recommendation of cardiologist B. The only recommendation which was not immediately complied with was that of a diagnostic coronary angiography to determine whether there was any possibility that the applicant’s coronary disease could be treated by surgery. That recommendation was subsequently repeated by the head of the medical department of the prison hospital. 38. On 1 February 2011 doctor B., having studied the results of the coronary angiography, which, as appears from the parties’ submissions, was performed in January 2011, and noting a deterioration in the applicant’s state of health, made the following entry in his medical record: “... at the material time there is a very high risk of myocardial infarction and a negative outcome to the course of the illness. [The applicant] needs in-patient treatment in a specialised cardiac hospital”. Having prescribed a long list of medicines for the applicant, doctor B. also noted that his participation in investigative actions was “undesirable”. 39. Three days later, the director of the Gaaza prison hospital dismissed a request by the applicant’s lawyers for a medical examination of the applicant to identify whether his health was compatible with the conditions of the detention facility. The director’s report, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “[The applicant] has been diagnosed with: coronary disease; atherosclerosis of the coronary and cerebral arteries; atherosclerotic cardiosclerosis; stenocardia ...; third-degree essential hypertension; third-degree arterial hypertension ... a condition resulting from the placement of a stent in the circumflex branch of the left coronary artery in 2010; cerebrovascular disease; the consequences of an acute disturbance of the blood supply to the brain in 2009 in the form of left-sided hemiparesis; second or third-degree encephalopathy. It follows that the [applicant’s] diagnosis does not fall into the category of severe illnesses which prevent the detention of suspects or accused persons established by Government Decree no. 3 of 14 January 2011 ‘On Medical Examinations of Suspects and Persons Accused of Criminal offences’.” 40. In February 2011 the applicant continued to be attended on by cardiologist B. Examinations took place at least once every four days. The results of these consultations were similar. Doctor B. noted a negative dynamic in the applicant’s condition, informed the prison authorities of a possible negative outcome of the situation, including the applicant’s death, and recommended his transfer to a specialised cardiac hospital for high-tech medical assistance. While the applicant’s transfer to a cardiac clinic was not carried out, the remaining recommendations by the attending cardiologist were followed through. 41. On 15 February 2011 a forensic medical commission determined that the applicant was suffering from a second-degree disability. On the following day, on the order of the head of the Service of Execution of Sentences of the St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region (“the Execution Service”), the applicant was subjected to a medical examination in the presence of a member of the St. Petersburg Public Review Board in the Sphere of Human Rights Protection, an assistant to the head of the Execution Service supervising human rights matters in detention facilities, the head of detention facility no. 5, doctors from the prison hospital, doctor B., and the applicant’s lawyers. The relevant part of the expert report issued upon the medical examination of the applicant on 16 February 2011 reads as follows: “Following the medical examination the medical commission established that [the applicant] suffers from a chronic heart illness with blood circulatory deficiency, complications and permanent impairment of bodily functions leading to substantial limits on vital functions and requiring lengthy treatment in the setting of a specialised cardiac medical facility. This type of illness is included in the list of severe illnesses which prevent the detention of suspects or persons accused of criminal offences”. 42. In March 2011 the applicant continued to be under close medical supervision by the prison personnel, with a regular schedule of examinations by cardiologist B. being maintained. An examination by a neurologist on 18 March 2011 led to a recommendation to call a council of neurosurgeons to determine whether it was necessary to perform surgery given the failure of conservative therapy. The applicant continued to complain of severe chest pain and headache, particularly after participating in investigative actions. Doctors also recorded high blood pressure, dizziness and shortness of breath after physical exercise. On 30 March 2011, after another spate of complaints by the applicant, cardiologist B. again recommended a diagnostic coronary angiography to determine whether it was necessary for the applicant to undergo surgery, and concluded that the applicant’s participation in investigative actions was “extremely undesirable”. A neurosurgeon who saw the applicant on the following day recommended an MRT scan to finally settle the issue of surgery. 43. After regularly observing the applicant in April and May 2011, the cardiologist and neurologist repeated their recommendations for an urgent coronary angiography and an MRT scan of the lumbosacral spine to decide whether the applicant’s condition required immediate surgery. The doctors also forbade his participation in investigative actions, on account of the extremely high risk of the development of complications in his coronary disease. The prison hospital doctors issued a report noting that despite the treatment the applicant had received, he continued to suffer from serious angina pectoris attacks even while resting, as well as during minor physical exercise. The applicant continued to complain about heart pains and headache, dizziness and fatigue. These complaints, however, led to no or very slight amendments in the applicant’s chemotherapy regimen. 44. On 20 May 2011 professor M., a doctor of medicine, examined the applicant and noted his complaints of constant severe chest and heart pain. Although noting that the applicant’s condition was relatively stable, professor M. agreed that his health was continuing to deteriorate and the illness to progress. He refused to assess the quality of the therapy administered to the applicant without seeing the results of a coronary angiography, and recommended that the test be performed as soon as possible. At the end of May 2011, cardiologist B. scheduled a long list of procedures for the monitoring of the applicant’s health. Every procedure on the list was performed without delay, save for one. Despite the cardiologist’s recommendation, repeated in the reports following every examination of the applicant, a coronary angiography had still not yet been performed. 45. Examinations of the applicant by the cardiologist and neurologist in June 2011 led to similar recommendations that a coronary angiography and MRT scan needed to be done. The specialists also continued insisting on the applicant’s transfer to a cardiac hospital for specialised treatment. The progress of the applicant’s coronary disease did not go without notice by the prison hospital personnel, who recorded and addressed his daily complaints. On a number of occasions the doctors also precluded the applicant from taking part in investigative actions, given the risk to his health flowing from any emotional pressure. 46. On 27 June 2011 the applicant suffered a heart attack and was immediately transferred to the resuscitation unit of the prison hospital, where he was placed on a drip to begin receiving intensive symptomatic therapy. His condition was described as moderately severe. In the evening of the same day a resuscitation specialist noted in the record that the therapy had had a positive effect on the applicant’s condition. In the morning of 28 June 2011 he was taken back to the therapeutic department of the hospital, where he was seen by cardiologist B. The doctor compiled a long list of medicines which were to be included in the applicant’s regimen, scheduled regular ECG tests and blood pressure monitoring, and forbade any investigative actions involving the applicant’s participation. 47. The applicant’s daily examinations by prison personnel or cardiologist B. did not reveal any positive changes in his condition. He continued complaining of chest pain, dizziness and headache. Doctors recorded high blood pressure and unstable stenocardia. The daily ECG tests showed that the applicant’s health was continuing to deteriorate. The applicant was prescribed bed rest and relieved of any obligation to take part in the investigative actions. On 4 July 2011 cardiologist B., the head of the therapeutic department of the prison hospital, Ms C., and the applicant’s attending physician, Ms S., issued a report on the basis of the daily monitoring and specific tests employed for the assessment of the applicant’s condition. The relevant part of the report reads as follows: “Taking into account the results of the instrumental examinations; the presence of episodes of stable depression of segment ST during the repeated ECG tests, together with the expressed negative dynamic in February 2011, which remains unchanged according to the daily monitoring in June 2011; the nature of the coronary lesion shown by the results of the coronary angiography; the picture of exertional angina progressing to the fourth functional group and the clinical picture of angina when at rest; and the progress of the chronic heart failure against a background of maximum cardiovascular therapy, the reserves of conservative therapy have been exhausted for the present time. The patient now faces a very high risk of the development of acute cardiac infarction and a high risk of an unfavourable outcome to his illness, including death. According to the recommendations of the neurologist and neurosurgeon, the patient also needs an MRT scan of his lumbosacral spine to confirm the diagnosis of the formation of a hernia in the lumbosacral spine, in order to develop a further plan of treatment ... At present the patient has progressive impairment of his bodily functions, leading to significant limitations on his vital activities; [he] needs lengthy in-patient treatment in the setting of a specialised cardiac hospital where he can receive specialised high-tech medical assistance, including coronary angiography and cardiac surgical treatment in the shortest possible period of time”. 48. The same routine of daily medical check-ups in response to the applicant’s complaints and the negative manifestations of his condition, including extreme instances of hypertension, unstable heart rate, and poor ECG test results, continued throughout July and August 2011. The doctors also introduced tranquilisers into the applicant’s regimen as his emotional state was raising serious concerns. While the applicant was provided with every medicine prescribed to him, the doctors, on a number of occasions, reaffirmed the necessity to perform a coronary angiography to determine the proper course of treatment. With the applicant being confined to his bed for the major part of the day, the ban on his participation in the pre-trial investigation was maintained throughout July 2011. A single attempt to lift the ban by authorising a meeting with the investigators in the hospital led to the applicant suffering another hypertension attack. On a number of occasions the attending doctors also described the applicant’s condition as severe. In August 2011 investigators invited the applicant to take part in interviews and other investigative actions. Each encounter with the investigators led to the applicant suffering another hypertension attack and tachycardia, which, in their turn, resulted in a doctor’s decision to limit such encounters. 49. On 25 August 2011 the applicant was sent to the Mariinskiy hospital in St. Petersburg for an in-depth examination, including a coronary angiography. At the hospital the applicant was examined by a heart surgeon and a radiologist, who gave their recommendations concerning the chemotherapy regimen and also strongly recommended surgical treatment of the coronary disease, namely, revascularisation of the coronary arteries (coronary artery grafting). Following the applicant’s return to the prison hospital, the head of the therapeutic department of the hospital issued a certificate confirming the necessity to urgently transfer the applicant to a specialised clinic for lengthy cardiac and neurological surgical treatment by high-tech methods. She also recommended adjourning any procedural actions involving the applicant’s participation, citing a high risk of the development of further cardiac complications. 50. On 6 September 2011 the applicant was examined by a medical commission comprising the vice-chancellor of the St. Petersburg Medical Academy, the director of the clinics attached to the Academy, a deputy head of the therapeutic department of the Academy, a leading cardiologist at the Academy, the head of the second cardiology department of the Academy, the head of the X-ray department, the head of the neurology department, and the applicant’s attending doctor. The commission concluded that the applicant’s illness did not fall into the category of severe illnesses precluding detention, and it recommended surgery in the form of myocardial revascularisation, and a heavy drug regimen. On 13 September 2011 the applicant was examined by a surgeon, a resuscitation specialist and a physician in response to his complaints of serious heart pain. Noting that the applicant suffered from hypertension, they gave him an injection to lower his blood pressure and noted that he could only be transported in the presence of a cardio-resuscitation unit. On the same day the acting head of the prison hospital, supported by the head of the therapeutic department and the applicant’s attending doctor, again cited the necessity to perform urgent cardiac surgery to prevent the development of further complications, including the applicant’s death. At the same time, the prison doctors authorised his release from the hospital to detention facility no. 5, where he was to continue with in-patient treatment. 51. In the late evening of 14 September 2011 an ambulance was called to the applicant, who had already been transferred to detention facility no. 5. Emergency doctors diagnosed him with coronary disease, aterosclerotic cardiosclerosis, third-degree essential hypertension and second-degree cerebral claudication. Having provided the applicant with urgent medical assistance, the emergency doctors left the detention facility with assurances that the applicant would remain in the medical unit of the detention facility. 52. In the morning of 20 September 2011 an investigator summoned the applicant for an interview. The applicant did not feel well, complained of severe pain, fatigue, high tension, dizziness and temporary loss of consciousness, and asked for a doctor to be called. After an hour the doctor had still not appeared, so the applicant’s lawyers wrote a note to the head of the detention facility seeking the provision of urgent medical services to the applicant. 53. On the basis of various medical reports issued at the beginning of September 2011, and citing the urgent necessity to perform surgery to prevent the risk to the applicant’s life and limb, the applicant’s lawyers sent a complaint to the head of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences, seeking the applicant’s transfer to the prison hospital. They argued that detention facility no. 5 was not equipped to provide the applicant with the requisite medical care, that the prison doctors did not have adequate qualifications, that emergency doctors had not been called to the facility, and that the applicant had been forced to participate in investigative actions despite his extremely poor health. Similar complaints were sent to various prosecution officials. The lawyers attached copies of records and certificates issued by various doctors from civilian hospital recommending staying the applicant’s participation in the criminal proceedings in view of his extremely fragile health and the fact that he was being administered sedative medicines influencing his physical and mental condition. Citing the medical opinions, the lawyers insisted that the applicant’s condition was likely to deteriorate under stress, including by possibly leading to the applicant’s death. 54. On 23 November 2011 the applicant was again transferred to the Gaaza prison hospital, where he remained until 16 December 2011. Having taken note of the applicant’s complaints of headache, dizziness, a pressing chest pain, shortness of breath, and unstable heart rate, the prison physicians concluded that his condition was relatively satisfactory. However, after comparing the results of the ECG testing in September 2011 and a test performed in November 2011, the cardiologist noted a negative dynamic in the applicant’s condition and stressed that an urgent examination by a neurologist and a surgeon was absolutely necessary. He also drew up a long list of medicines to be taken by the applicant. The applicant’s condition was assessed as moderately severe and the doctors scheduled various tests, including an MRT scan of the brain and the lumbosacral spine, ECG tests, and an ultrasound scan of the heart, to determine the proper course of therapy. After the recommendation for the tests and procedures had been fully complied with, the head of the therapeutic department of the hospital authorised the applicant’s release from the hospital for in-patient treatment in the setting of an ordinary detention facility. 55. Twelve days later the applicant was sent back to the Gaaza prison hospital. On admission to the hospital the applicant signed a memo indicating his commitment to undergo any medical procedure that the doctors considered necessary to maintain his health. According to the medical record drawn up on the basis of the new round of tests performed on the applicant in the hospital, his condition had not changed. He received similar drug therapy and remained under daily medical monitoring, including ECG testing. Doctors continued recording the applicant’s complaints and noted the failure of the chemotherapy in respect of his extreme case of hypertension and stenocardia. In January 2012 the cardiologist recorded a negative dynamic in the applicant’s state of health on the basis of the ECG tests results. He also noted a significant increase in ischemic episodes, as well as an increase in their length. Convinced that the applicant’s heart disease was progressing, the cardiologist persistently cited the urgent necessity to perform a revascularisation of the coronary arteries. He also indicated that the applicant’s drug regimen was pushed to its maximum capacity, with the drugs being prescribed at maximum doses of tolerance. On 16 February 2012 a forensic medical commission confirmed that applicant should be classed as category 2 disabled. On the same day the applicant was sent back to detention facility no. 5, where he was to receive in-patient treatment and remain under close supervision by the personnel of the medical unit. 56. According to a letter of the head of the medical unit sent to the applicant’s lawyers at the end of April 2012, the applicant’s condition was considered to be “close to satisfactory, stable”, and he was receiving treatment. However, the head of the unit refused to authorise the applicant’s examination by a cardiologist, stating that it was for the investigators to determine the matter. In response to the lawyers’ complaints about inadequate medical assistance in detention, including the investigators’ refusals to authorise the applicant’s examination by a cardiologist, the head of the North-Western Department of the Prosecutor General’s office sent a letter stating that an investigator was not competent to deal with any matters pertaining to the medical assistance of a detainee. 57. The applicant provided the Court with a written opinion by cardiologist B., who was his attending doctor from October 2010 until March 2012, when he was no longer allowed access to the applicant in detention facility no. 5. Basing his conclusions on the results of the applicant’s daily check-ups and the various medical tests and procedures to which he had been subjected since his arrest, cardiologist B. stated as follows: “... I consider myself competent to issue the following opinion about the patient. The patient [the applicant] has a multifocal coronary lesion and an extremely high coronary risk, taking into account the stress echocardiography testing presented to me. The patient has absolute indicators calling for a surgical revascularisation of the coronary arteries - coronary artery grafting. As a cardiologist who has been seeing the patient since October 2010, who has assessed the clinical picture and the results of clinical laboratory and instrumental tests in their dynamics (repeated daily monitoring of ECG tests, the coronary angiography of 25 August 2011, echocardiography, [and] stress echocardiography), I can state unequivocally that the diagnosis presented has been fully confirmed. According to national and European recommendations, the lesion affecting more than 50% of the trunk of the left coronary artery, combined with the three arterial coronary atherosclerotic lesions, serve as the indication for urgent cardiac surgery – coronary artery grafting. It is also necessary to stress that the question of cardiac surgery, given the seriousness of the coronary lesions, should have been determined as soon as the results of the diagnostic coronary angiography were received and the consultation with the heart surgeon had taken place in August 2011! In addition, given the results of the cardiac angiography, it may be stated that further conservative treatment of [the applicant] will not be effective, will certainly lead to the patient becoming fully disabled, and to the development of an acute cardiac infarction and complications in the course of the heart ischemic disease, including sudden coronary death. Cardiac surgery will unequivocally lead to the improvement of the patient’s condition, the improvement of his life expectancy [and] will sufficiently decrease his need for drug therapy”.

6. The applicant was born on 14 August 1982 and is currently serving concurrent sentences of imprisonment at the Nicosia Central Prison. 7. In the context of a police investigation concerning a murder and robbery which took place on 19 April 2000, the police contacted the applicant’s father and invited him and the applicant to visit the Limassol police station. At the time the applicant was just over 17 years old. The applicant went to the police station accompanied by his father. The Limassol District Police Director (hereinafter “the Police Director”) informed the applicant’s father, in the presence of the applicant, about the crime that had been committed, the seriousness of the case, and the fact that there was evidence involving the applicant and that an arrest warrant had been issued against him. 8. According to the applicant, he immediately stated that he was innocent. Another police officer told him that his friend had already confessed to murdering the victim together with the applicant. The police officer added that the applicant’s friend was crying and hitting his head against a wall while he (the applicant) was merely lying to them. Then, another police officer came into the Police Director’s room holding an arrest warrant and informed the applicant that he was under arrest for murder. The applicant replied that he had nothing to add to his statement that he was innocent. The police officer then told the applicant to follow him into a different office. There there were 5 or 6 officers who started asking him questions and inducing him to confess, promising that if he did so they would assist him. They questioned him for approximately 30-40 minutes but he kept saying that he could not remember anything as he had been very drunk the night before. At some stage during the interrogation a police officer put his gun on the desk and told the applicant that he should hurry up as they had other things to do. The police officers told him that if he wanted to go he should confess. Subsequently a police officer suggested that they take a written statement from the applicant and that the police officers would remind him of anything he could not remember. The applicant then agreed to make a written statement. He denied having made any prior oral admission. 9. According to the Government, relying on the testimonies of the police officers participating in the interrogation, the applicant was shown the arrest warrant and informed of the reasons for his arrest, and had his attention drawn to the law. The applicant replied that he had nothing to say other than that he was innocent. He was then taken to a different room for questioning. Before the applicant was questioned the arresting officer explained again the reasons for his arrest, repeated that there was evidence involving the applicant in the circumstances under investigation and cautioned him that anything he said could be used against him in subsequent proceedings. There were four police officers present in the room. The applicant replied that he had not intended to kill anyone and started to give an explanation of the events. According to the arresting officer, the applicant was interrupted and his attention was drawn to the law. During the questioning the applicant confessed his guilt. 10. The parties agreed that when the applicant was taken away for questioning, his father remained in the Police Director’s office. He was shocked and after a couple of minutes told the Police Director that they should not use violence against his son. The Police Director replied that the police did not use such practices and added that the case was serious, that there was evidence linking the applicant with the crime and that it was important to seek the advice of a lawyer. He asked the applicant’s father whether he wanted to be present while his son was questioned. The father declined the offer. A few minutes afterwards, a police officer entered the room and informed the Police Director and the applicant’s father that the applicant had confessed. The Police Director invited the applicant’s father to join his son in the interview room so that he could hear what his son had admitted. The applicant’s father preferred to wait outside. 11. The applicant was charged with manslaughter and robbery under the Criminal Code (Cap. 154). On 9 May 2000 the applicant noted in an additional written statement: “I did not hit him (the victim) with the stone but only kicked him a couple of times.” 12. The applicant and his co-accused were brought for trial before the Limassol Assize Court. 13. During the trial the applicant maintained that his confession to the police had not been voluntary but the product of deception, psychological pressure, promises, threats and other tactics aimed at creating fear. He also argued that at the time he had made his statement to the police he had been drunk and, therefore, he had not been in a position to remember accurately the facts described in that statement. Furthermore, the applicant argued that he had not had legal advice immediately after his arrest and before being questioned and induced to sign the written statement. 14. On 11 and 12 January 2001 the court heard the evidence of the Police Director concerning the applicant’s arrest and questioning. The Director confirmed that he had invited the applicant and his father to his office, where he had told the father, without addressing the applicant, that an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant in connection with a murder and that there was evidence linking the applicant to the crime. The applicant had then been cautioned, arrested and taken into a separate room for questioning. Shortly after the applicant left the room the Director had explained to the applicant’s father the seriousness of the case and suggested that they find a lawyer. 15. On 7 February 2001 the Assize Court, having considered all the evidence put before it, found that the applicant’s confession had been voluntary and that he had not been subjected to any undue or improper pressure by the police to secure it. The evidence of the prosecution gave a clear picture of the events that had taken place and the court dismissed the applicant’s allegations that, at the time of his confession, he had suffered loss of memory due to drunkenness. The confession was, therefore, admissible as evidence. 16. As regards the applicant’s claims concerning the lack of legal representation before his questioning, the court noted that the defence had not relied on any provision or authority recognising a right to have legal advice as a condition for receipt of an accused’s statement. Nor had the applicant or his father requested a lawyer and been refused one by the police. Moreover, the Director of Police had advised the applicant’s father that he and his son should seek legal representation. Overall, there had been no inappropriate action on the part of the police in this respect. 17. Subsequently, on 14 February 2001, during the main trial, the following exchange took place between the applicant’s lawyer, Mr Kyprianou, and the bench (translation of verbatim record of the proceedings): “Mr Kyprianou: I will ask the prosecution to give me all the statements of suspects who made a statement about this case so that I can continue my cross-examination of this witness. The prosecution is obliged to supply me with all the statements taken from other suspects and it is not permissible in our view for the prosecution to hide behind this. Court: First we want you to lower the tone of your voice. You do not let slip an opportunity to attack the prosecution who we believe is trying to present its case in a fair way, at least as the facts so far show. If you asked at some stage for the statements to be given to you and the prosecution refused, that is another matter. Mr Kyprianou: I believed that I would get this from the case file, now I am deprived of this right. I want the complete case file. I cannot continue my cross-examination of this witness if I do not have the complete case file. Ms Kyriakidou (prosecutor): The position of the prosecution on the basis of Article 7 of the Law on Criminal Procedure (is that) to make any complaint the Defence must apply in writing to the prosecution to ask for any statement in the file and if the Prosecution refuses, then the defence is entitled to complain. Here, the defence did not apply in writing; certain particulars, photographs, plans were asked for verbally and whatever was asked for was given and the prosecution never refused to give anything to the defence. This process did not happen and it is my position that this attitude of the defence is not justified. Court: We have considered the request of the learned counsel of accused no. 2 for the Court to interrupt the proceedings so that he can get statements of persons who gave statements during the investigation of the case from his opponents. As stated earlier today, the defence had a right, on the basis of Article 7 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, Cap.155, to request to be supplied with the said copies from the day when the accused pleaded not guilty, but failed to do so. We do not consider it expedient to break after so much delay and to create a fresh delay for this purpose. In any case, the Court in the present case is occupied with whether the prosecution will succeed in proving the guilt of the accused, who we note are presumed innocent until the prosecution, with their evidence, prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Whether the examination was unsatisfactory or not is a matter which will be decided at the end of the case. The request is therefore refused. Mr Kyprianou: I would ask for a break of five minutes in view of your ruling to gather my thoughts and see how I shall proceed because I believed that there would be disclosure of all the documents, for this reason I want five minutes to think about what I shall do in view of your ruling, that is to say how I shall proceed with the cross-examination. The cross-examination will take another sitting of the court. So the five minutes I am asking for are not unjustifiable. Court: We will approve a break of ten minutes but we will remind (the defence) that it is the second time that an interruption of the proceedings has been requested for inspecting the case file. We had a break in a previous session and gave a sufficient interval for them to see the file.” 18. Following the break, the proceedings were resumed. At one point a confrontation occurred between the applicant’s lawyer, Mr Kyprianou, and the court. Mr Kyprianou was at the time cross-examining a police officer who had taken the applicant’s written statement and was asking him about the manner in which an indication by another police-officer to insert the time of taking the statement was made. The court interrupted Mr Kyprianou and noted that they found his questions unnecessary. Mr Kyprianou then sought leave to withdraw from the case which was refused. The verbatim record of the proceedings reports the following exchange (translation): “Court: We consider that your cross-examination goes beyond the detailed cross-examination that can take place at the present stage of the main trial in issues... Mr Kyprianou: I will stop my cross-examination... Court: Mr Kyprianou... Mr Kyprianou: Since the Court considers that I am not doing my job properly in defending this man, I ask for your leave to withdraw from this case. Court: Whether an advocate is to be granted leave to withdraw or not, is a matter within the discretionary power of the court and, in the light of what we have heard, no such leave is granted. We rely on the case of Kafkaros and Others v. the Republic and do not grant leave. Mr Kyprianou: Since you are preventing me from continuing my cross-examination on significant points of the case, then my role here does not serve any purpose.” Court: We consider your persistence... Mr Kyprianou: And I am sorry that when I was cross-examining, the members of the court were talking to each other, passing ‘ravasakia’ among themselves, which is not compatible with allowing me to continue the cross-examination with the required vigour, if it is under the secret scrutiny of the court. Court: We consider that what has just been said by Mr Kyprianou, and in particular the manner in which he addresses the court, constitutes a contempt of court and Mr Kyprianou has two choices: either to maintain what he said and to give reasons why no sentence should be imposed on him, or to decide whether he should retract. We give him this opportunity exceptionally. Section 44 (1) (a) of the Courts of Justice Law applies to its full extent. Mr Kyprianou: You can try me. Court: Would you like to say anything? Mr Kyprianou: I saw with my own eyes the small pieces of paper going from one judge to another when I was cross-examining, in a way not very flattering to the defence. How can I find the stamina to defend a man who is accused of murder? Court (Mr Photiou): It so happens that the piece of paper to which Mr Kyprianou refers is still in the hands of brother Judge Mr Economou and Mr Kyprianou may inspect it. Court (Ms Michaelidou): The exchange of written views between the members of the bench as to the manner in which Mr Kyprianou is conducting the case does not give him any rights, and I consider Mr Kyprianou’s behaviour utterly unacceptable. Court (Mr Photiou): We shall have a break in order to consider the matter. The defendant (in the main trial) should in the meantime remain in custody. ... Court: We considered the matter during the adjournment and continue to believe that what Mr Kyprianou said, the content, the manner and the tone of his voice, constitute a contempt of court as provided for in section 44 (1) (a) of the Courts of Justice Law 14/60 ... that is, showing disrespect to the court by way of words and conduct. We already asked Mr Kyprianou before the break if he had anything to add before we pass sentence on him. If he has something to add, let us hear him. Otherwise, the court should proceed. Mr Kyprianou: Mr President, certainly during the break, I wondered what the offence was which I had committed. The events took place in a very tense atmosphere. I am defending a very serious case; I felt that I was interrupted in my cross-examination and said what I said. I have been a lawyer for forty years, my record is unblemished and it is the first time that I face such an accusation. That is all I have to say. Court: We shall adjourn for ten minutes and shall then proceed with sentencing.” 19. After a short break the Assize Court, by a majority, sentenced Mr Kyprianou to five days’ imprisonment. The court referred to the above exchange between Mr Kyprianou and its members and held as follows: “...It is not easy, through words, to convey the atmosphere which Mr Kyprianou created since, quite apart from the unacceptable content of his statements, the tone of his voice as well as his demeanour and gestures to the court not only gave an unacceptable impression of any civilised place, and a courtroom in particular, but were apparently aimed at creating a climate of intimidation and terror within the court. We are not exaggerating at all in saying that Mr Kyprianou was shouting and gesticulating at the court. It was pointed out to him that his statements and his behaviour amounted to contempt of court and he was given the opportunity to speak. And while there was a reasonable expectation that Mr Kyprianou would calm down and that he would apologise, Mr Kyprianou, in the same tone and with the same intensity already referred to, shouted, ‘You can try me’. Later, after a long break, Mr Kyprianou was given a second chance to address the court, in the hope that he would apologise and mitigate the damage caused by his behaviour. Unfortunately, at this stage Mr Kyprianou still showed no signs of regret or, at least, of apprehension for the unacceptable situation he had created. On the contrary, he stated that during the break he wondered what his crime had been, merely attributing his behaviour to the ‘very tense atmosphere’. However, he was solely responsible for the creation of that atmosphere and, therefore, he cannot use it as an excuse. Mr Kyprianou did not hesitate to suggest that the exchange of views between the members of the bench amounted to an exchange of ‘ravasakia’, that is, ‘love letters’ (See: ‘Dictionary of Modern Greek - Spoudi ravasaki (Slavic ravas), love letter, written love note’). And he accused the Court, which was trying to regulate the course of the proceedings, as it had the right and the duty to do, of restricting him and of doing justice in secret. We cannot conceive of another occasion of such a manifest and unacceptable contempt of court by any person, let alone an advocate. The judges as persons, whom Mr Kyprianou has deeply insulted, are the least of our concern. What really concerns us is the authority and integrity of justice. If the court’s reaction is not immediate and drastic, we feel that justice will have suffered a disastrous blow. An inadequate reaction on the part of the lawful and civilised order, as expressed by the courts, would mean accepting that the authority of the courts be demeaned. It is with great sadness that we conclude that the only adequate response, in the circumstances, is the imposition of a sentence of a deterrent nature, which can only be imprisonment. We are well aware of the repercussions of this decision since the person concerned is an advocate of long standing, but it is Mr Kyprianou himself who, through his conduct, brought matters to this end. In the light of the above we impose a sentence of imprisonment of five days”. 20. Mr Kyprianou served his prison sentence immediately. He was in fact released before completing the full term in accordance with section 9 of the Prison Law (Law no. 62(I)/1996). 21. The applicant continued to be represented by Mr Kyprianou for the rest of his trial. 22. On 21 February 2001 the defence requested the judges to withdraw from the case in view of the events that had occurred so that the case could be tried by another bench. Mr Kyprianou requested that the court be addressed by another lawyer in this respect, given the fact that he had been directly concerned by the court’s decision on contempt. The defence was concerned that the court would not be impartial. This request was granted. 23. On 2 March 2001, by an interim decision, the Assize Court dismissed the request for its withdrawal. Having examined the relevant case-law on the issue it found that no ground had been established for its withdrawal. In this connection it noted that: “no reasonable person who had actual knowledge of the circumstances of the case from genuine sources – as opposed to plain rumours or the manner in which the matter had been presented in the media – would justifiably form the impression that there was a real likelihood of prejudice by the court against the defendant simply because of its conclusion that his lawyer’s behaviour, at some stage of the proceedings, had been in contempt of court”. 24. Given that its decision on contempt had been a decision reached within the context of its exercise of its judicial functions and, as such, there was no issue of personal feelings of the judges or any prejudice on the part of the court, there was no reason why the court should abandon the examination of the case before the completion of the trial. 25. The proceedings therefore continued before the same bench. 26. On 10 May 2001 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and robbery. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegations that his confession had been fabricated by the police and taken under suspicious circumstances. It found that there had been clear, independent and persuasive evidence demonstrating the genuine nature of his confession to the police. Furthermore, it noted that apart from the free and voluntary confession, the conclusion about the applicant’s guilt was supported by other strong and independent evidence and facts. In particular, the court relied on the applicant’s further statement of 9 May 2000 (see paragraph 11 above), placing the applicant at the time and place of the crime and confirming that he used force against the victim, a statement of a friend of the applicant to whom the applicant had stated that he had been involved in a serious fight with the victim, and various testimonies confirming that the applicant had been seen in a pub drinking and talking to the victim, leaving the pub right after the victim and heading in the same direction as the victim. Moreover, further testimonies confirmed that the applicant was seen in the early hours of the following morning drinking in another pub dressed in clothes covered in mud. The medical evidence concerning the victim’s death had confirmed that the cause of death had been multiple and violent blows, a finding which was consistent with the applicant’s two statements as well as that of his co-accused. The confession of his co-accused could not be treated as evidence against the applicant. 27. On 24 May 2001 the Assize Court sentenced the applicant to two concurrent sentences of imprisonment for fourteen and six years for manslaughter and robbery respectively. 28. On 29 May 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence. 29. In challenging his conviction he repeated his arguments concerning the involuntary nature of his confession, the circumstances in which it had been taken and the violation of his right to the assistance of a lawyer. In particular, it was emphasised that the Director of Police had not advised the applicant himself that he should consult a lawyer and had not warned the applicant that he was under no obligation to state anything about the case. Moreover, the applicant maintained that his conviction had been the direct consequence of the hostility which had been openly expressed by the Assize Court towards his lawyer, who had also been tried, convicted by the same court for contempt and imprisoned. As a result, the applicant’s confidence in the impartiality of the court and his lawyer had been shaken. 30. The prosecution also lodged an appeal challenging the sentence imposed as “manifestly insufficient” in the circumstances. 31. On 3 July 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals. 32. As to what had occurred at the pre-trial stages of the proceedings the Supreme Court noted that the applicant had gone to the police station accompanied by his father and both had been informed about the crime, the suspicion that the applicant had been involved in it and that they could be assisted by a lawyer if they so wished. The applicant had stated that he was innocent; he had then been arrested and taken for questioning in a different room. When his son had been taken for questioning the applicant’s father had been warned about the seriousness of the case, that they could consult a lawyer and that he could be present during the questioning. However, he had preferred to wait outside. A few minutes later the applicant’s father and the Police Director had been informed that the applicant had confessed his guilt. The court observed that the fact that the applicant had confessed did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that something improper had occurred. 33. As to the applicant’s confession, the court noted that it had constituted the subject of a separate hearing within the trial and that the Assize Court had concluded that it had been the product of the free will of the applicant and found it admissible as evidence. The court observed that the Assize Court, following settled principles of Cypriot jurisprudence, had re-examined the content of the statement in the light of the entirety of the evidence in the main trial. Its judgment was elaborate and the evidential material was discussed with meticulousness together with the arguments of the parties. A simple reading of the minutes confirmed the correctness of the Assize Court’s judgment. As for the applicant’s credibility, the Supreme Court noted that: “as a general comment, ... the appellant appeared, as it is shown by the evidence, to have had a selective memory. He remembered all the details which did not incriminate him while he had complete lack of memory in respect of all the elements which linked him to the crime. This attitude is evident from his evidence both in the main trial and in the trial within a trial concerning the voluntariness of the contested statement. And in both proceedings he tried to negate the statements he had made in his earlier written confession.” 34. Moreover, there was sufficient, powerful and independent evidence putting the applicant at the time and place of the crime. Such evidence taken together with the applicant’s admission contained in a second statement, the admissibility of which was not contested as having been submitted on an involuntary basis, rendered the applicant’s guilt proven beyond any reasonable doubt. 35. The Supreme Court also dismissed the applicant’s argument concerning the Assize Court’s alleged lack of impartiality in view of his lawyer’s conviction for contempt of court. In particular it stated the following: “Following his conviction by the Assize Court (for contempt of court) Mr Kyprianou requested to withdraw from the proceedings and to stop acting as counsel for the appellant....The appellant’s argument that, in view of what had happened before the Assize Court, this ceased to be an impartial court and the trial was rendered unfair, is incorrect. A simple reading of the voluminous transcript of the proceedings demonstrates the smooth conduct of the trial, in which all the evidence was presented before the court, which had to evaluate it and decide the extent to which the prosecution had managed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We have indicated above that the evidence against the appellant was conclusive. His advocate had put to the Assize Court everything that could be submitted in his defence in a trial; a task which was, admittedly, rather difficult. The Assize Court’s decision not to allow the advocate to withdraw in the middle of the trial or to withdraw itself from the case, which would have led to a retrial, did not render the trial unfair, while the court itself had, in our opinion, preserved its impartiality throughout the proceedings.” 36. Finally, as regards the sentence imposed by the Assize Court, the Supreme Court found that there had been evident leniency in sentencing, making the length of the prison sentence imposed almost manifestly insufficient. Nevertheless, it decided not to interfere with the Assize Court’s decision in this respect. 37. Concerning the Mr Kyprianou’s request to stop acting as counsel for the applicant (see paragraphs 18 and 35 above), the Government clarified that it was made before the contempt proceedings. This was supported by the applicant and the relevant transcript of the proceedings.

4. The applicants were born in 1962, 1966, 1956 and 1954 respectively and live in Pécs. 5. On 22 September 1993 Mr and Mrs Glöckler brought an action against Mrs and Mr Zoltán Weich and the latter’s brother, Mr László Weich. In the context of a real estate dispute, the plaintiffs sought the invalidation of a donation contract executed between the respondents. 6. On 7 December 1993 Mr László Weich died. The proceedings were subsequently interrupted. The deceased respondent’s successor, Mr Zoltán Weich, was only identified by the parties in a submission made to the court on 8 September 1995. 7. After three hearings, on 13 May 1996 the Pécs District Court found for the plaintiffs. 8. On 5 March 1997 the Baranya County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court. 9. In the resumed proceedings, on 14 April 1999 the District Court again found for the plaintiffs, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. 10. On appeal, on 21 September 1999 the Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision and dismissed the plaintiffs’ action. 11. On 27 March 2001 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the second-instance court. 12. In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 11 September 2001 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 April 1999. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 13 January 2004.

3. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Bursa. 4. In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicant without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. He requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved his right to increase this claim in due course. 5. On 29 December 2005 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of his land, as requested, plus interest. The applicant initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2006/2199). 6. On 29 May 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. 7. The applicant subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for his land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by him. 8. On 2 November 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 561,050.75, plus interest. The applicant initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2009/2815). 9. On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court. 10. On 16 January 2009 the administration paid TRY 9,410.32 to file no. 2006/2199 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt arising from the initial action. 11. Subsequently, on 19 March 2009 they paid TRY 789,091.92 to file no. 2009/2815 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt under the additional action. According to the information provided by the applicant, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.

4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Warszawa. 5. On 31 December 1991 the applicant instituted proceedings for redress for obviously unwarranted pre-trial detention (o odszkodowanie za oczywiście niesłuszne tymczasowe aresztowanie). 6. On 28 November 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court scheduled the first hearing for 9 January 2001. 7. On 9 January 2001 the applicant’s representative requested the court for additional time to specify his claim for redress. The court adjourned the hearing sine die. 8. On 14 June 2004 the applicant’s representative requested the court to grant him additional time to update legal and factual grounds for the applicant’s claim. The court adjourned the hearing. 9. On 22 February 2005 the applicant’s representative requested the court to exclude the presiding judge from the proceedings. 10. On 7 July 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion. 11. On 6 September 2005 the court scheduled the next hearing for 13 October 2005. 12. On 13 October 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. 13. On 8 November 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision and resumed the examination of the case. 14. On 28 December 2005, 18 May, 25 September, 17 October and 24 October 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court held hearings. 15. On 5 December 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court again stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. 16. On 9 February 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision and resumed the examination of the case. 17. On 30 March 2007 the court, due to a modification in the bench assigned to try the case (zmiana składu sędziowskiego), reopened the proceedings. One witness was heard. The court scheduled the next hearing for 15 June 2007. 18. Eventually, on 27 September 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court awarded the applicant PLN 2,277,838 in compensation for pecuniary damage and PLN 45,000 for non-pecuniary damage. Since this judgment was not appealed against, it became final on 19 October 2007. 19. On 20 April 2007 the applicant filed a complaint under 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”). On 25 May 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal confirmed that the proceedings in question had indeed been lengthy and awarded the applicant PLN 3,000[1] by way of just satisfaction. The court stated, inter alia, that the periods of inactivity between 31 December 1991 and 28 November 2000, as well as between 9 January 2001 and 6 May 2004, only confirmed the fact that the court had contributed to the excessive length of the proceedings. The court further stated that the intervals between the hearings were considerable and contributed to the overall length of proceedings. The court also referred to the fact that the Warsaw Regional Court’s decisions of 13 October 2005 and 5 December 2006 to stay the proceedings were unwarranted and also affected the length of the proceedings. Finally, the court stated that, although the applicant’s representative had lodged several futile motions which affected the pace of the proceedings, the Warsaw Regional Court took no action to discipline him.

5. The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Krasnoyarsk. 6. On 4 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion. On 6 July 2003 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk dismissed the prosecutor’s request to place the applicant in detention and ordered his release on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. 7. On 3 September 2003 the applicant was charged with extortion on several counts. In December 2003 the case was referred to the Central District Court of Krasnoyarsk for trial. 8. On 5 January 2004 the District Court received the case file. On 9 January 2004 the court scheduled the trial for 19 January 2004. 9. On 12 October 2004 the District Court decided to place the applicant and his co-defendants Zh. and T. in detention pending trial. On 16 November 2004 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the detention order. The applicant remained in custody pending trial. 10. During the period between 19 January 2004 and 3 February 2005 the District Court scheduled thirty-nine hearings. The Government provided the following information concerning the adjournments: Date of hearing Reasons for adjournment 19 January 2004 Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. 11 March 2004 Newly appointed counsel asked for additional time to study the case file. 26 March, 19 and 28 April, 6 and 14 May 2004 Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. 28 May 2004 The prison guards failed to ensure two co-defendants’ presence. 5 June 2004 One of the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear. 7, 9 and 16 June 2004 Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. 17 June 2004 One of the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear. 21 June 2004 The applicant failed to appear. 22, 24 and 25 June, 1 July 2004 Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. 7 September 2004 Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. Counsel B., representing one of the victims, failed to appear. 14 September 2004 Counsel B., representing one of the victims, failed to appear. 23 September and 5 October 2004 Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. 14 October 2004 The prison guards failed to ensure two co‑defendants’ presence. 28 October, 10 and 17 November 2004 The parties asked for additional time to prepare certain documentary evidence. 1 December 2004 Counsel B., representing one of the victims, failed to appear. 9 and 15 December 2004 The parties asked for additional time to prepare certain documentary evidence. 24 December 2004 One of the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear 11. On 14 February 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants on several counts of extortion and acquitted them on one count. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. On the same date the applicant appealed against his conviction. 12. On 24 May 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 February 2005 and referred the case back to the trial court for examination by a different panel. It held, in particular, that the trial court had failed to duly establish the circumstances of the case and to apply the criminal law correctly. 13. On 15 June 2005 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor, at his request, to be joined to the cases against other defendants. On 30 June 2005 the district deputy prosecutor joined the cases in respect of five defendants, including the applicant. The case-file comprised sixteen volumes. 14. On 4 July 2005 the case was again referred to the District Court. During the period between 18 August 2005 and 15 May 2006 the District Court held nineteen hearings. The Government provided the following information concerning the adjournments: Date of hearing Reasons for adjournment 13 September 2005 One of the defendants’ counsel failed to appear. 26 September, 27 October, 22 and 28 December 2005, 15 and 16 February, 2, 17 and 23 March and 6 April 2006 Certain witnesses failed to appear. 15. On 15 May 2006 the District Court found the applicant and his co‑defendants guilty on several counts of extortion. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. 16. On 10 October 2006 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 May 2006 on account of procedural breaches and referred the case to the trial court for fresh examination. 17. On 16 October 2006 the District Court set the case for trial. During the period between 16 October 2006 and 30 January 2008 the District Court held thirty-seven hearings. The Government provided the following information concerning the adjournments: Date of hearing Reasons for adjournment 24 October 2006 The prison guards failed to ensure one of the co‑defendants’ presence in court. 14 November 2006 Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. 17 November 2006 One of the defendants’ counsel failed to appear. 27 November, 1 and 8 December 2006, 10, 26 and 30 January, 2 February, 2 March, 9 and 23 April 2007 Certain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. 27 April 2007 Some of the defendants’ counsel failed to appear. 18 July 2007 One of the defendants’ counsel failed to appear. 18. On 2 August 2007 the District Court, at the prosecutor’s request, suspended the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the applicant was undergoing intensive treatment for tuberculosis and his ill health prevented him from participating in the examination of the case. By the same decision the District Court held that the applicant was to remain in detention. The examination of the criminal charges against the applicant’s co-defendants continued and, by a final decision of 15 November 2007, they were convicted. 19. On 9 January 2008 criminal proceedings against the applicant were resumed. 20. On 30 January 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty of extortion and sentenced him to five years and ten months’ imprisonment. On 13 May 2008 the Regional Court upheld that judgment. 21. On 4 September 2008 the Minusinskiy Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region ordered the applicant’s release on parole. 22. The applicant was detained pending trial in remand prison no IZ‑24/1 in Krasnoyarsk. On several occasions he was transferred to a temporary detention centre for investigation purposes. Furthermore, the applicant spent certain time in hospital where he underwent anti‑tuberculosis treatment. In support of their submissions the Government produced excerpts from the remand prison populations register reflecting the situation in the applicant’s cell on one day per month for 2006-2007. They further indicated that the prison population register for 2003-2005 had been destroyed. The relevant information provided by the Government is summarised below: Type of facility Period of detention Cell no. Cell surface area (sq. m) Number of inmates Number of beds Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 12 October 2004 to 3 February 2006 60 136 33 46 No data available 8 12 Temporary detention centre From 3 to 6 February 2006 No data provided Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 6 February to 31 March 2006 60 136 33 46 No data available 8 12 Temporary detention centre From 31 March to 2 April 2006 No data provided Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 2 April to 23 May 2006 60 136 33 46 No data available 8 12 Temporary detention centre From 23 to 27 May 2006 No data provided Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 27 May to 5 June 2006 60 136 33 46 No data available 8 12 Temporary detention centre From 5 to 13 June 2006 No data provided Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 13 June to 10 July 2006 60 136 33 46 No data available 8 12 Temporary detention centre From 10 to 19 July 2006 No data provided Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 19 July to 8 August 2006 60 136 33 46 No data available 8 12 From 8 August to 8 September 2006 The period not accounted by the Government Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 8 September to 23 October 2006 60 136 33 46 No data available 8 12 From 23 October to 20 November 2006 63 45.75 10-12 12 From 20 November 2006 to 12 January 2007 60 33 6-8 8 Temporary detention centre From 12 to 20 January 2007 No data provided Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 20 January to 5 February 2007 60 33 6-8 8 From 5 to 8 February 2007 198 25.85 2-6 6 Regional specialised anti-tuberculosis prison hospital From 8 February to 1 March 2007 No data provided Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 1 March to 21 June 2007 211 24.75 2-6 6 Regional specialised anti-tuberculosis prison hospital From 2 July to 18 October 2007 No data provided Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 18 October 2007 to 14 February 2008 197 24.75 2-6 6 Regional specialised anti-tuberculosis prison hospital From 14 to 21 February 2008 No data provided Remand prison no. IZ-24/1 From 21 February to 3 June 2008 197 23. The applicant submitted that, in addition to the cells indicated by the Government, he was detained in cells nos. 155, 104, 109, 73, 201, and 196. The conditions of detention in the remand prison were unsatisfactory. He did not have sufficient personal space and had to share cells with detainees suffering from tuberculosis. 24. During the time the applicant was detained in the remand prison he underwent medical examinations and check-ups on a regular basis. At no time was he detained with inmates suffering from tuberculosis. 25. On 31 January 2007 the applicant underwent a chest X-ray test and was diagnosed with tuberculosis. 26. On 8 February 2007 the applicant was admitted to a regional specialised anti-tuberculosis prison hospital where he was treated for tuberculosis until 1 March 2007. He was then transferred to the remand prison hospital where he continued further treatment. 27. The applicant again underwent treatment in the regional prison hospital from 2 July to 18 October 2007 and from 14 to 21 February 2008. The treatment was conducted in strict compliance with national standards. Upon discharge from the hospital, the applicant continued to receive outpatient treatment and undergo examinations at the remand prison hospital. In particular, he underwent regular chest X-rays, a sputum smear test and clinical and biochemical blood tests. The test results demonstrated a positive effect of the anti-tuberculosis treatment. 28. After the applicant’s conviction became final, he was transferred to medical correctional facility LIU-32 in the Krasnoyarsk Region to serve his sentence and receive further treatment for tuberculosis. His subsequent examinations and tests carried out in June 2008 showed that the applicant was no longer in need of anti-tuberculosis treatment. (b) Submissions by the applicant 29. Upon arrival in the remand prison, the applicant underwent a medical examination, including a chest X-ray, which established that he was in good health. Further medical examinations performed on 15 April and 19 November 2005 and 17 May 2006 revealed that his heart and lungs were healthy. 30. Upon his release on 4 September 2008 the applicant received an extract of his medical record, which stated that on release he had been diagnosed with tuberculosis of the upper lungs in the induration phase. 31. On 27 June 2007, when the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending and he was in custody, the applicant brought proceedings for damages against the Ministry of Finance. He claimed that the criminal proceedings against him had been excessively long and that as a result of his lengthy detention in unsatisfactory conditions in the remand prison he had contracted tuberculosis. 32. On 28 May 2008 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. The court held that the length of the proceedings was justified by the complexity of the case, as well as by the joining of several criminal cases and the suspension of the proceedings against the applicant pending his treatment for tuberculosis. As regards the applicant’s allegations concerning his infection with tuberculosis, the court established that the applicant had received proper medical treatment for tuberculosis. The court further noted that the applicant had not described the conditions he had been detained in, why those conditions had not met legal requirements, with which detainees suffering from tuberculosis he had been detained and when he had been in contact with those detainees. It further held that the mere fact of contracting tuberculosis was not enough to entitle him to damages, since for such entitlement to come into play the damage incurred had to be the result of concrete unlawful actions. 33. On 28 July 2008 the Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. 34. Section 23 of the Detention of Suspects Act of 15 July 1995 provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements. They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding, tableware and toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than four square metres of personal space in his or her cell. 35. Moreover, detainees should be given, free of charge, sufficient food for the maintenance of good health in line with the standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation (section 22 of the Act). 36. Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) provides that in order to ensure the proper administration of criminal proceedings, the courts have the power to compel the parties to the proceedings to cooperate by means of measures such as escorting them to a courtroom or imposing fines. The former can be applied to witnesses if they fail to honour court summonses without valid reasons (Article 113 of the CCP). A fine can be imposed on a party in the event of his or her failure to fulfil procedural obligations (Article 117 of the CCP). 37. Under Article 258 of the CCP, the penalties which a judge may impose on any party, including a defendant, who acts in a manner that disturbs order in the courtroom are (1) a warning, (2) removal from the courtroom, or (3) a fine. Article 258 § 3 establishes that the trial, including the parties’ closing arguments, may be conducted in the defendant’s absence. In such a case, the defendant must be brought back to the courtroom to make his or her final submissions. The judgment must always be pronounced in the defendant’s presence.

4. The applicants were born in 1943 and 1973 and live in Muć Gornji and Split respectively. 5. On 6 December 1989 the applicants rented business premises from the “Cibona” Basketball Club (“the Club”) in Zagreb. 6. On 10 February 1990 the Club unilaterally terminated the contract, because the applicants had delayed in paying an amount of money stipulated in the contract. 7. The applicants subsequently instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking to have the contract restored. On 17 October 1990 the first-instance court accepted their claim. 8. On 21 May 1991 the Zagreb County Court (Okružni sud Zagreb) dismissed an appeal by the Club. The applicants sought enforcement of that judgment on 18 July 1991. 9. The proceedings ended on 11 March 1992 when the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the Club’s request for revision on points of law. 10. The Club meanwhile concluded a new contract renting the same business premises to Ž.B. and T.B. (“the new tenants”), who immediately occupied the premises. 11. On 3 September 1991 the new tenants, as third parties, objected to the enforcement sought by the applicants on 18 July 1991, claiming that they were entitled to use the premises. They were instructed by the competent court to file a civil action against the applicants in order to have the enforcement declared inadmissible. 12. On 21 October 1991 the new tenants instituted civil proceedings against the applicants to that end. They claimed that they had not known and could not have known about the applicants’ contract with the Club. Consequently, on 8 January 1992 the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending a decision on this question. 13. After judgments at first instance and on appeal, which were quashed by the Supreme Court on 21 April 1994, the proceedings were remitted to the Zagreb Municipal Court. 14. In the resumed proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court held two hearings and heard evidence from two witnesses. On 4 April 1996 the court declared the enforcement inadmissible. It found that the new tenants, in concluding their contract with the Club, had acted in good faith and that they were thus entitled to use the premises in line with the legislation in force at the material time. 15. On 8 April 1997 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants. 16. On 10 June 1997 the applicants filed a request for revision on points of law (revizija). On 8 November 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed their request on the merits. This decision was served on the applicants on 31 January 2001. 17. On 15 June 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicants, finding no violation of their constitutional rights.

6. The applicant is an active officer of the Russian navy, third rank captain. He was born in 1963 and lives in Kronshtadt, Leningrad Region. 7. The applicant was involved in a dispute with his employer, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, concerning the amount of compensation of his travel expenses. On 7 March 2002 the Kronshtadt Garrison Military Court awarded him arrears in the amount of 598 Russian Roubles (RUR) and RUR 202 in compensation of legal expenses. This decision was not appealed against and on 17 March 2002 became final. 8. On 21 March 2002 the court issued a writ of execution. The applicant forwarded it with accompanying documents to the State treasury office. On 2 April 2002 the writ was returned to the applicant unexecuted. The treasury office explained that the debtor had no available funds which could be used for paying the judgment debt. The applicant was advised to address the writ of execution to the head office of the Ministry of Finance, which the applicant did on 10 April 2002. However, the judgment remained unexecuted. 9. On 2 July 2002 the applicant wrote a new letter to the Ministry of Finance, requesting an explanation as to why the judgment remained unexecuted to that date. On 26 August 2002 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that the writ of execution had been transmitted to the Ministry of Defence with a view to prepare a budget call for the respective amount. They also informed the applicant that the Ministry of Finance had no power to enforce the judgment and write off the money from the accounts of the Ministry of Defence without their acceptance. 10. On 31 December 2002 the Ministry of Finance transferred to the applicant RUR 598 with reference to the arrears due pursuant to the judgment of 7 March 2002. On 1 March 2004 the applicant received the rest of the amount awarded by the court (RUR 202).

4. The applicants are: 1) Mr Supian Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1963; 2) Ms Zina Elmurzayeva, born in 1933; 3) Mr Khasan Katayevich Elmurzayev, born in 1933; 4) Mr Isa Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1954; 5) Mr Aslambek[1] Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1967; 6) Ms Zura Ismailovna Elmurzayeva, born in 1964; 7) Mr Beslan Musayevich Elmurzayev, born in 1984; 8) Mr Movsar Musayevich Elmurzayev, born in 1986; 9) Ms Larisa Shekhmirzayevna (Shakhmirzayevna) Mukhtarova, born in 1978; 10) Ms Mariam Aptiyevna Elmurzayeva (Mukhtarova), born in 1999; 11) Mr Magomed Aptiyevich Elmurzayev (Mukhtarov), born in 2001; 12) Ms Ayshat Khasanovna Elmurzayeva, born in 1976. 5. The applicants live in the village of Martan-Chu, the Urus-Martan District, the Chechen Republic. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. The second and third applicants are the parents of Mr Apti Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1969, Mr Musa Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1956, and of the first, fourth, fifth and twelfth applicants. The sixth applicant was the wife of Musa Elmurzayev; they are the parents of the seventh and eighth applicants. The ninth applicant was the wife of Apti Elmurzayev; they are the parents of the tenth and eleventh applicants. 8. At the material time several members of the Elmurzayev family lived at 23 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street in Martan-Chu. Their household consisted of three separate buildings with a common courtyard. Musa Elmurzayev's and the first applicant's families each occupied one building. Apti Elmurzayev and his family shared the third building with the second, third and twelfth applicants. Other applicants lived nearby in the same village. 9. Prior to 1999 Apti Elmurzayev worked as the head of the administration of the village of Martan-Chu and Musa Elmurzayev worked as his deputy. For some time in 1999 Apti Elmurzayev attended an Arabic school in the town of Gudermes, but then dropped out. Since the beginning of the hostilities in Chechnya Apti and Musa Elmurzayev had no regular employment. 10. On an unspecified date in May or June 2002 Apti Elmurzayev was questioned by local law enforcement agencies about his studies of the Arabic language in Gudermes. He was not charged with, or accused of, any wrongdoing. (b) Abduction of Apti Elmurzayev 11. At about 2 or 3 a.m. on 9 July 2002 a group of men wearing masks and camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns arrived at the Elmurzayevs' household and walked into its courtyard. About ten of the armed men climbed over the fence and entered Musa Elmurzayev's house. Without identifying themselves or producing any warrant, the armed men searched the house, turning everything upside down. According to the applicants, those men belonged to the Russian military because they spoke Russian without an accent. The servicemen asked Musa Elmurzayev to wake up his younger brother Apti, who lived in a separate building. Then four servicemen entered Apti Elmurzayev's house and searched his room. One of them pointed a machine gun at the ninth applicant. The servicemen allowed Apti Elmurzayev to get dressed, then tied his hands and blindfolded him with adhesive tape and took him to the door. One of the men told the ninth applicant that he would shoot her if she followed them. The servicemen and Apti Elmurzayev left; the ninth applicant managed to step outside the house and saw them walking in the direction of Urus-Martan. 12. At some point the first applicant walked out of his house and heard a muted sound. He realised that a sniper bullet fired by one of the armed men had just missed him. Later he found a bullet in the house. 13. On the following morning the applicants learned from their neighbours that the Russian servicemen had arrived in Martan-Chu in two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and two UAZ vehicles. (c) Search for Apti Elmurzayev and investigation of his kidnapping 14. In the morning of 9 July 2002 Musa Elmurzayev went to the local police, the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor's office”) and the military commander's office of the Urus-Martan District to enquire about his brother's whereabouts. However, no officials acknowledged detaining Apti Elmurzayev or provided any information on his whereabouts and fate. 15. Musa Elmurzayev and the applicants repeatedly wrote to various official bodies requesting assistance in the search for Apti Elmurzayev. 16. On 29 July 2002 the district prosecutor's office instituted criminal investigation file no. 61105 in relation to the kidnapping of Apti Elmurzayev. 17. On an unspecified date the first applicant was interviewed by the police. 18. On 20 August 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded a letter by the second applicant to the district prosecutor's office. 19. On 22 August 2002 the head of the administration of the Urus-Martan District informed the second applicant that the district prosecutor's office had opened an investigation of the kidnapping of her son, and that all possible steps were being taken to establish Apti Elmurzayev's whereabouts. 20. On 3 September 2002 the second applicant requested the Urus-Martan District Department of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”), the military commander's office of the Urus-Martan District, the district prosecutor's office and the Urus-Martan Department of the Interior (“ROVD”) to take all possible steps in order to find Apti Elmurzayev. 21. On 29 September 2002 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case no. 61105 for failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the first applicant accordingly. 22. On 29 November 2002 an official of the Commission for the Investigation of Human Rights Violations in the North Caucasus wrote to the military prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus Circuit about the abduction of Apti Elmurzayev. The letter was forwarded to the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor's office”). 23. On 4 December 2002 the Department of the FSB of the Chechen Republic informed the second applicant that the FSB had no information on Apti Elmurzayev's whereabouts and that no arrest warrant had been issued against him and that he had not been suspected of any unlawful activities. 24. On 28 December 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the second applicant that despite the suspension of the investigation in case no. 61105 the search for Apti Elmurzayev was under way. (d) Abduction of Musa Elmurzayev 25. At about 2 a.m. on 27 January 2003 a group of armed men arrived at the Elmurzayevs' household and knocked at the door of Musa Elmurzayev's house. The sixth applicant opened the door; one of the armed men pointed a machine gun at her without saying a word. Three other men entered a room in which Musa Elmurzayev was sleeping. They did not identify themselves or produce a search warrant. The sixth applicant inferred that the armed men belonged to the Russian military as they spoke Russian without an accent. The three servicemen pointed their machine guns at Musa Elmurzayev and ordered him to identify himself. The latter obeyed and then was told to get dressed. The sixth applicant asked the servicemen where they intended to take her husband; she received no reply but was told to keep quiet. The servicemen took Musa Elmurzayev's identity papers and proceeded to the door. Then they ordered everybody to be quiet and left the house taking Musa Elmurzayev with them. They locked the entrance door from the outside so that Musa Elmurzayev's family could not go out. 26. The twelfth applicant heard some noise and stepped out of her house to the courtyard. She saw the servicemen, who ordered her to keep quiet, and Musa Elmurzayev. The twelfth applicant asked the servicemen where they were taking her brother but received no reply. The men blindfolded Musa Elmurzayev and tied his hands with adhesive tape and took him out of the courtyard. 27. The following morning the sixth applicant told the first applicant about her husband's abduction. The applicants found many footprints in their courtyard and concluded that the servicemen had arrived in a large group. They learned from their neighbours that the servicemen had driven two UAZ vehicles. (e) Search for Apti and Musa Elmurzayev and investigation of their kidnapping 28. Following Musa Elmurzayev's abduction, the first applicant took the lead in the search for his brothers. The family immediately contacted various officials trying to establish the whereabouts of their missing relatives. 29. On 27 January 2003 the second applicant requested the military commander of the Urus-Martan District, the district prosecutor's office and the ROVD to establish Musa Elmurzayev's whereabouts and release him. 30. On 1 February 2003 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor's office”) informed the second applicant that military servicemen of the United Group Alignment, servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and the FSB agents had not detained Apti Elmurzayev, and that the latter's whereabouts were unknown. 31. On 5 February 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the second applicant's letter concerning Musa Elmurzayev's abduction to the district prosecutor's office and recommended that criminal proceedings be instituted if necessary. 32. On 12 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office instituted criminal proceedings in case no. 32017 in relation to the kidnapping of Musa Elmurzayev. 33. On an unspecified date the first applicant was invited to the local police station where he was interviewed about the circumstances of Musa Elmurzayev's abduction. He testified that he had not seen the abduction himself, but indicated the person in their family who had. The fourth applicant was then interviewed, although he only saw the abduction from across the street. He produced a written statement for the police. Other family members were not questioned. 34. On 5 and 22 April 2003 the UGA prosecutor's office forwarded the second applicant's letters to the unit prosecutor's office. 35. On 24 April 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the second applicant that the investigation of Musa Elmurzayev's kidnapping had been suspended on 12 April 2003 due to failure to identify those responsible. 36. On 23 May 2003 the unit prosecutor's office informed the second applicant that involvement of the military in Musa Elmurzayev's kidnapping had not been proven and noted that, should such involvement be established in the future, the case would be transferred for investigation to a military prosecutor's office. 37. On 24 July 2003 the Urus-Martan Town Court (“the town court”), acting on the ninth applicant's request, declared Apti Elmurzayev missing since 9 July 2002. 38. On 28 July 2003 the first applicant requested the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic to resume the investigation in case no. 34017. He expressed confidence that the official “power structures” (силовые структуры) had been involved in the abduction and complained that the district prosecutor's office had failed to take all possible investigative measures, notably to question relatives of the missing and other villagers; to question officials on duty at checkpoints between Urus-Martan and Martan-Chu on the night of the kidnapping; to question officials who could have authorised the unhindered entry and exit from Urus-Martan into Martan-Chu of the armed men; and to examine the traces left by the UAZ vehicle on the night of the kidnapping. 39. On 14 August 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 34017 had been resumed. 40. On 22 August 2003 the first applicant requested the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic to resume the investigation in case no. 61105. He argued that the district prosecutor's office had not searched for two APCs and two UAZ vehicles used during the abduction of Apti Elmurzayev, and had not verified how they had passed through the checkpoints between Urus-Martan and Martan-Chu. He also alleged that servicemen on duty at checkpoints between Urus-Martan and Martan-Chu on the night of the detention and other officials of law-enforcement agencies had not been questioned. 41. On an unspecified date an investigator of the district prosecutor's office visited the Elmurzayevs' house and questioned the first and sixth applicants about the circumstances of Musa Elmurzayev's abduction. The investigator told the first applicant that the servicemen who had been on duty at the checkpoint had not been questioned, and that they could not be questioned because they would have left the Chechen Republic by then. 42. On 29 August 2003 the Department of the FSB of the Chechen Republic informed the second applicant that the FSB had not detained her sons because there had been no legal basis for their detention as they had not been suspected of any criminal offences. 43. On 10 September 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the decision to suspend the investigation in case no. 61105 had been quashed and overturned and that the proceedings had been resumed. 44. On 3 January 2004 the first applicant informed the local administration, the district prosecutor's office, the Department of the FSB of the Chechen Republic and the ROVD district that it had been rumoured that he might be abducted himself and emphasised that he was willing to appear for questioning if he was suspected of any crime. 45. On 13 January 2004 the Department of the FSB of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that he was not suspected of any unlawful activities and that there was still no information on the whereabouts of Apti and Musa Elmurzayev. 46. On 5 October 2005 the SRJI acting on the first applicant's behalf requested the district prosecutor's office to provide an update on the progress in the investigation in cases nos. 61105 and 34017 and to allow the first applicant access to the investigation files. No reply followed. 47. On 30 November 2006 the first applicant studied the investigation file in case no. 61105. He discovered that some witnesses had been questioned only in 2006, that servicemen on duty at the checkpoint between Urus-Martan and Martan-Chu on the night of Apti Elmurzayev's kidnapping had not been questioned and that no steps had been taken to find the APCs and UAZ vehicles. 48. According to the Prosecutor General's Office, at 2 a.m. on 9 July 2002 unidentified armed persons entered the house at 24 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, Martan-Chu, kidnapped Apti Elmurzayev and took him away in an unknown direction. (b) Investigation into Apti Elmurzayev's kidnapping 49. On 29 July 2002 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into Apti Elmurzayev's abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 61105. 50. On 29 July 2002 the district prosecutor's office granted Musa Elmurzayev victim status in case no. 61105 and questioned him. He submitted that on the night of 8 to 9 July 2002 unknown masked men had entered his parents' house and taken away his brother. 51. On 9 September 2002 the district prosecutor's office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 61105. 52. On 29 September 2002 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case no. 61105 for failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the first applicant accordingly. 53. On 23 January 2004 the district prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 29 September 2002 and resumed the criminal proceedings. 54. On 25 January 2004 the first applicant was questioned. He submitted that at about 2 a.m. on 9 July 2002 he had heard some noise, walked out to the courtyard and seen around ten masked men armed with machine-guns. The men had taken Musa Elmurzayev to the courtyard and then walked to their parents' house. Later they had brought Apti Elmurzayev outside and driven him away in the direction of Urus-Martan. 55. On 23 February 2004 the investigation was again suspended and the first applicant was notified accordingly. 56. On 8 November 2005 the district prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 23 February 2004 for the reason that the first applicant had made a formal request and resumed the investigation for one day, until 9 November 2005. On the following day the investigation was again suspended. 57. On 31 July 2006 the district prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 9 November 2005 because some newly obtained information required verification and resumed the investigation in case no. 61105. 58. On 1 August 2006 the third applicant was questioned. He submitted that on the night of 9 July 2002 he had been woken by Musa Elmurzayev and seen four armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks. Those men had entered Apti Emlurzayev's room, told him to get dressed and taken him away. The third applicant had not heard any noise of vehicle engines. 59. On 2 August 2006 the district prosecutor's office refused to institute criminal proceedings under Articles 139 (unlawful intrusion into a dwelling) and 325 (theft of official documents) of the Russian Criminal Code on account of the invasion in the applicants' home on 9 July 2002 and the theft of Apti Elmurzayev's identity papers for expiration of the statutory limitation period. On the same date the district prosecutor's office extended the charges against unidentified persons in case no. 61105 to aggravated kidnapping with the use of weapons. (c) Disappearance of Musa Elmurzayev 60. At about 3 a.m. on 27 January 2003 unidentified masked persons armed with machine guns entered the house at 27 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, Martan-Chu, kidnapped Musa Elmurzayev and took him away in an unknown direction. (d) Investigation into Musa Elmurzayev's kidnapping 61. On 12 February 2003 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation of Musa Elmurzayev's abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 34017. 62. On 22 February 2003 the fourth applicant was granted victim status in case no. 34017 and questioned. He submitted that the sixth applicant had told him that her husband had been taken away by unknown men. 63. On 12 April 2003 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case no. 34017 for failure to identify the perpetrators and notified the fourth applicant accordingly. 64. On 15 August 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 12 April 2003 as the district prosecutor's office had not taken all requisite investigative measures. The decision stated that, in order to carry out a comprehensive investigation, it was necessary to question the relatives of Musa Elmurzayev, his neighbours and acquaintances, to draw up a report on examination of the crime scene, to request information on any special operations carried out near the crime scene from the Department of the FSB of the Chechen Republic, the Ministry of the Interior and the Russian military, to send requests on eventual arrest and detention of Musa Elmurzayev to a number of law enforcement agencies, to verify whether any corpses corresponding to his description had been found and to take any other steps that might be required. 65. On 20 August 2003 the investigation in case no. 34017 was resumed. 66. The district prosecutor's office questioned the ninth and first applicants on 22 August and 1 September 2003 respectively. They submitted that the sixth applicant had informed them of Musa Elmurzayev's abduction. 67. On 1 September 2003 the sixth applicant was questioned and submitted that on 27 January 2003 she had heard someone knocking and opened the door. She had seen a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks. Three of them had entered the house, told her husband to get dressed and taken him away. 68. On 20 September 2003 the investigation in case no. 34017 was again suspended. 69. On 31 July 2006 the district prosecutor's office quashed the decision of 20 September 2003 and resumed the investigation of Musa Elmurzayev's kidnapping as some newly discovered information required verification. 70. The neighbours of Musa Elmurzayev submitted that they had not witnessed his abduction and had not heard vehicle engines on 27 January 2003. (e) Information concerning investigation in cases nos. 61105 and 34017 71. The investigation of the kidnappings of Apti and Musa Elmurzayev did not establish the identities of the perpetrators. The implication of special units of State agencies and federal forces in those crimes was not proven. Neither was it proven that the perpetrators had been driving APCs and UAZ vehicles. According to the information obtained by the district prosecutor's office from the Department of the FSB of the Urus-Martan District, various departments of the interior and military unit no. 90567, Apti and Musa Elmurzayev had not been charged with any crimes or arrested and their whereabouts were unknown; no APCs had driven by the checkpoint between Urus-Martan and Martan-Chu on 9 July 2002. The head of penitentiary facility no. IZ-20/3 informed the district prosecutor's office that Apti and Musa Elmurzayev had not been detained in that facility. They were not in any other detention facility in the Chechen Republic. 72. The FSB had no information on the circumstances of the kidnapping of Apti and Musa Elmurzayev. 73. Following the resumption of the criminal proceedings on 31 July 2006 the investigation in cases nos. 61105 and 34017 was supervised by the Prosecutor General's Office. 74. Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal cases nos. 61105 and 34017, providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status and of several notifications to the relatives of the suspension and resumption of the proceedings. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Government stated that the investigation of the kidnappings of Apti and Musa Elmurzayev was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the case files contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. 75. On 15 June 2006 the first applicant complained to the town court of inaction by the district prosecutor's office under Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code. He alleged that the investigation in cases nos. 61105 and 34017 had lasted an unreasonably long time and had been erroneously suspended. He also complained that his request for access to the case files had been declined. 76. On 9 August 2006 the town court examined the first applicant's complaint. It stated that the investigators had not taken all measures to establish Apti Elmurzayev's whereabouts. In particular, they had failed to identify and question federal servicemen on duty at the checkpoint between Urus-Martan and Martan-Chu on the night of Apti Elmurzayev's kidnapping. Neither had they identified and questioned heads of law-enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan District who had authorised movement of military vehicles during curfew hours. The investigators had not identified “power structures” that had owned APCs and UAZ vehicles and had not studied records on the use of military vehicles and on the organisation of special operations. The town court granted the first applicant's complaint in the part concerning the access to the investigation file in case no. 61105 but did not allow him to make copies of documents and dismissed his request for resumption of the proceedings in that case as the district prosecutor's office had reopened them on 1 August 2006. The request for access to the investigation file in case no. 34017 was dismissed because the first applicant had not been granted victim status in that case. 77. On 14 August 2006 the first applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 9 August 2006 with the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic. On 13 September 2006 the appeal was dismissed.

4. The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Safonovo, Smolensk Region. 5. The applicant took part in the clean-up operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result of exposure to radioactive emissions, in 1997 a medical board designated him Category 3 disabled. He was awarded monthly compensation for the damage to his health. 6. In 2007 the applicant brought proceedings against the local social welfare authority (Департамент Смоленской области по социальному развитию) in order to have his compensation recalculated in line with inflation. 7. On 9 February 2007 the Safonovo Town Court of the Smolensk Region granted the applicant’s claim and obliged the respondent to pay the applicant 64,526.01 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of monthly compensation for health damage from 1 July 2007 and RUB 1,870,641.16 in respect of arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2006. No appeal was lodged within the statutory time-limit, and on 10 April 2007 the judgment became final and enforceable. 8. On 15 May 2007 the respondent lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 9 February 2007. 9. On 1 June 2007 the enforcement proceedings started. 10. On 30 July 2007 the Presidium of the Smolensk Regional Court re-examined the case and concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. It therefore quashed the judgment of 9 February 2007 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 11. On 1 November 2007 the applicant’s claim was partly satisfied by the Safonovo Town Court. 12. The applicant appealed against the judgment and on 18 December 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 13. Meanwhile the applicant amended his claims and requested the compensation to be adjusted from 3 February 1997. He also raised his claims as regards the monthly payments. 14. On 19 March 2008 the Safonovo Town Court partly granted the applicant’s claims. The court obliged the respondent to pay the applicant RUB 55,546.16 in respect of monthly compensation for health damage as from 1 July 2007 and RUB 1,689,301.76 in respect of arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2006. It also awarded the applicant RUB 3,000 for legal costs and expenses. 15. On 6 May 2008 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 19 March 2008, having raised the subsequent amounts to RUB 57,140.31 and RUB 1,763,050.41 respectively.

5. The applicants were born in 1942 and 1960 respectively and live in Tampere. 6. The first applicant’s husband and the second applicant’s father, Mr Pentti Aho, died of cancer on 14 May 1992. He had been in receipt of sickness pension since 1981 and in 1986 he had been diagnosed with cancer of the larynx. He had been smoking cigarettes from 1941 to 1986. 7. On 6 May 1988 Mr Pentti Aho instituted proceedings against two companies, British American Tobacco Nordic Oy (former Suomen Tupakka Oy) and Oy Rettig Ab (hereinafter “the tobacco companies”), claiming compensation for the cancer caused by smoking cigarettes. Essentially he based the claim on false and illegal marketing and on violations of a ban on selling harmful products. 8. On 16 June 1988 the Helsinki District Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) held its first hearing. Upon the parties’ request the case was adjourned until 6 October 1988. Subsequently the case was adjourned on several occasions. The District Court received oral evidence from about 30 witnesses, many of whom were medical specialists, including Professor X who claimed that medical science had not been able to prove that there was a causal link between tobacco smoking and cancer. At the 15th hearing on 28 January 1992, the plaintiff requested a postponement pending the outcome of a criminal case before the Espoo District Court, which was to be examined in April 1992. The request was, however, refused. 9. On 6 February 1992 the Helsinki District Court rejected the action. As to the plaintiff’s request for a postponement, it found that the action was based on facts different from those presented in the criminal case. Having regard also to the fact that the compensation claim had been pending for several years, the District Court found that it should be decided without further delay. Noting that the selling of tobacco was not prohibited, it found that the sale of the product itself did not give rise to liability for damages. Nor did the District Court find that the marketing of tobacco products, having regard to the plaintiff’s awareness of tobacco-related health issues, could give rise to any liability for damages. It ordered the parties to bear their own legal costs. 10. On 6 March 1992 the plaintiff lodged his appeal. He died on 14 May 1992. 11. On 26 February 1993 the estate, consisting of the applicants, continued the claim on his behalf. The applicants also renewed their request for the examination of the appeal to be postponed until the Espoo District Court had given judgment in the criminal proceedings. The Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) acceded to the request. It resumed the examination of the case on 21 July 1997. 12. The compensation claim, the above-mentioned criminal case and another criminal case concerning perjury were examined jointly by the Court of Appeal. 13. By its judgment (no. 3967) of 31 December 1998 the Court of Appeal, without holding a hearing, rejected the appeal. However, it did not endorse the District Court’s reasoning. It found that the tobacco companies had sought to mislead customers by failing to inform them of the possible detrimental effects of tobacco on health. Notwithstanding that this did not as such result in a right to damages for the customer, it affected the assessment of whether the tobacco companies had been negligent. In the present case the Court of Appeal found that there had been negligence. However, it did not find a causal link between smoking and the damage alleged. The Court of Appeal ordered the parties to bear their own legal costs. 14. The first applicant but not the second sought leave to appeal and requested an oral hearing. On 23 June 1999 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) granted her leave to appeal. She and the tobacco companies each filed further observations in October, November and December 1999 respectively. 15. By its judgment (no. 1196) of 7 June 2001 the Supreme Court, without holding a hearing, rejected the appeal. Although the Supreme Court found that there was a causal link between smoking and the damage alleged, it did not find a causal link between the damage and the tobacco companies’ marketing activity. It considered that during his 45 years of smoking cigarettes Mr Pentti Aho had known that tobacco posed a threat to his health. In these circumstances it was not credible that he had continued to smoke, trusting that it was not dangerous owing to the tobacco companies’ marketing of their product. Thus, he had knowingly put himself at risk. Accordingly, the damage did not result from the marketing of tobacco. The Supreme Court ordered the parties to bear their own legal costs. 16. On 27 January 1992 Mr Pentti Aho instituted a private prosecution against, among others, the directors of the tobacco companies. He brought charges against them for misleading consumers, a marketing offence, endangering the life and health of others and aggravated assault. He relied on an opinion by the Consumer Ombudsman according to which the directors of the tobacco companies had engaged in illegal marketing to which the plaintiff as a customer had been subject from 1941 to 1986. 17. The Espoo District Court held its first hearing on 22 April 1992. It decided to examine jointly the charges brought by Mr Pentti Aho and three other smokers also diagnosed with cancer. The public prosecutor did not join the private prosecutions. Following the death of Mr Pentti Aho, his estate continued the private prosecution. On 25 September 1992 the estate withdrew part of the charges, maintaining the charge concerning aggravated assault. At the third hearing on 5 February 1993 the estate, among others, requested a further postponement with a view to substantiating the charges and calling witnesses. On 2 April 1993 the District Court concluded that the proposed witnesses would not shed any light on the question as to whether the defendants had caused Mr Pentti Aho’s cancer and, if so, whether they had done so intentionally. As the case turned on whether the defendants’ conduct met the definition of aggravated assault, which was a question of law and not of fact, it rejected the request for a postponement. 18. In its judgment of the same day the District Court rejected the charges, finding that the causal link between the damage and the defendants’ conduct, if any, had been broken owing to the fact that Mr Pentti Aho had put himself at risk. It ordered the estate to reimburse the defendants’ legal costs in the amount of 30,000 Finnish marks (FIM; 5,046 euros (EUR)). A journalist covering the trial wrote the following: “The court rejected the criminal charges in the tobacco case... . The sudden closure of the case was surprising. ... Both counsel for the plaintiffs and for the defence were totally amazed that the case was closed already on Friday [2 April 1993]. The plaintiffs had requested a postponement with a view to hearing witnesses at the next hearing.” (Helsingin Sanomat of 3 April 1993) 19. On 30 April 1993 the estate appealed, requesting that the case be remitted owing to the District Court’s refusal to allow the hearing of witnesses. In the estate’s submission, at the beginning of the trial the District Court judge had allegedly said to counsel that he was going to severely restrict the estate’s right to present evidence. Subsequently, the judge denied the estate the possibility to have witnesses heard during the four hearings. At the fourth hearing, the judge suddenly decided to close the case. In the alternative, the estate requested a hearing in the Helsinki Court of Appeal. The estate filed further observations on 12 April and 13 May 1994. The present case, the above action for compensation and the perjury charges mentioned below were examined jointly by the Helsinki Court of Appeal. 20. By its judgment (no. 3961) of 31 December 1998 the Court of Appeal, having noted the finding in the compensation proceedings that no causal link between smoking and the damage alleged had been established, rejected the appeal. It ordered the estate to reimburse the defendants’ legal costs in the sum of FIM 2,000 (EUR 336). 21. The estate sought leave to appeal. On 4 May 2000 the Supreme Court granted the first applicant cost-free counsel retroactively from September 1992. 22. By its decision no. 1308 of 20 June 2001 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. It appears from the decision that the Supreme Court had requested an explanation from the District Court judge regarding the alleged procedural shortcomings. 23. Following the testimony given by Professor X in the compensation proceedings according to which medical science had not been able to prove that there was a causal link between tobacco smoking and cancer, the National Board of Medico-legal Affairs, on 7 May 1993, requested a police investigation. A pre-trial investigation was carried out into the matter, following which the public prosecutor, on 15 March 1994, brought charges against Professor X for perjury. 24. The Helsinki District Court held its first hearing on 29 March 1994. The applicants joined the prosecution. The first applicant was granted partly cost-free counsel which covered her costs exceeding FIM 15,000 (EUR 2,523). 25. Subsequently, it turned out that Professor X had received some FIM 280,000 (EUR 47,093) from British American Tobacco Nordic Oy in 1991 and 1992 and that he had not declared the income in his tax returns. Therefore, the public prosecutor on 2 or 4 April 1995 brought charges against him concerning two counts of aggravated tax fraud. The District Court ordered a joint examination of the charges. 26. On 10 September 1996, during the 18th session, the public prosecutor informed the court that he wished to withdraw the perjury charges. The estate maintained the charges. The District Court held altogether 22 hearings in the case. 27. On 19 March 1997 the District Court rejected all the charges and ordered the applicants to reimburse Professor X’s legal costs in the sum of FIM 25,000 (EUR 4,205). The judgment was not unanimous as two of the lay judges in their dissenting opinions found Professor X guilty of perjury and would have imposed a suspended term of imprisonment. 28. The public prosecutor and the Tax Administration appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal as far as the tax fraud charges were concerned. The estate appealed as far as the perjury charges were concerned. 29. The present case, the action for compensation and the criminal case mentioned above were examined jointly by the Court of Appeal. On 19 May 1998 it held a hearing as far as the tax fraud charges were concerned. 30. By its judgment (no. 3962) of 31 December 1998 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment in so far as it had rejected the perjury charges. However, it convicted Professor X of two counts of aggravated tax fraud and imposed a fine. It increased the applicants’ liability for X’s legal costs pertaining to the District Court proceedings to FIM 88,816 (EUR 14,938). It also ordered the applicants to reimburse X’s costs in the written procedure in the Court of Appeal in the amount of FIM 235,288 (EUR 39,573). Further, it imposed on the applicants’ counsel, A. and S., joint liability for these costs totalling FIM 324,104 (EUR 54,510). 31. The applicants, A. and S. sought leave to appeal. On 23 June 1999 A. and S. were granted leave. The applicants’ request was granted during the further examination of the case in so far as they had been ordered to reimburse the legal costs of Professor X. 32. By its judgment (no. 1307) of 20 June 2001 the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment in so far as A. and S. had been ordered to reimburse Professor X’s legal costs. It also reduced the applicants’ liability for those costs to FIM 25,000 pertaining to the District Court proceedings and FIM 145,000 (EUR 24,387) pertaining to the Court of Appeal’s written procedure. The Supreme Court was not unanimous as Judges Y and Z would have upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 33. Following the judgment, on 26 June 2001, A. petitioned the Chancellor of Justice, alleging partiality on the part of Judge Y owing to the fact that A. had strongly criticised Judge Y with regard to a criminal matter in 1997.

5. The applicants are: 6. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Vakhit Avkhadov, born in 1979. The second to fifth applicants are Vakhit Avkhadov’s sisters. The applicants reside in the town of Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. 7. The account of the events below is based on the information contained in the application form; the first applicant’s written statement made on 4 June 2007; a written statement of 5 June 2005 by R.A., the first applicant’s daughter, who is not an applicant in the present case; a written statement by the applicants’ neighbour, S.M., made on 8 June 2007; and a written statement by M.A., a resident of Urus-Martan, made on 4 December 2009. 8. On 24 April 2001 the first applicant, Vakhit Avkhadov and R.A. were at home, at 104 (subsequently re-numbered as 112) Sovetskaya Street in Urus-Martan. 9. At about 6 a.m. on 24 April 2001 the first applicant was woken up by a noise coming from outside. Through a window she saw several armed men climb over the fence and into the courtyard. She ran to the room where Vakhit Avkhadov was sleeping and alerted him about the intrusion. She then rushed downstairs to the front door, through which several armed men were already entering the house. Two of them guarded the front door while two others immediately started searching the house. All of the intruders were wearing new camouflage uniforms and were armed with submachine guns. While the first applicant was by the front door, she noticed behind the fence two armoured personnel carriers (hereinafter also “APC”) surrounded by numerous armed men wearing green camouflage uniforms. Unlike the uniforms of the men who had burst into the house, the uniforms of those beside the APCs were very dirty. 10. The armed intruders neither identified themselves nor explained the reasons for their intrusion. One of them asked the first applicant who was at home. She tried to ask him who they were looking for but by that time two intruders had already spotted Vakhit Avkhadov. One of them, a tall man, pointed his gun at Vakhit Avkhadov and ordered him in Russian to put his arms behind his neck and get out of his room. Vakhit Avkhadov was taken to the hallway and ordered to kneel. When the tall intruder raised his leg to kick Vakhit Avkhadov, the first applicant shouted at him, asking him why he was doing that to her son, but was ordered to be silent. At the same moment R.A. ran from her room and tried to approach Vakhit Avkhadov, but one of the men threatened her with his gun and made her return to her room. 11. The intruders then took Vakhit Avkhadov into the courtyard and placed him face-down on the ground. He was wearing only his underwear so the first applicant brought some of his clothes outside, in particular, a red T-shirt, a warm sports jacket with a white stripe on a sleeve and a black raincoat. She asked the intruders to allow her son to get dressed. One of them agreed, urging Vakhit Avkhadov to do so quickly, and even passed him a pair of shoes which had been by the front door. 12. Shortly thereafter the armed men who were searching the house went outside and asked the first applicant for Vakhit Avkhadov’s identity papers. She started crying and begged them not to take him away. She asked them at least to explain why they were arresting him. Vakhit Avkhadov asked her to calm down and to comply with the order. He explained to her where he kept his temporary identity card and she brought it outside and handed it over to one of the armed men. 13. The intruders then covered Vakhit Avkhadov’s head with his raincoat and led him outside the courtyard. The first applicant and R.A. followed them outside, where they saw three APCs and two UAZ all-terrain vehicles, and numerous armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks. All of the vehicles’ registration plates had been obscured with mud. The intruders put Vakhit Avkhadov in an APC and then the convoy of two APCs, two UAZ vehicles and a third APC drove off towards the centre of Urus-Martan. 14. According to M.A., at about 5.30 a.m. on 24 April 2001 a group of armed servicemen driving an APC broke the gate to the courtyard of her family house with their APC. Immediately after that the servicemen burst into her house, handcuffed her son L.-A.A., seized his identity papers and placed him in one of their two APCs, both parked at the house. The convoy of APCs then took Bolnichnaya street and turned into Sovetskaya street, where the applicants resided. 15. The Government submitted that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence that Vakhit Avkhadov had been abducted by State agents. 16. On 24 April 2001, immediately after the departure of the armed men with Vakhit Avkhadov, the first applicant’s neighbours came to her house. The first applicant and one of her neighbours rushed to the centre of Urus‑Martan. On the way, the women allegedly met Mrs K., who told them that her son had also been abducted by Russian servicemen in several APCs and that her husband, Mr K., would wait for her in the town centre in order to search for their abducted son. The first applicant decided to follow Mrs K. to the centre. 17. When the women reached the centre of Urus-Martan, Mr K. was already waiting for them. They set off in his minibus, following the mud tracks left on the road by the APCs. The tracks led in the direction of the village of Tangi-Chu. Furthermore, residents of Urus-Martan whom the first applicant and her fellow travellers met on the way indicated to them the direction taken by the APCs. In that manner the first applicant and Mr and Mrs K. reached the grounds of the Western Zone Alignment of the armed forces (группировка «Запад»), who were stationed at the material time to the south-west of Urus-Martan. The first applicant and her fellow travellers did not catch up with the APCs but clearly saw fresh tracks made by them at the entrance to the military grounds. They then attempted to question the servicemen present about those APCs but did not succeed in getting any information. At the same time local residents allegedly told the first applicant that the APCs had been “working hard” on the two previous nights, bringing to the military grounds young men of Chechen ethnic origin. It appears that the first applicant then returned home. 18. According to the first applicant, several young men had been apprehended in Urus-Martan on 24 April 2001, including Mr L.‑A.A., the son of M.A. and the then head of the Urus-Martan town administration, and also Mr G., a son of the person who subsequently held that post. 19. On the same date, the first applicant contacted, both orally and in writing, the local Department of the Interior, the prosecutor’s office, the office of the military commander and the local administration, complaining about the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov. 20. According to the first applicant, on 26 April 2001 an elderly man who had identified himself as “Ali” had come to her house. Ali allegedly told her that on 24 April 2001 he had been apprehended by Russian servicemen together with Vakhit Avkhadov and several other men from Urus‑Martan. They had all been taken to the grounds of the Western Zone Alignment of the armed forces and placed in pits. Two to three hours later the servicemen had taken Vakhit Avkhadov and L.-A.A. out of the pit and led them away, following which Ali had heard the sound of a helicopter. On the same day Ali, Mr G. and the son of Mr and Mrs K. had been released. 21. On the following days the first applicant visited Mr and Mrs K. and asked them to testify about the events of 24 April 2001. However, they refused to do so because they feared for their lives. They told the first applicant that they had sent their son outside the Chechen Republic, also fearing for his life. 22. On an unspecified date the first applicant met with members of the A. family, whose son had also been apprehended on 24 April 2001, and they agreed to join together in their search efforts. 23. On an unspecified date in June 2001 the first applicant and the A. family allegedly managed to talk to a serviceman from the Western Zone Alignment. He allegedly confirmed that Vakhit Avkhadov and L.-A.A. had been brought to the grounds of the Western Zone Alignment and placed in pits. He did not know their names but described their appearance. In particular, he said that L.-A.A had had grey hair and had been wearing a red T‑shirt, which details were confirmed by the A. family. The serviceman also stated that at 9 a.m. on 24 April 2001 two persons, one of them tall and the other short and stout, had been taken away in a helicopter. According to the first applicant, the description of the second person corresponded to that of her son because he was 165 cm tall and corpulent. Moreover, the description of the “tall man” corresponded to L.-A.A. Lastly, the serviceman allegedly also described the appearance of those who had been released on 24 April 2001 (Ali, Mr G. and the son of Mr and Mrs K). In the submission of M.A., on 24 April 2001 and on several following days when she and her husband had applied to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office, the Western Zone Alignment and the local administration, the serviceman had confirmed that her son L.-A.A. had been arrested and had even told her that they had given him clothing because he had been arrested in a T-shirt and jeans and without shoes. 24. According to the first applicant, despite her immediate complaints to various authorities about the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov, investigators did not call at her home until two months after the events of 24 April 2001 (see below). The investigators questioned the first applicant, inspected her house and left. 25. The applicants have had no news of Vakhit Avkhadov since his apprehension on 24 April 2001. (b) Investigation into the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov 26. On 7 May 2001 the first applicant submitted a further complaint about her son’s abduction. On that occasion she lodged the complaint with the Urus-Martanovskiy District Court. In her complaint she submitted that she had previously applied to various authorities concerning her son’s disappearance but had received no responses. There is no indication that her complaint was ever answered. 27. On 28 July 2001 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic (hereinafter also “the republican prosecutor’s office”) forwarded a complaint lodged by the first applicant (the date of the complaint was not indicated) about the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov to the prosecutors’ office of the Urus-Martanovskiy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”). The latter forwarded the complaint to the Urus-Martanovskiy Temporary Department of the Interior (hereinafter also “the VOVD”), instructing it to verify the first applicant’s submissions and, should they be confirmed, to open a criminal investigation, take the basic investigative measures and return the case to the district prosecutor’s office. 28. On 19 February 2002 the district prosecutor’s office notified the first applicant that on 16 August 2001 it had opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction). The case file had been assigned the number 25350. The investigation appears to have been suspended between 16 August 2001 and 19 February 2002 as the letter also stated that the investigation had been resumed, but did not specify the relevant date. 29. On 20 May 2002 the first applicant complained to the military commander of the Urus-Martanovskiy District that at 5.45 a.m. on 24 October 2001 about 20 servicemen in masks and camouflage uniforms had come to her house in two APCs the number plates of which had been obscured with mud, had burst into the house and taken away Vakhit Avkhadov. She further submitted that she had followed the intruders to the village of Tangi-Chu, where the servicemen had been holding her son and from where he had been taken in a helicopter to Khankala. The first applicant submitted that she had not seen her son since, and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts. On 29 and 31 May 2001 the first applicant addressed letters along the same lines to the head of the VOVD and the head of the administration of the Chechen Republic, Mr A. Kadyrov. 30. On 16 July 2002 the South Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded a further complaint lodged by the first applicant about the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov to the republican prosecutor’s office for examination. 31. On 23 July 2002 the office of the head of the administration of the Chechen Republic replied to the first applicant that they were supervising the search for Vakhit Avkhadov and had forwarded her complaint to the law-enforcement officials in charge of it. 32. On 24 July 2002 the republican prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint about the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov to the district prosecutor’s office and instructed the latter to verify the submissions contained therein and to append the complaint to the case file. 33. On 13 August 2002 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor’s office, asking to be granted victim status in connection with the proceedings in case no. 25350. She does not appear to have received a reply to her request. 34. On 16 August 2002 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s office transferred a further complaint lodged by the first applicant about the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov to the military prosecutor of the North Caucasus Military Circuit for examination. The latter forwarded the complaint to the republican prosecutor’s office, which, in its turn, transferred it to the district prosecutor’s office. 35. On 6 September 2002 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s office forwarded yet another complaint lodged by the first applicant about the abduction of her son to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 for examination. 36. On 17 October 2002 the military commander’s office of the Chechen Republic replied to the first applicant that they had no information on the apprehension or whereabouts of Vakhit Avkhadov. 37. On 26 December 2002 the Commission on Human Rights with the President of the Russian Federation transferred a complaint lodged by the first applicant about the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov to the South Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The latter notified the first applicant by a letter of 10 January 2003 that it had forwarded the complaint to the republican prosecutor’s office for examination. 38. On 16 May 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s office forwarded complaints lodged by the first applicant on 8 and 12 April 2003 to the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”) for examination. 39. On 9 June 2003 the republican prosecutor’s office transferred the first applicant’s complaint about the abduction of her son to the district prosecutor’s office. The latter authority was instructed to verify the circumstances of Vakhit Avkhadov’s disappearance and, in the event that servicemen of the federal armed forces were implicated in the abduction, to refer the case to a military prosecutor’s office for investigation. The district prosecutor’s office was also requested to provide the republican prosecutor’s office with detailed information on the investigation results and, if the investigation had been suspended, to report on the justification for any such decision. Lastly, the district prosecutor’s office was instructed to apprise the first applicant of the results of the investigation and the measures taken to establish the whereabouts of Vakhit Avkhadov and to identify those responsible. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the first applicant. 40. On 17 June 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 replied to the first applicant that her complaint had contained no information on the possible involvement of servicemen of the federal forces in the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov. 41. In a letter dated 15 August 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 notified the first applicant, in reply to her complaint, that they had made enquiries with the “security forces” (силовые структуры) of the Urus-Martanovskiy District about special operations carried out on 24 April 2001. According to the replies received and the reports on the special operations compiled by representatives of the federal forces and the head of the local administration, Vakhit Avkhadov had not been arrested in the course of those special operations. Having found no evidence of the implication of servicemen of the federal forces in the abduction of the first applicant’s son, the military prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 42. Subsequently, the applicants systematically contacted the district prosecutor’s office. Its officials allegedly asked them not to apply to them in writing, since compiling formal replies to their queries would take time that could be used for the investigation of the case. The applicants followed their instruction. 43. On 13 June 2006 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office about the procrastination in the investigation into the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov, the lack of any information on its progress and the absence of any tangible results. She asked to be granted victim status in connection with the proceedings in case no. 25350 and also sought access to the case file and the resumption of the investigation in the event that it had been suspended. 44. In reply, on 15 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office notified the first applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation had been resumed and that operational and search measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Vakhit Avkhadov and identifying those responsible were under way. The first applicant was summoned to the district prosecutor’s office on 19 June 2006. 45. On 19 June 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status in connection with the proceedings in case no. 25350. She was notified of the decision on the same day. 46. On 8 June 2007 the first applicant applied to the district prosecutor’s office, seeking access to case file no. 25350. There is no indication that she received a reply to her request. 47. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government refused to disclose most of the contents of criminal case no. 25350, referring to Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. They only provided copies of: several decisions to open, suspend and resume the investigation; records of several witness interviews; requests for information addressed to various State authorities and some of the replies to them. Some of the documents submitted by the Government were illegible and others were only partially legible. In so far as the documents submitted by the Government were legible, the information they contained may be summarised as follows. (a) Opening of the investigation and transfer of the case file between various authorities 48. On 25 May 2001 the first applicant complained to the Chechen ombudsman about the abduction of her son. 49. On 1 August 2001 the acting prosecutor of the Urus-Martanovskiy District forwarded the first applicant’s complaint about her son’s abduction to the Urus-Martanovskiy VOVD and instructed the latter authority to immediately open a criminal investigation, take the basic investigative steps and return the opened case file to the district prosecutor’s office, should the first applicant’s submissions be confirmed. It follows from the stamp on the document that it was received by the VOVD on 5 August 2001. It is unclear from the document of 1 August 2001 which of the applicant’s complaints was forwarded to the VOVD, to which authority it was addressed and how it was dated. 50. On 16 August 2001 the Urus-Martanovskiy VOVD instituted criminal proceedings concerning Vakhit Avkhadov’s abduction. The decision stated that at about 5 a.m. on 24 April 2001 he had been taken away from his home at 112 Sovetskaya street in Urus-Martan by unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and that his whereabouts remained unknown. 51. By a decision of 11 September 2001 the VOVD transferred criminal case no. 25350 to the district prosecutor’s office for further investigation. (b) Interviewing of witnesses 52. On 5 August (or September) 2001 (the date is partly illegible) a police officer of the Urus-Martanovskiy Department of the Interior took a written statement from the first applicant (объяснение). According to the statement, at about 6 a.m. on 24 April 2001 a group of armed camouflaged men had burst into her house and taken away her son, Vakhit Avkhadov, holding the first applicant and her daughters at gunpoint. The first applicant had followed the abductors’ APC in the direction of Tangi-Chu. 53. According to statements by Z.B. and Sh.S., given on 6 and 8 August 2001, they had learnt from Vakhit Avkhadov’s relatives that the latter had been abducted from his house by men in camouflage uniforms. From the relevant documents it does not appear that either Z.B. or Sh.S. resided in the same street as the applicants. 54. By a decision of 16 August 2001 the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings concerning her son’s abduction. The text of the decision did not mention whether she had been notified of that and if so, when, and did not contain her signature to that effect. 55. According to the record of an interview of the first applicant of 16 August 2001, at about 5 a.m. on 24 April 2001 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had broken into the courtyard of her house by climbing over the fence. Five armed men had entered the house and taken away her son, who had been wearing a red T-shirt and a sports jacket with a white stripe on a sleeve. The intruders had spoken Russian and when they had taken her son outside they had put a raincoat over his head. The first applicant had noticed two APCs with number plates obscured with mud, and several more servicemen outside the courtyard. The two APCs went off in the direction of the village of Tangi-Chu. After the abduction the first applicant had immediately gone to the military commander’s office and had also contacted the prosecutor’s office. However, she had had no news of her son. 56. According to the Government, Mr N.S., interviewed as a witness on 17 August 2001, had stated that Vakhit Avkhadov had been his friend and that he had learnt about his abduction on 24 April 2001 from his mother. On that day six men had been abducted from Urus-Maran. Four had returned home, but Vakhit Avkhadov and L.-A.A. had not. A copy of the relevant interview record was not submitted by the Government. 57. T.Yu., interviewed as a witness on 18 August 2001, stated that the first applicant was his sister and that on 26 April 2001 she had visited him in Grozny and told him about the abduction of her son on 24 April 2001 by armed camouflaged men in two APCs. T.Yu. had subsequently assisted her in the search for Vakhit Avkhadov, during which they had learnt that on 24 April 2001 six men had been abducted from Urus-Martan, including Vakhit Avkhadov and L.-A.A. Four of them had subsequently been released. 58. According to the interview records of N.S. and A.B., both residents of Urus-Martan, dated 18 August 2001, they had learnt about Vakhit Avkhadov’s abduction from his relatives. From the relevant interview records it transpires that neither N.S. nor A.B. resided in the same street as the applicants. 59. According to the Government, on 19 June 2006 the first applicant was again granted victim status (повторно признана потерпевшей). The record of her interview of the same date shows that she confirmed her earlier submissions to the investigation concerning the circumstances of her son’s abduction: at about 6 a.m. on 24 April 2001 he had been taken away by armed camouflaged men in two APCs, which had left in the direction of Tangi‑Chu. Another resident of Urus-Martan, L.-A.A., had been abducted on the same day. (c) Further investigative steps 60. On 19 August 2001 the VOVD requested the Urus-Martan military commander’s office and the Chernokozovo remand prison to inform it whether Vakhit Avkhadov had been arrested by, or detained on the premises of, those authorities. 61. On an unspecified date in August 2001 the military commander’s office replied by letter to the VOVD that Vakhit Avkhadov had not been brought to that authority on 24 April 2001. 62. In a letter dated 15 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that a criminal case into the abduction of her son had been opened; that operational and search measures aimed at identifying those responsible and establishing his whereabouts were under way; and that she had been summoned to the prosecutor’s office with a view to carrying out unspecified investigative measures. 63. On 15 and 16 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office asked various hospitals, law-enforcement authorities and detention facilities in the Chechen Republic and neighbouring regions, whether Vakhit Avkhadov had applied to them for medical assistance, had been arrested or held in detention by them, and whether they were in possession of compromising materials (компрометирующий материал) in connection with him. From the replies of various authorities enclosed by the Government, it appears that the addressees of those requests for information denied having arrested or detained the missing man, and claimed that he had not contacted them for medical assistance and that they had no compromising material in connection with him. 64. In a report (рапорт) of 14 July 2006 the Department of the Interior of the Urus-Martanovskiy District (hereinafter also “the Urus-Martanovskiy ROVD” or “the ROVD”), informed the district prosecutor’s office that despite a door-to-door check (подворный обход) carried out in Urus‑Martan, it had proved impossible to identify witnesses to the abduction of Vakhit Avkhadov because he had been abducted early in the morning. 65. On 11 July 2006 the district prosecutor’s office instructed the ROVD to verify whether Vakhit Avkhadov had been arrested by servicemen of the Urus-Martanovskiy District and held in the district’s detention facilities. On the same date the district prosecutor’s office sent out similar requests to departments of the interior of other districts in the Chechen Republic. Those requests do not appear to have resulted in any relevant information. (d) Information concerning the decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and the applicants’ access to the case file 66. On 16 October 2001 the district prosecutor’s office decided to suspend the investigation in case no. 25350 and to send a copy of the decision to the prosecutor of the Urus-Martanovskiy District. However, the decision contained no reference as to whether the first applicant was to be notified and there is no indication that she was so informed. 67. On 15 June 2006 the acting prosecutor of the Urus-Martanovskiy District overturned the decision of 16 October 2001 to suspend the investigation on the grounds that it was premature and unfounded, and ordered it to be resumed. 68. On 13 July 2006 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation of Vakhit Avkhadov’s abduction owing to the failure to identify those responsible. 69. In a letter of 16 June 2007 the deputy prosecutor of the Urus‑Martanovskiy District replied to a request for information about the investigation from the first applicant, saying that on 15 June 2006 the investigation in case no. 25350 had been resumed and that on 19 June 2006 she had been granted victim status in those proceedings. 70. On 8 June 2007 the first applicant had asked the district prosecutor’s office to grant her access to the case file concerning her son’s abduction and permission to make copies from it. She had submitted that she had had no information about the investigative steps taken and had received no reply to her previous request of 13 June 2006 for access to the case file. There is no indication that that request was ever replied to. 71. According to the Government, the investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relative is pending.

7. The facts of the case, as set out by the parties, can be summarised as follows. 8. The disputed land, having a surface area of 759 sq.m., including a dwelling house and business premises, is situated in Erfurt, on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). 9. Under a notarially-registered agreement of 4 October 1938, the S. brothers, who were Jewish, sold this land for 256.000 reichsmarks (RM) to an industrialist, M. D. The S. brothers subsequently National-Socialist Germany and took refuge in Australia. 10. After 1945, the land, which was situated in the Soviet-occupied zone, was temporarily requisitioned by the State. 11. On 28 February 1946 the President of the Land of Thuringia (GDR) appointed an administrator and indicated that the land, which had been sold under duress, fell within the scope of the Reparations Act (Wiedergutmachungsgesetz) of 14 September 1945. It was thus supposed to be returned to the former owners or to their heirs. 12. Subsequently the restitution procedure was suspended, with a view to the amendment of the Reparations Act and to the systematic expropriation of the plots of land concerned. 13. On 18 October 1948 the administrator of the disputed property entered into a friendly settlement on behalf of the S. brothers with the widow and heir of M. D., under which the latter would remain the owner of two thirds of the land and the S. brothers would obtain the remaining one third, whilst in return waiving any claims against Mrs D. 14. Subsequently the S. brothers challenged this friendly settlement, arguing that they had not been consulted. 15. After the death of Mrs D., the two thirds of the property still owned by her was left to a community of heirs. 16. Under a notarially-registered agreement of 11 April 1992, one of Mrs D.’s heirs sold an initial share in the joint property (Anteil an der Miterbengemeinschaft) to the applicant for 90,000 deutschmarks (DM) and a second share to another purchaser, M. P., for the same amount. The agreement indicated that the applicant had been provided with a description of the events leading to the current property regime of the property in question (“wie es zu den momentanen Eigentumsverhältnissen gekommen ist”) and that this description covered the period from 22 April 1904 to 25 September 1987. 17. On 30 October 1992 the applicant was registered in the land register as a member of the community of joint owners. 18. In two letters, of 8 September and 17 December 1992, the heirs of the S. brothers sought the restitution of the remaining two thirds of the land in accordance with section 1(6) of the law on the resolution of outstanding property issues – the Property Act (Gesetz über die Regelung offener Vermögensfragen - Vermögensgesetz) of 23 September 1990 (see relevant domestic law and practice, paragraph 30 below). 19. In a notarially-registered agreement of 15 March 1993 the heirs of the S. brothers sold one third of the disputed land for DM 3,700,000 to Mrs T. The same agreement contained a clause indicating that the heirs of the S. brothers were also selling the remaining two thirds of the land for DM 6,800,000 under the condition precedent that they obtained its restitution (the procedure was pending before the domestic authorities and courts – see paragraphs 23 et seq. below). 20. On 31 January 1997 the applicant acquired a second share in joint ownership from M. P., which was also registered in the land register on 4 May 1998. The Government pointed out that the applicant had not provided evidence that he had paid for that acquisition, whereas the applicant indicated that the value of that second share had also amounted to DM 90,000 as stipulated in the initial agreement of 11 April 1992, and that he had acquired that share from M. P. in exchange for debts owed to him by the latter. 21. On 17 June 1997, the applicant entered into a notarially-registered sales agreement for his two shares for a total sum of DM 600,000 to the company Global Pacific Investment Trust, having its registered office in Vaduz (Liechtenstein). This agreement indicated that the parties had released the notary from his obligation to inspect the land register, in spite of his warning that the existence of third-party rights could not entirely be ruled out. 22. The applicant alleged that, on account of the restitution of the disputed property, he had been unable to fulfil his undertakings under that agreement. 23. In a decision of 8 November 1995 the Office for the Resolution of Outstanding Property Issues (Amt für die Regelung offener Vermögensfragen) of the town of Erfurt initially rejected the request by the heirs of the S. brothers, on the ground that the friendly settlement reached on 18 October 1948 had ruled out any request for restitution. The heirs of the S. brothers challenged that decision. 24. In a decision of 13 October 1997 the Office for the Resolution of Outstanding Property Issues for the Land of Thuringia (“Office for the Land of Thuringia”) upheld their request and ordered the restitution of the remaining two thirds of the land. The Office took the view that there was a presumption that the disputed land had been sold under duress in 1938, because the sale price had not been appropriate and it had not been established that the sale would have taken place without the National‑Socialist Party’s “rule”. Moreover, restitution could not be ruled out, whether because of the friendly settlement reached in the former GDR under the pressure of forthcoming expropriations without the agreement of those concerned, or for any of the other reasons given in section 4 of the Property Act, namely an acquisition in good faith at the time of the former GDR (see relevant domestic law and practice, paragraph 30 below). Under section 7a(2) of the Property Act, the applicant was entitled to the payment of consideration (Gegenleistung) for a sum equivalent to the sale price of his shares in 1938 at the conversion rate of DM 1 for RM 20, thus DM 1,250. 25. The applicant then took the matter to the Gera administrative court, complaining that the current purchasers were not responsible for the situation under the National-Socialist regime, that the friendly settlement had been valid and that the Office’s decision infringed his right to the enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 26. In a judgment of 17 April 2003 the Gera Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Office of the Land of Thuringia, in all its aspects, relying on sections 2(1) and 3(1) taken together with 1(6) of the Property Act (see relevant domestic law and practice, § 30 below). It explained that the Property Act had to be regarded as a law controlling the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, having the legitimate aim of ensuring reparation for the injustice committed against Jewish citizens. Even supposing that the applicant had a possession within the meaning of that Article, the relevant provisions of the Property Act had validly defined the scope of his property right (zulässige Inhaltsbestimmung des Eigentumsrechts). He therefore had only a restricted right (eingeschränkte Rechtsposition). The Administrative Court concluded that restitution was not ruled out under section 4(2) of the Property Act, because the applicant had not acquired title to its pecuniary value (kein Eigentum an dem Vermögenswert) and had acquired his share after the entry into force of the Property Act. Nor had he been able to dispose of (verfügen) his property, and for that reason was simply registered in the land register as a member of the community of joint owners of the inherited estate. The Administrative Court did not give the applicant leave to appeal against that judgment or to lodge an application for review with the Federal Administrative Court. 27. In a decision of 29 January 2004, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Administrative Court’s decision not to give him leave to lodge an application for review. 28. In a decision of 31 March 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court, ruling in a committee of three, rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal. 29. On 26 July 2004 the applicant filed a request for compensation under the Law of 27 September 1994 on compensation in accordance with the Property Act – the Compensation Act (Gesetz über die Entschädigung nach dem Vermögensgesetz – Entschädigungsgesetz – see relevant domestic law and practice, paragraph 31 below) and that procedure is still pending.

9. The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently detained in Voghera. 10. On 6 August 1996 the applicant, accused of international drug‑trafficking, was arrested in Milan. He was in possession of a false passport in the name of José Luis Troccoli Perdomo. 11. On 7 August 1996 the applicant was questioned by the Milan Public Prosecutor. Criminal proceedings were instituted against José Luis Troccoli Perdomo. 12. By an order of 9 August 1996, the Milan investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody. He observed that there was strong evidence of guilt against the applicant, who was in possession of documents showing that he was in contact with persons connected to drug-trafficking. Given the amount of cocaine (104 kilograms) imported by those persons and the fact that they were probably part of a major criminal organisation, the investigating judge considered that there was a serious risk of re-offending and a risk of tampering with evidence. Moreover, the applicant had declared that he was a tourist and that he had no links whatsoever to Italy. It was therefore reasonable to believe that he would try to abscond in order to avoid the consequences of the legal proceedings commenced against him. 13. The applicant challenged the order before the Milan District Court, which dismissed his appeal on 23 September 1996. The District Court observed that new evidence had emerged against the applicant, who had been recognised as the person who had rented a deposit box in which the cocaine had been found, had helped to move a container into the deposit box and was facing another set of proceedings for drug-trafficking pending in Bassano del Grappa. The Milan District Court held that there was a serious risk of his re-offending, as evidenced by the fact that the applicant was part of a powerful criminal organisation. Moreover, if he were released, the applicant might try to get in touch with the other members of the organisation in order to tell them about the investigations with a view to tampering with the evidence. Finally, there was a risk of his absconding, confirmed by the fact that the applicant had given a different name to the Bassano del Grappa judicial authorities. 14. The applicant did not appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation against the order of 23 September 1996. 15. On 27 May 1997 the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the applicant and twelve other persons be committed for trial. The preliminary hearing was scheduled for 23 June 1997, on which date the applicant was committed for trial, to begin on 2 April 1998 before the Milan District Court. 16. In a judgment of 22 April 1998, filed with the registry on 27 April 1998, the Milan District Court declared that the case was outside its jurisdiction ratione loci and ordered the transmission of the case-file to the Genoa Public Prosecutor’s Office. 17. In a decision of 8 May 1998 the Genoa investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on remand. After confirming the observations made in the orders of 9 August and 23 September 1996, he noted that further investigation had revealed that the applicant had played an active role in renting the deposit box where the cocaine had been found and in sending the container in which it was concealed and had kept in contact with the other defendants who had been caught by the police in the act of removing the cocaine from the container. The investigating judge considered moreover that there was a risk of his re-offending and absconding after having committed the offence. He noted in that respect that another set of criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant in Bassano del Grappa, and that the accused had tried to abscond, producing false identification papers. 18. The applicant did not appeal against the decision of 8 May 1998. 19. On 4 November 1998 the Public Prosecutor attached to the Genoa District Court forwarded the case-file to the Como Public Prosecutor’s Office. 20. In a judgment of 7 October 1999, filed with the registry on 28 October 1999, the Como District Court found the applicant guilty of the charges against him and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of 130,000,000 Italian lire (ITL). The applicant’s name was established as being in reality Horacio Sardinas Albo. 21. On 20 December 1999 the applicant appealed against that judgment. He challenged, in particular, the jurisdiction of the Como District Court. 22. The hearing was scheduled for 16 March 2000. On that date, the applicant concluded a plea bargain (applicazione della pena su richiesta delle parti) with the Public Prosecutor attached to the Milan Court of Appeal. The applicant agreed to withdraw his appeal in return for a reduction in his sentence. 23. In a judgment of 16 March 2000, the Milan Court of Appeal recognized the agreement reached by the parties and reduced the applicant’s sentence to eleven years’ imprisonment and a fine of ITL 100,000,000. 24. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation in a judgment of 2 February 2001. 25. Meanwhile, on 14 May 1998, the Ministry of Justice had requested that the applicant be placed in detention with a view to his extradition to the United States. In an order of 15 May 1998 the Brescia Court of Appeal had provisionally granted the request. 26. On 22 May 1998 the applicant was interviewed by the President of the Brescia Court of Appeal. He declared that he did not agree to be extradited since the absence of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States could result in his being detained for an indefinite period of time (a situation commonly known as “limbo incarceration”). 27. On 22 May 1998 the applicant challenged the order of 15 May 1998. He contested in particular the authorities’ assumption that it was necessary to prevent him from absconding before the extradition decision could be enforced. By an order of 26 May 1998 the Brescia Court of Appeal rejected his claim. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible. 28. On 22 June 1998 the United States authorities requested the applicant’s extradition for offences related to drug-trafficking (importation and possession of 425 kilograms of cocaine). 29. On 25 August 1998 the Brescia Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that extradition be granted. It was noted that an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant on 9 June 1993 by the Porto Rico District Court and that in the light of the evidence produced by the United States authorities it was reasonable to believe that the applicant was guilty of the offences with which he had been charged. 30. In a judgment of 2 October 1998, filed with the registry on 6 October 1998, the Brescia Court of Appeal ruled in favour of extradition. 31. On 27 October 1998 the applicant appealed on points of law. He submitted that Cuban nationals incurred a serious risk of indefinite detention in the United States. 32. By a judgment of 29 January 1999, filed with the registry on 29 March 1999, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 33. On 12 May 1999 the Ministry of Justice granted the extradition request. However, noting that criminal proceedings against the applicant were then pending before the Como District Court, the Ministry decided, according to Article 709 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, the “CCP”), to suspend the enforcement of the extradition. 34. Meanwhile the United States authorities had once again requested the applicant’s extradition in relation to a charge of false statements. The applicant had allegedly declared that his name was Gilberto Ramos in order to obtain a United States passport and had produced evidence corroborating the assertion. 35. By an order of 4 June 1999 the Brescia Court of Appeal decided that the applicant should be detained with a view to extradition. It noted, in particular, that the applicant had already left the jurisdiction of the Florida courts and that there was a specific risk of his absconding. The order indicated that the applicant was a Cuban citizen who, in February 1973, had obtained a permanent residence permit in the United States. 36. On 8 July 1999 the applicant appealed on points of law against the order of 4 June 1999. 37. By a judgment of 19 August 1999, filed with the registry on 1 September 1999, the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible because it had been lodged out of time. 38. By a judgment of 9 March 2000, filed with the registry on 21 March 2000, the Brescia Court of Appeal ruled in favour of extradition. 39. The applicant appealed on points of law. By a judgment of 19 September 2000, filed with the registry on 30 October 2000, the Court of Cassation, considering that the Court of Appeal had duly given reasons for its decision, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 40. By an order of 3 November 2000 the Ministry of Justice granted the extradition request. However, noting that criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending, the Ministry decided to suspend enforcement of the extradition.

5. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bielawa, Poland. 6. Between 18 and 21 February 1992 “Ekspres Sudecki”, a local newspaper, published letters of certain M.W. and A.P. The authors accused the applicant, at the time the Deputy Mayor of Bielawa, of fraud and called him a “liar”. 7. On 6 March 1992 the applicant brought a private prosecution on charges of libel against M.W. and A.P. to the Dzierżoniów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). 8. The trial began on 18 May 1992. The court adjourned the hearing due to the absence of one of the defendants. 9. Further hearings were listed for 8 and 30 June, 20 July, 20 August and 22 September 1992, 11 February and 28 April 1993, but most of them were adjourned because of the parties' or their lawyers' absence. 10. On 20 May 1993 the Court adjourned the trial because the defendants had failed to appear. 11. The next hearing, set down for 24 June 1993, was cancelled because of the absence of the lay judge. 12. Further hearings, scheduled for 8 July 1993, 25 March 1994, 31 May and 14 June 1995 were adjourned because of the absence of the defendants, their counsel, a witness and the applicant. The court decided to impose a fine on one of the witnesses who had failed to appear. 13. At the hearing on 29 June 1995 the defendants' counsel informed the court that he would not represent them any longer. 14. On 20 July 1995 the trial was adjourned because the defendants had failed to appear. The court ordered that both defendants be subjected to police supervision in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings. 15. On 18 October 1995 the court lifted police supervision in respect of M.W. 16. A hearing set down for 1 March 1996 was adjourned since the defendants and a witness had failed to appear before the court. The court ordered that A.P. be detained on remand to ensure his presence at hearings. 17. A hearing scheduled for 29 March 1996 was adjourned because M.W., the applicant and witnesses had failed to appear. 18. On 4 April 1996 M.W. challenged the impartiality of all the judges sitting in the Dzierżoniów District Court. The challenge was dismissed as unfounded by the Wałbrzych Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) on 24 May 1996. 19. At a hearing on 5 April 1996 the Dzierżoniów District Court decided to re-hear evidence due to the change of the composition of the court. It also lifted A.P.'s detention and ordered that he be subjected to police supervision. 20. Hearings scheduled for 26 September and 10 October 1996 were adjourned because of M.W.'s and his counsel's absence. 21. On 24 October 1996 the court held a hearing. 22. The next hearing, which was to be held on 7 November 1996, was adjourned because A.P. had failed to appear. The court ordered that he be brought to the court by the police for the next hearing. 23. At the hearing on 15 November 1996 M.W.'s counsel asked the court to allow him time to inspect new documentary evidence and to adjourn the trial. 24. The proceedings were subsequently stayed because the applicant's lawyer was ill. 25. A hearing scheduled for 29 January 1998 was adjourned because of the absence of M.W., his lawyer and witnesses. 26. The court resumed the proceedings at a hearing on 19 February 1998. It also imposed a fine on one of the witnesses who had failed to appear. 27. On 6 March 1998 the court held that the conduct of M.W. made it impossible for it to try the case and decided to sever the charges against him. On the same day M.W.'s counsel refused to represent him any longer. 28. A hearing set down for 19 March 1998 was adjourned because a witness had not appeared. 29. A hearing scheduled for 9 April 1998 was cancelled due to the judge's absence. 30. On 23 April 1998 the Dzierżoniów District Court convicted M.W. as charged and ordered that he publish an official apology to the applicant in a local newspaper. It also conditionally discontinued the proceedings against A.P. 31. Both defendants appealed against that judgment. 32. On 27 October 1998 the Wałbrzych Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. 33. On 3 March 1999 the Dzierżoniów District Court discontinued the proceedings against both defendants, as the statutory period of limitation for imposing a sentence had expired. 34. On 9 March 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision. 35. The case was again remitted on 20 July 1999. 36. On 25 August 1999 the Dzierżoniów District Court stayed the proceedings because A.P. had absconded and a warrant to search for him by a “wanted notice” had been issued. 37. Hearings set down for 5 April and 7 May 2001 were adjourned due to the defendants' absence. 38. On 6 June 2001 the Dzierżoniów District Court discontinued the proceedings on the same grounds as before. 39. The Świdnica Regional Court upheld that decision on 7 September 2001.

4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk. 5. In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagaliyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (the “Bagaliyskyy Court”) against the Bagaliyskyy Municipal Housing Enterprise, seeking the recovery of salary arrears. 6. On 18 December 2000 the court found for the applicant and ordered the entity to pay him UAH 2543.49 (around 421 euros – “EUR”). 7. On 23 December 2000 the Bagaliyskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Dniprodzerzhynsk instituted enforcement proceedings. 8. On 18 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment was not enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and its lack of funds. 9. On 6 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the Bagaliyskyy Court to have the debtor in the enforcement proceedings replaced, as the latter’s property had been transferred to the Dniprodzerzhynsk Housing Municipal Enterprise (the “DHME”) pursuant to the decision of the Dniprodzerzhynsk Town Council. 10. On 17 June 2002 the court granted the request of the Bailiffs’ Service and ruled that the DHME was responsible for the payment of the judgment debt of 18 December 2000 to the applicant. 11. On 29 September 2004 the DHME transferred the amount of the award to the deposit account of the Bailiffs’ Service. 12. On 30 September 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service requested the applicant to provide them with his bank account details in order that they transfer the amount of the award. 13. According to the Government, the applicant failed to provide the Bailiffs with the information requested. 14. The applicant did not contest this submission.

4. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine. 5. On an unidentified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd against his former employer, the State Kirovograd Store No. 72 for military personnel (Кіровоградський воєнторг № 72) claiming salary arrears. On 11 September 1998 the court awarded the applicant 1,834.92[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). 6. The Government submitted that on 16 October 2003 the debtor in the applicant's case had transferred the amount awarded by the judgment of 11 September 1998 to the Bailiffs Service's bank account. By letter of 30 January 2004 the applicant was requested to provide information necessary for a bank or postal transfer of this amount from the Bailiffs Service's account to the applicant. Since the applicant failed to provide such information the awarded amount remains unpaid to him. 7. On 28 October 2001 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court against the Bailiffs' Service claiming compensation for the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 9 November 2001 the court returned the applicant's complaint on the ground that it should have been lodged under the civil procedure. On 21 December 2001 the same court returned the applicant's appeal against the decision of 9 November 2001 for non-compliance with the procedural formalities. 8. On 31 January 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court against his former employer, the Kirovograd Store No. 72 for military personnel, claiming compensation for the loss of earnings caused by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 5 September 2002 the court left the applicant's action without consideration as the parties twice failed to appear in court hearings. According to the applicant, he was informed about this decision only upon his request lodged with the court in December 2003. In February 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5 September 2002. On 2 June 2004 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 25 April 2005 the Leninskyy District Court found against the applicant. The applicant submitted that he had learned about this judgment only from the Government's observations submitted to the Court in September 2005. He did not request to renew a time-limit for lodging an appeal against it. 9. On 15 September 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court against the Bailiffs' Service, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the State Treasury claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 11 February 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 7 April 2004 the same court returned the applicant's appeal as he had failed to pay the court fee. On 8 July 2004 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 7 April 2004. The applicant appealed against these decisions in cassation and proceedings are still pending.

5. The applicants are: 6. Ms Elza Isayevna Sagayeva, born in 1995, 7. Ms Selita Vozukayeva, born in 1980, 8. Mr Khusein Imranovich Sagayev, born in 1971, 9. Ms Petimat Abdulvakhabovna Sagayeva, born in 1971. 10. Ms Aizan Imranovna Sagayeva, born in 1968. 7. The first and second applicants are married and are the parents of the third applicant and his brother, Mr Ilias Imranovich Sagayev, who was born in 1972. The seventh applicant is the wife of Mr Ilias Imranovich Sagayev. The third applicant is married to the fourth applicant and they have three children: the fifth and sixth applicants and Mr Yunadi Isayevich Sagayev, who was born in 1986. The eighth and ninth applicants are a brother and sister-in-law of Mr Ilias Imranovich Sagayev. The eighth applicant is also an uncle of Mr Yunadi Isayevich Sagayev. The tenth applicant is a sister of Mr Ilias Imranovich Sagayev and an aunt of Mr Yunadi Isayevich Sagayev. 8. Eight members of the Sagayev family lived in a family compound at 72A Sheripova Street, Urus-Martan. The compound consisted of three houses in one courtyard. The first, second and tenth applicants lived in the first building. Mr Ilias Sagayev and the seventh applicant lived in the second building. The eighth and ninth applicants lived in the third building. Ms S. Sagayeva, a sister of Mr Ilias Sagayev and an aunt of Mr Yunadi Sagayev, whose permanent residence was in Grozny, temporarily resided at 72A Sheripova street as well. 9. At 5 a.m. on 30 August 2002 a group of between ten and twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms wearing masks came to the family compound. They first broke down the doors to the houses of the first and eighth applicants. Then they went to the house of Mr Ilias Sagayev, broke down the door and apprehended him. They took him into the street and walked towards their vehicles, which they had apparently parked up the road, a short distance from the house. The applicants heard the sound of armoured personnel carriers (APC) while they were standing in the yard outside their houses. They were convinced that the armed men were Russian servicemen as they spoke Russian without an accent, and a curfew prevented civilians from being out on the streets at night. 10. The account of the events was given in written statements by the first, second, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth applicants. Mr K., their neighbour, stated in writing that at around 5 a.m. on 30 August 2002 he had seen military vehicles drive past his house along Sheripova Street. He had then heard them stop not far from his house before the engines were turned off. He had heard the vehicles again some ten to fifteen minutes later as they were driving away. Ms D., another neighbour, confirmed in writing that at around 5 a.m. on 30 August 2002 she had heard an APC park not far from her house and had then heard people talking in Russian. 11. The Government submitted that in the course of the investigation in case no. 61121 it was established that at approximately 5 a.m. on 30 August 2002 unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks had abducted Mr Ilias Sagayev from a house at 72A Sheripova Street, Urus-Martan. 12. In the morning of 30 August 2002 the first applicant went to the Urus-Martan Military Commander’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office, the local police department, and the Urus-Martan District Administration to submit written complaints concerning the events of the previous night. He was questioned by an investigator, R. Yu., who later also questioned the second, seventh, eighth and tenth applicants at the Prosecutor’s Office. When the first applicant met the head of the Administration, the latter told him that he had no influence over the fate of persons held at the Military Commander’s Office. 13. Three days later the first applicant was received by the Urus-Martan District Military Commander. According to the first applicant, the Commander listened to his story, accepted the written complaint, and left the room without saying a word or promising to conduct an investigation. 14. In subsequent weeks the applicants visited several prisons in the Chechen Republic, including Chernokozovo, Khankala and the organised crime unit in Grozny, but received no information about their missing relative. They also made unsuccessful attempts to find intermediaries to track him down. 15. On 10 September 2002 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal investigation no. 61121 into the abduction of Mr Ilias Sagayev. 16. The applicants sent numerous applications to various State authorities, copies of which have been submitted to the Court. In particular, on 18 October 2002 the first applicant applied in writing to the Military Commander, the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office, the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Urus-Martan police, requesting assistance in locating Mr Ilias Sagayev and securing his release. The applications filed with the Prosecutor’s General Office and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic were forwarded to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office. The applications filed with the Military Prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (UGA) were forwarded to the Military Prosecutor of military unit no. 20102. Those filed with the Ministry of the Interior were forwarded to the Urus-Martan police. 17. On 2 November 2002 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings. According to the Government, he was questioned on the same date. The first applicant was informed of the decision to grant him victim status on 21 November 2002. 18. On 10 November 2002 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office decided to suspend the investigation. In the decision it was stated that “all possible investigative measures were taken, [however,] the persons to be charged were not identified, and the term of the preliminary investigation has expired.” The decision did not specify what investigative measures had actually been taken. The first applicant was informed of the decision on 15 November 2002. 19. On 31 March 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that his letter had been included in the criminal case file and that steps were being taken to establish the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. 20. On 3 April 2003 the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicants that the investigation had been reopened on an unspecified date and that the department was taking investigative measures in liaison with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic. 21. On 18 April 2003 the applicants’ representatives, the SRJI, requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to provide information on the status of the criminal investigation and the name of the investigator, as well as copies of the decisions to open the criminal investigation, to suspend it, and to grant victim status. 22. On 30 April 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office informed the SRJI that criminal case no. 61121 had been suspended since, although all investigative measures had been taken, the perpetrators of the crime had not been identified and Mr Ilias Sagayev’s whereabouts had not been established. The letter further stated that R. Yu. was the investigator in the case and that copies of the decisions to open and suspend the case and to grant victim status to the first applicant had been sent to the latter. 23. On 16 May 2003 the Military Prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 informed the first applicant that his letter had been examined and found not to contain any evidence of the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction of Mr Ilias Sagayev. 24. On 11 June 2003 the SRJI requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to provide the first applicant with information on the status of the criminal investigation and copies of the relevant decisions. 25. On 9 July 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic instructed the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to provide it with detailed information on the results of the investigation and on the grounds of the decision to suspend the investigation if such a decision had been taken. No further information was received by the applicants on this subject. 26. On 1 August 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 10 November 2002 to suspend the investigation and resumed the proceedings. The first applicant was informed accordingly. 27. On 1 September 2003 the investigation was again suspended on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was notified of the decision. 28. On 12 October 2003 the National Public Commission for the Investigation of Offences and the Protection of Human Rights in the North Caucasus informed the first applicant that his application had been forwarded to the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA. According to the letter, the Military Prosecutor’s Office of military unit no. 20102 had opened a criminal investigation and referred it to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office. 29. On 20 October 2003 the FSB informed the first applicant that Mr Ilias Sagayev had not been detained by the FSB as there had been no lawful grounds for his detention, and that he was not suspected of any offences. It was also stated that the FSB was taking the necessary measures to identify those involved in Mr Ilias Sagayev’s apprehension and to establish his whereabouts. 30. On 14 January 2004 the SRJI asked the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to grant the applicants access to the case file so as to enable them to appeal against the decision to suspend the investigation. Although the prosecutor received the letter on 30 January 2004, neither the applicants nor the SRJI received a response. 31. On 1 February 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 1 September 2003 and resumed the investigation. The first applicant was informed accordingly. 32. On 1 March 2004 the investigation was again suspended on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was notified of the decision. 33. On 7 April 2004 S., an official from the Urus-Martan Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, sent the first applicant a letter informing him that inquiries concerning the whereabouts of his son had been sent to the Departments responsible for the Execution of Sentences of the Chechen Republic and of other regions of the Northern Caucasus and to the Main Information Centre of the Ministry of the Interior in Moscow. A profile of Mr Ilias Sagayev had been sent to all District Departments of the Interior in the Chechen Republic, as well as to law-enforcement agencies in the Urus-Martan district. However, S. had not received any positive replies to any of the inquiries. 34. On 1 September 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that requests for certain investigative measures had been sent to district prosecuting authorities of the Chechen Republic. Requests to activate search measures had also been sent to the Urus-Martan district department of the interior. However, despite the measures taken it was proving impossible to identify the perpetrators or establish Mr Ilias Sagayev’s whereabouts. 35. On 21 March 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision to suspend the investigation of 1 March 2004 and resumed the proceedings. The decision stated, inter alia, that in the course of the resumed investigation it would be necessary to verify the first applicant’s allegations that his son had been apprehended by officers of the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office and the Urus-Martan district department of the FSB. It ordered the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to take the investigative steps required. The first applicant was notified of the decision. 36. On 23 April 2005 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation on the ground that although all necessary investigative measures had been taken the perpetrators could not be identified. The decision did not specify any measures actually taken. 37. On 6 June 2005 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office resumed the investigation on account of the necessity to take additional investigative measures. The first applicant was informed accordingly. 38. After that the investigation was again suspended on 6 July 2005, resumed on 18 August 2005, suspended on 10 September 2005 and again resumed on 24 May 2007. According to the Government, it has been pending since that date. 39. According to the applicants, the investigative authorities have never inspected the scene of the abduction or questioned their neighbours, who had witnessed the events. Despite their numerous requests, they had not received any information concerning any other investigative measures taken. According to the Government, an inspection of the Sagayevs’ house in Sheripova Street was carried out on an unspecified date. No evidence was found or seized. 40. The third applicant lived together with his family at 37 Aviatsionnaia Street, Urus-Martan. His son, Mr Yunadi Sagayev, who born in 1986, also lived at that address. At around 2 a.m. on 13 September 2002 about six armed men in masks approached the third applicant’s house on foot after apparently leaving their vehicles around the corner. The whole family was asleep when the armed men climbed over the fence around their courtyard and broke down the door. Six of the men entered the house, without introducing themselves. Even when specifically asked by the applicants, they refused to show their identity papers. Five of them went into the room where the third applicant and Mr Yunadi Sagayev were sleeping, and the sixth man went into the room where the fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were sleeping. They told the fourth applicant that they were conducting identity checks. The men put the third applicant and Mr Yunadi Sagayev against the wall, while the fourth applicant went into another room to look for their identity papers to show them to the armed men. The men took Mr Yunadi Sagayev’s passport and then took him outside. He was dressed in a black tracksuit with red and white details, a red T-shirt with a white stripe and slippers. Before leaving, the men contacted their vehicles by radio and told the fourth applicant that her son would be released later. As they were leaving, they broke the lights outside the Sagayevs’ house. The applicants believed that the men were Russian servicemen as they spoke Russian without an accent. 41. The third, fourth and fifth applicants witnessed Mr Yunadi Sagayev’s apprehension and gave their account of the events in writing. 42. The Government submitted that in the course of the investigation in case no. 61126 it was established that at approximately 2.30 a.m. on 13 September 2002 unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms and masks had abducted Mr Yunadi Sagayev from a house at 37 Aviatsionnaia Street, Urus-Martan. 43. In the morning of 13 September 2002 the fourth applicant applied in person to the Military Commander’s Office, the Town Administration, the Prosecutor’s Office, and police for information about her son. Officials of each of these agencies told her that they had not detained her son the previous night. They promised to help establish who had been on duty during the night but ultimately provided no assistance. 44. The applicants sent numerous applications to various State officials, copies of which have been submitted to the Court. The applications filed with the Prosecutor’s General Office and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic were forwarded to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office. The applications filed with the Military Prosecutor of the UGA were forwarded to the Military Prosecutor of military unit no. 20102. The applications filed with the Ministry of the Interior were forwarded to the Urus-Martan police. 45. On 21 September 2002 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of Mr Yunadi Sagayev in case no. 61126. 46. On 3 October 2002 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office granted the fourth applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings. 47. On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the third and fourth applicants and their neighbours. 48. On 21 November 2002 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation into the abduction of Mr Yunadi Sagayev. In the decision to suspend the investigation it was stated that “all possible investigative measures have been taken, [however,] the persons to be charged have not been identified, and the term of the preliminary investigation has expired.” The decision did not specify what investigative measures had been actually taken. The applicants were informed of the decision in a letter of 14 December 2002. 49. On 18 April 2003 the SRJI applied in writing to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office requesting information on the status of the criminal investigation and the name of the investigator, as well as copies of the decisions to open and suspend the criminal investigation and to grant victim status. 50. On 30 April 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office informed the SRJI that investigation in criminal case no. 61126 was, at that date, suspended as all investigative measures had been taken but the perpetrators of the crime had not been identified and Mr Yunadi Sagayev’s whereabouts had not been established. It was further stated that investigator R. Yu. was responsible for the case and that copies of the decisions concerning the criminal proceedings had been sent to the fourth applicant. 51. On 11 June 2003 the SRJI wrote to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to ask for the first and third applicants to be granted victim status in criminal case no. 61126. 52. On 24 June 2003 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of military unit no. 20102 informed the third applicant that his letter had been examined but had been found not to disclose any evidence of servicemen’s involvement in Mr Yunadi Sagayev’s abduction. 53. On 9 July 2003 the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic instructed the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to provide it with detailed information on the results of the investigation and, if a decision to suspend the investigation had been taken, to provide a report on the grounds of the decision. No further information was received by the applicants on that subject. 54. On 1 August 2003 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 21 November 2002 to suspend the investigation and resumed the proceedings. 55. On 1 September 2003 the investigation was again suspended on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The fourth applicant was informed accordingly. 56. On 11 October 2003 the National Public Commission for the Investigation of Offences and the Protection of Human Rights in the North Caucasus informed the third applicant that his application had been forwarded to the Military Prosecutor’s Office of UGA. The letter stated, incorrectly, that the Military Prosecutor’s Office of military unit no. 20102 had opened a criminal investigation into Mr Yunadi Sagayev’s abduction and had referred it to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office. 57. On 20 October 2003 the FSB informed the third applicant that the FSB had not detained Mr Yunadi Sagayev as there had been no lawful grounds for his detention. He had not been suspected of any criminal offences. 58. On 14 January 2004 the SRJI asked the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to grant the applicants access to the case file so as to enable them to appeal against the decision to suspend the investigation. Although the Prosecutor received the letter on 30 January 2004, neither the applicants nor the SRJI received a response. 59. On 1 February 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 1 September 2003 on the ground that the investigation was incomplete and resumed the proceedings. The fourth applicant was notified of the decision. 60. On 1 March 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office again suspended the investigation on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The fourth applicant was informed accordingly. 61. On 1 September 2004 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office informed the fourth applicant that requests for certain investigative measures had been sent to district prosecuting authorities of the Chechen Republic. Requests to activate search measures had also been sent to the Urus-Martan district department of the interior. However, despite the measures taken it was proving impossible to identify the perpetrators or establish Mr Yunadi Sagayev’s whereabouts. 62. On 21 March 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 1 March 2004 to suspend the investigation and resumed the proceedings. The decision stated, inter alia, that in the course of the resumed investigation it would be necessary to verify the first applicant’s allegations that his grandson had been apprehended by officers from the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office and the Urus-Martan district department of the FSB. It ordered the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to take the investigative steps required. The fourth applicant was notified of the decision. 63. On 23 April 2005 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation once again on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The fourth applicant was informed accordingly. 64. After that the investigation was resumed on 6 June 2005, suspended on 6 July 2005, resumed on 1 September 2005, suspended on 2 September 2005, resumed on 18 November 2005, suspended on 18 December 2005 and again resumed on 24 May 2007. According to the Government, it has been pending since that date. 65. According to the applicants, the investigative authorities have not inspected the scene of the abduction. According to the Government, an inspection of the Sagayevs’ house in Aviatsionnaya street was carried out on an unspecified date. No evidence was found or seized. 66. The applicants submitted that, despite their numerous requests, they have received no information about the investigative measures that have been taken. 67. On 24 June 2005 the first applicant filed a complaint with the Urus-Martan Town Court concerning the investigating authorities’ inaction and their failure to provide him with access to case files nos. 61121 and 61126. In his complaint, he stated that Mr Ilias Sagayev and Mr Yunadi Sagayev had been apprehended by servicemen who had arrived on APCs. 68. On 1 August 2005 the Urus-Martan Town Court upheld the part of the complaint relating to the investigation in case no. 61121 but dismissed the part relating to the investigation in case no. 61126. 69. As regards case no. 61121, which concerned the abduction of Mr Ilias Sagayev, the court held, in particular: “...[T]he decision of the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to refuse [the first applicant] the right to study the materials in criminal case no. 61121 is in breach of the provisions of the Constitution and should be quashed. The materials from criminal case no. 61121 ... show that at around 5 a.m. on 30 August 2002 unidentified men in camouflage uniforms and masks broke into the Sagayev’s house ... and took [Mr] Ilias Sagayev with them. In the course of the investigation ... the following investigative measures were taken. [The second, seventh, eighth applicants and Mr K.] were questioned as witnesses. Requests for certain investigative measures were sent. According to the Urus-Martan district department of the FSB, they had not apprehended [Mr Ilias] Sagayev or taken him to their premises. Similar responses were received from the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office, the head of military unit no. 6779, the operational-search bureau of the Ministry of the Interior, district prosecutor’s offices and the Department of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. On 2 November 2002 [the first applicant] ... was granted victim status. In the course of the investigation [the perpetrators] were not identified and the whereabouts of [Mr Ilias] Sagayev [were not established], as a result of which the investigation was repeatedly suspended on account of [the failure to identify the person] to be charged with the offence. The investigation was suspended for the last time on 6 July 2005. At the same time, the materials in the case file show that the investigator failed to take all the investigative measures necessary to establish the whereabouts of the abducted person and to identify the perpetrators. In particular: - it has not established to which [authority] within the territory of the Urus-Martan district at the time of [Mr] Ilias Sagayev’s apprehension the APCs belonged, where each [APC] was located at the time of the abduction and on whose orders it was being used; - neither the heads of the [authorities] which operated APCs nor the drivers of individual [APCs] were questioned; - the [military] register concerning the use of military vehicles at the time of the abduction was not examined; - the heads of the military commander’s office, of the district department of the FSB and of the district department of the interior were not questioned with a view to finding out who had been granted permission to pass through the town of Urus-Martan on the night of 30 August 2002 when freedom of movement was restricted; - the register of persons detained in the period concerned was neither seized nor examined, and the persons in charge of detention facilities were not questioned with a view to establishing the circumstances relating to the [placement] of abducted person in such facilities; - G., the military commander of the Urus-Martan district, was not questioned, whereas from the records of questioning of [the first applicant] it would appear that he had claimed to have been able to influence the fate of [his abducted relatives]. K., head of the FSB department, who had admitted his involvement in [Mr Ilias] Sagayev’s abduction, was not questioned either. The above circumstances prove that [the first applicant’s] request for the [proceedings] to be resumed and for a more thorough and complete investigation is well-founded...” 70. As regards case no. 61126, the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the first applicant had not been granted victim status in those proceedings and had failed to submit to the court documents corroborating his claim to be Mr Yunadi Sagayev’s grandfather. 71. Following the delivery of the judgment, on 9 September 2005 the first applicant requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to give him access to materials in case file no. 61121 and to allow him to make copies of relevant documents. His request was refused. The first applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court against the refusal. 72. On 23 December 2005 the Urus-Martan Town Court dismissed the complaint. The first applicant appealed. 73. On 8 February 2006 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed his appeal. It noted that Article 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that a victim could only inspect records pertaining to investigative actions in which he had participated. He could inspect the entire case file once the investigation had been completed. Since the investigation in case no. 61121 was still pending, the refusal of the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to provide the applicant with access to the entire case file was lawful. 74. On 27 September 2005 the fourth applicant filed a complaint with the Urus-Martan Town Court concerning the inaction of the investigating authorities and their failure to give her access to case file no. 61126. In her complaint she stated that Mr Yunadi Sagayev had been apprehended by servicemen who had arrived on APCs. 75. On 28 October 2005 the Urus-Martan Town Court upheld her complaint. It held, in particular, that the prosecuting authorities’ refusal to allow her access to the materials in the case file was in breach of the Constitution. It further noted that in the course of the investigation the first, second, third and fourth applicants, Ms L. S. and Ms R. B. had been questioned as witnesses. In reply to requests for information the Urus-Martan district department of the FSB had stated that they had not apprehended Mr Yunadi Sagayev or taken him to their premises. Similar responses had been received from the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office, the head of military unit no. 6779, the operational-search bureau of the Ministry of the Interior, district prosecutor’s offices and the Department of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. 76. The court further noted a number of flaws in the investigation no. 61126 similar to those noted in its decision of 1 August 2005 in respect of the investigation in case no. 61121 (see paragraph 69 above) and ordered the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to conduct a more thorough and complete investigation. 77. Following the delivery of the judgment, on 14 November 2005 the fourth applicant requested the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office to give her access to the materials in case no. 61126 and to allow her to make copies of relevant documents. 78. On 18 November 2005 the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office refused the request on the ground that in accordance with Article 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a victim could only inspect records pertaining to investigative actions in which he had participated. 79. Despite a specific request by the Court, the Government did not submit copies of the investigation files in cases nos. 61121 and 61126 concerning the abduction of Mr Ilias Sagayev and Mr Yunadi Sagayev. They submitted ninety pages of case-file materials containing decisions to institute, suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status. The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the “materials of the criminal cases containing no state or military secrets ... without making copies thereof” at the location of the preliminary investigation in Russia.

5. The applicant was born in 1922 and lives at 4a V. Street in Nova Obodivka. Between 2004 and 2007 she had some health problems, having suffered, in particular, from a stroke, pneumonia and atherosclerosis. 6. On 6 March 2002 an operational enquiry officer (оперуповноважений) of the Trostyanets Town Police Department submitted the following report to the chief of police: “... According to the information received in the course of the search operations (оперативно-розшукові заходи), items [earlier] stolen from [a shop in Nova Obodivka] ... were in the possession of [Mr R., the applicant's son] at 14 V. Street in Nova Obodivka. Furthermore, information has been received that the aforementioned person keeps poppy straw and a small calibre handgun. I therefore request that you seek to obtain a search warrant with a view to searching the household of [Mr R.].” 7. On 12 March 2002 the Trostyanets Town Court (“the Trostyanets Court”) issued a ruling stating the following: “The investigator ... has requested the court to issue a warrant for searching the household of [Mr R.], where stolen items could be hidden. Having heard the investigator and having studied the case, the court considers that there are reasons for allowing the application. During the night of 20-21 February 2002, food, liquor and cigarettes worth a total of UAH 1,198.94 were stolen from [a] private [shop] ... in Nova Obodivka ... On 6 March 2002 [an operational enquiry officer] of the Trostyanets Town [Police Department] informed the investigation unit that the stolen items, as well as rifled firearms and drugs, could be stored in the household of [Mr R.]. It can be seen from the investigator's explanations and the material in the case file that there are grounds for considering that the stolen items could be kept at the household of [Mr R.]. Pursuant to Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court: grants the application authorises the search of the household of [Mr R.], who resides at 14 V. Street in Nova Obodivka... The ruling is not subject to appeal.” 8. On 15 March 2002, after the applicant's son, Mr R., arrived at the applicant's house at 4a V. Street, six police officers entered the yard. Having produced the warrant, they conducted a search of the house and the entire property, in the presence of the applicant, Mr R. and two attested witnesses. According to the police report of the same date, the search was held at 8 V. Street and resulted in the discovery of a gas pistol in the cupboard in the living room, a packet of bullets in the attic above the kitchen and a package of cannabis outside on the ground between the barn and the beet-pulp pit. The report contained a remark by Mr R., according to which the search of his mother's house had been unlawful and conducted in spite of her objections. He also contended that the bullets and drugs had been planted by the police officers or their driver during the search. 9. On the same date the police questioned the applicant, who submitted that her son had voluntarily handed over the gas pistol, while the bullets and drugs had apparently been planted by the police, whose actions it had been impossible to follow given the number of the persons involved. 10. On 25 March 2002 the investigator decided that there was no reason to initiate criminal proceedings on account of the discovered drugs and bullets, as they had been found in places unsuitable for storage and it was impossible to prove that Mr R. was responsible. Following additional investigation ordered by the Vinnytsia Regional Prosecutor's Office, on 27 August 2004 the investigator reiterated that conclusion. 11. Between November 1998 and January 2003 Mr R. had an officially registered place of residence in Nova Obodivka. Subsequently, he changed it to 51 K. Street in Trostyanets. 12. On 20 October 2003 the Trostyanets Council issued a certificate to Mr R., at his request, stating that he owned, since 1985, a house, a garage and a land plot at the above-mentioned address in Trostyanets. 13. On 30 August 2004 the Nova Obodivka Council issued similar certificates “to whom [they] may concern” stating that Mr R. did not live and had no property in that village. 14. According to the findings of the criminal investigation into the applicant's complaint concerning the search of her home (see paragraph 22 below), the actual residence of Mr R. with the applicant at 4a V. Street in Nova Obodivka had been confirmed by witnesses living in that village and corroborated by the presence of his personal belongings there and by the fact that he had been paying electricity bills for the household in question. 15. On 1 August 2007 four inhabitants of buildings nos. 47 and 49 in K. Street in Trostyanets gave a written statement that Mr R. had been their neighbour at 51 K. Street between September 2001 and October 2002. They noted that he had been living with and had been taking care of a seriously ill person, Ms D., who had died of cancer in October 2002. The Trostyanets Council certified the authenticity of the above statement. 16. On the same date, the Trostyanets Council issued a certificate to Mr R., stating that between September 2001 and 1 October 2002 he had permanently lived at his own house at 51 K. Street in Trostyanets. 17. The references to 14 V. Street and 8 V. Street in Nova Obodivka in the search warrant and in the police report following the search respectively (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above) were inaccurate. As later found by the domestic investigation authorities and courts, that was a result of a technical error (see paragraphs 22, 25 and 26 below). 18. On an unspecified date in March or May 2002 the applicant complained to the Vinnytsia prosecutor and the Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior that the search of her house had been unlawful and sought the criminal prosecution of the respective police officers. 19. On 24 May 2002 the second of the above-mentioned authorities wrote a letter to her accepting that her allegations had indeed been confirmed in part. It was noted in the letter that the police officers responsible for the violations of the criminal procedures had been disciplined, while the case file had been sent to the Trostyanets Town Prosecutor's Office (“the Trostyanets prosecutor”) for criminal investigations to be instituted. 20. Between February 2003 and May 2006 the criminal case was closed six times for a lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers and subsequently reopened following the quashing of the respective rulings of the investigating officers either by the prosecution authorities or by courts on grounds of incompleteness of the investigation. 21. On an unspecified date (presumably in 2005) the case file was marked as “classified” for unknown reasons. Following the applicant's administrative claim the Trostyanets Court found the classification of the file unlawful, ordered its declassification and awarded the applicant 300 Ukrainian hryvnias in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 22. On 12 March 2007 the Vinnytsia prosecutor decided, for the seventh time, to terminate the criminal investigations finding that there had been nothing criminal about the police officers' actions. The fact that there were discrepancies as regards the address indicated in the search warrant (14 V. Street), the search report (8 V. Street) and the actual address of the building where the search had been conducted (4a V. Street) was merely a technical error: the numbering of buildings in the village had changed some time previously, while, in any event, the villagers knew each other and had given the police directions. Having regard to the fact that Mr R. had a registered domicile in Nova Obodivka, kept his gas pistol there and paid the electricity bills, the police had rightly decided that that was his actual place of residence, not in Trostyanets. The prosecutor also considered that there had been a reasonable suspicion that the items stolen from the local shop could have been found at the household of Mr R. He referred in that connection to the early investigation information, according to which a car similar to that of Mr R. had been seen in the shop's vicinity during the night when the theft had taken place. Furthermore, Mr R. was unemployed and had friendly relations with a certain Mr P. previously convicted for thefts. As to the applicant's allegation that the drugs and bullets had been planted by police, it had not been corroborated by any evidence. 23. On 10 May 2007 the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsia (“the Leninskyy Court”) quashed the aforementioned decision and ordered an additional investigation. It noted that it remained unclear whether there had indeed been sufficient grounds to believe that the stolen items could have been found at the applicant's home. The court further pointed out that the submissions of the applicant's son that, at the time of the events, he had been living in Trostyanets, where he had been taking care of a severely sick person, had not been verified. 24. On 25 May 2007 the Vinnytsia Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the above-mentioned ruling on the prosecutor's appeal and remitted the case back to the first-instance court. 25. On 31 August 2007 the Leninskyy Court found against the applicant, concluding that the search had been duly ordered and held in compliance with the procedural legislation. 26. On 22 November 2007 and 18 June 2008 respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court's decision. 27. In June 2002 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Trostyanets Court against the police seeking compensation, under Article 440-1 of the Civil Code, for non-pecuniary damage on account of the search of 15 March 2002 which she considered to have been in breach of the constitutional guarantee of the inviolability of her home. In substantiation of her claim, the applicant referred to the fact that the warrant on the basis of which the search had been conducted concerned an address different from hers (14 versus 4a V. Street). 28. On 10 December 2002 the court decided that the claim could not be examined under the civil procedure. 29. The applicant appealed. It appears that her appeal was successful, as the examination of the case continued and on 19 February 2003 the case was transferred to the Tulchyn Town Court (“the Tulchyn Court”), with the reasons for the transfer being unknown. 30. On 20 October 2003 the Tulchyn Court suspended the proceedings at the applicant's request pending the outcome of the criminal investigations. 31. On an unspecified date the proceedings were resumed and the case was transferred back to the Trostyanets Court. 32. On 19 June 2008 the applicant increased the amount of her claim. 33. On 26 June 2008 the court found against her. It concluded that there were no grounds for compensation in her case as envisaged by the Law of Ukraine “On the Procedure for the Compensation of Damage caused to Citizens by the Unlawful Actions of Bodies in charge of Operational Enquiries, Pre-trial Investigation Authorities, Prosecutors or Courts” (“the Compensation Act”). In particular, in order for the applicant to be eligible for such compensation, there had to be a guilty verdict in respect of the police officers involved. Given the refusal of the prosecution to institute criminal proceedings in respect of her complaint concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the search, the court considered that the lawfulness of that search was an established fact, which could not be revised within the civil proceedings. 34. The applicant appealed. 35. On 22 August 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and discontinued the proceedings, finding that the claim concerned a public-law dispute and thus fell within the administrative rather than civil procedure. 36. On 25 March 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the above-mentioned ruling of the appellate court and remitted the case to it, finding that it had wrongly concluded that the administrative procedure applied to the case, when in fact the claim represented an action in tort related to a search conducted within the framework of criminal investigations. 37. On 7 May 2009 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 26 June 2008 and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court, pointing out some shortcomings which could only be rectified by a rehearing. Thus, the Trostyanets Court had failed to involve in the proceedings the investigator in charge of the search, as well as the State Treasury. Furthermore, it had not taken into consideration the amendments to the applicant's claim of 19 June 2008. The Court of Appeal also noted in its ruling that the applicable procedure for compensation was envisaged by the Compensation Act, which “directly [concerned] the dispute at issue”. 38. The case remains pending before the Trostyanets Court.

4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lived in Balezino in the Republic of Udmurtiya prior to his arrest. 5. On 29 December 2005 the applicant was arrested on drug-related charges and taken to the local anti-narcotics unit. According to the applicant, he was beaten by policemen and then questioned in the absence of a lawyer. 6. On 8 November 2006 the Balezinskiy District Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to two years and ten months’ imprisonment. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment. 7. During several periods between 29 December 2005 and 9 November 2006 the applicant was held in IVS Balezino, a temporary detention facility located in the Udmurtiya Republic. 8. The applicant submitted that the facility had been overcrowded. There were no windows in the cells where he stayed. The ventilation and water taps did not function. No mattresses or bed linen was available. Moreover, the detainees were not taken outdoor for exercise. 9. The applicant lodged a number of complaints seeking to bring the above issues to the attention of domestic authorities. In his reply of 5 October 2006 the district prosecutor acknowledged that the conditions of detention in the IVS had fallen short of the legal requirements. He further informed the applicant that he had brought an action against the management of the IVS for their failure to improve the conditions. 10. On 1 September 2006 the Balezinskiy District Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya granted the district prosecutor’s lawsuit. It found that the conditions of detention in the IVS Balezino had been characterised, inter alia, by a lack of bed linen and a possibility to take a shower and that the detainees had not been afforded daily outdoor exercise. 11. On 19 October 2006 the regional Ministry of Interior sent a letter to the applicant, acknowledging, in particular, that the detainees kept in the IVS had been deprived of outdor exercise and and lacked bed linen. 12. After some time the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in connection with inadequate conditions of detention. By final judgment of 6 February 2008, the Supreme Court of Udmurtiya found that the applicant’s allegations had been substantiated and granted the claim, awarding him 3,000 Russian roubles. 13. On 27 February 2007 the applicant lodged his first letter with the Court. It contained, in particular, a detailed description of the conditions of his detention in the IVS Balezino. 14. “You must send the duly completed application form and any necessary supplementary documents to the Court as soon as possible and at the latest within six months of the date of the present letter. No extension of this period is possible. If the application form and all the relevant documents are not sent within the above period, the file opened will be destroyed without further warning.” 15. According to a postmark on an envelope, on 30 October 2007 the applicant sent his completed application form which reached the Registry on 12 November 2007. 16. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court in force from 1 July 2006 until 1 January 2009 provided in its relevant part that: “5. The date of introduction of the application shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the object of the application. The Court may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction.” 17. Practice Direction on Institution of Proceedings issued by the President of the Court on 1 November 2003 to supplement Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court read, in the relevant part, as follows: “4. If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the information referred to in Rule 47, the Registry may ask the applicant to fill in the form. It should as a rule be returned within 6 weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter.” 18. On 11 December 2007 and 22 September and 1 December 2008 the Rules of Court were amended, with effect from 1 January 2009. Rule 47 was rephrased as follows: “5. The date of introduction of the application for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the subject matter of the application, provided that a duly completed application form has been submitted within the time limits laid down by the Court. The Court may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction.” 19. On 22 September 2008 the text of the Practice Direction was amended as well, providing that: “4. If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the information referred to in Rule 47, the applicant may be required to submit a duly completed form. It must be despatched within eight weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter requesting the applicant to complete and return the form. Failure to comply with this time-limit will have implications for the date of introduction of the application and may therefore affect the applicant’s compliance with the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.”

5. The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment. 6. On 10 June 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. 7. On 11 June 1998 the applicant was charged under Article 228 § 1 of the Criminal Code with the unlawful purchase and possession of 0.26 grams of opium. On the same day the Prosecutor of the Voroshilovskiy District of Rostov-on-Don remanded the applicant in custody. The Prosecutor referred to the applicant’s criminal record and the risk of his committing other crimes. 8. On 6 August 1998 the applicant was also charged under Articles 126 § 2, 139 § 1, and 163 § 3 of the Criminal Code with kidnapping, unlawful entry into a home and extortion. The case was joined to the case concerning drug trafficking. 9. On 10 August, 9 September and 5 November 1998 the applicant’s detention was extended until 10 September, 10 November and 10 December 1998 respectively, in accordance with Article 97 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. Consideration had been given to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and information about his personality, including his criminal record. 10. On 1 December 1998 the prosecution dropped the charges of kidnapping, unlawful entry into a home and extortion for lack of proof. 11. On 10 December 1998 the supervising prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case against the applicant was sent to the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don for trial. 12. On 10 January 1999 the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don convicted the applicant under Article 228 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. On an unspecified date the conviction became final. The case file contains no further information as to when the applicant completed his sentence. 13. On 22 March 1999 the Prosecutor of the Rostov Region quashed the decision of 1 December 1998, and on 24 March 1999 the charges under Articles 126 § 2, 139 § 1, and 163 § 3 of the Criminal Code were again brought against the applicant. The prosecutor, having considered the applicant’s criminal record and the gravity of the charges, decided that he should be detained pending trial. 14. On 12 April, 18 June, 21 September and 3 December 1999 the applicant’s detention was extended until 18 June, 24 September and 18 December 1999 and 24 March 2000 respectively. Each time, consideration was given to the applicant’s criminal record, the gravity of the charges against him and his active role in a gang. 15. On 20 March 2000 the case against the applicant was sent to the Rostov Regional Court for trial. 16. On 29 March 2000 the Rostov Regional Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure “should remain unchanged” in accordance with Articles 222, 223 and 230 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to ten years six months’ imprisonment taking into account that he had not fully served a sentence handed down by the judgment of 10 January 1999. On 2 November 2000, however, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”. 18. On 1 December 2000 the Rostov Regional Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure “should remain unchanged”. 19. On 14 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment, but on 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”. 20. On 12 February 2002 the Rostov Regional Court listed the new trial hearing for 27 February 2002 and ordered that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”. 21. On 1 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 October 2002. It found as follows: “The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, burglary and other crimes. They have been in custody: ..., [the applicant] – since 10 June 1998, ... The Prosecutor requested that the defendants’ detention be extended by 3 months. Having examined the Prosecutor’s request, having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants’ detention by 3 months, that is, until 1 October 2002 inclusive, because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences. Under Articles 255, 256 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendants’ detention on remand is extended by 3 (three) months, that is, from 1 July 2002 to 1 October 2002.” 22. On 6 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order, finding that it was sufficiently justified. 23. On 1 October and 31 December 2002 and 31 March, 26 June, 25 September and 15 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 January, 31 March, 30 June, 26 September, 25 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 respectively. The wording of the above decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of 1 July 2002. 24. The applicant appealed against each of the above extension orders to the Supreme Court arguing that the extension orders were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration his individual situation. On 12 February, 14 May, 16 July, 16 October and 24 December 2003 and 31 March 2004 respectively, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above decisions on appeal. 25. In the meantime, on 19 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court, composed of presiding judge Mr Zh. and lay judges Ms S. and Ms M., extended the applicant’s detention until 19 May 2004. The court used the same stereotyped wording and referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. The applicant again appealed against the extension to the Supreme Court. 26. On 10 March 2005, that is after the applicant’s conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 31 below), the Supreme Court of Russia discontinued the examination of the applicant’s appeal because he had been convicted in the meantime by the Regional Court. 27. In addition to appealing against the detention extension orders the applicant on a number of occasions in 2003-2004 applied to have the preventive measure changed to a written undertaking not to leave the town. Among his arguments were the rather extended period of time he had spent in detention, his family ties (two minor children and a disabled mother) and his poor health. 28. On 17 February, 21 June, 25 December 2003 and 2 February and 5 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s requests. The court’s reasoning was the gravity of the charges against him. The applicant appealed against all of these decisions to the Supreme Court. 29. In one decision of 10 March 2005, that is after the applicant’s conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 31 below), the Supreme Court of Russia rejected all the appeals as follows: “The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with various crimes, including particularly serious crimes. In the course of the proceedings the court dismissed the above requests. In their appeals the defendants and lawyers ask for the above decisions to be quashed. Having examined the material and the arguments put forward in the appeals, the court finds that the appeal proceedings are to be discontinued, since at the present time the examination of the case has been completed by the pronouncement of the sentence ...” 30. As regards the trial proceedings in the period from 27 February 2002 to 25 February 2004, the case was adjourned on forty-two occasions. In particular, five hearings were adjourned at the request of the applicant and his co-defendants, who wished to study the case file or the records of the hearings; fourteen hearings were adjourned due to requests by the applicant and his co-defendants for the replacement of their representatives and the need for the newly appointed representatives to study the case file; fifteen hearings were adjourned due to the illness of the representatives and their failure to appear before the court, and eight hearings were adjourned due to the illness of the co-defendants or following their complaints concerning their health. 31. On 17 May 2004 the Rostov Regional Court, composed of presiding judge Mr Zh. and lay judges Ms S. and Ms M., convicted the applicant of fraud, kidnapping, extortion, robbery, deprivation of liberty, unlawful entry into a home and stealing official documents, and sentenced him to eleven years and six months’ imprisonment. 32. On 10 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia comprising three judges upheld the judgment on appeal, but reduced the applicant’s sentence to eleven years’ imprisonment. One of the judges of the Supreme Court had previously examined the applicant’s case on appeal on 2 November 2000 (see paragraph 17 above) and had also examined, on 16 October 2003, the appeal against the decision of 26 June 2003 to extend the applicant’s detention until 26 September 2003 (see paragraphs 23-24 above). One other judge had previously examined the applicant’s case on appeal on 16 January 2002 (see paragraph 19 above). 33. As indicated above the applicant was arrested on 10 June 1998. From 15 June 1998 to 25 April 2005 the applicant was held in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don (Учреждение ИЗ-61/1 г. Ростова-на-Дону УИН МЮ РФ). Throughout this period the applicant was held in twenty-three different cells. 34. According to the Government’s observations of 12 December 2007, the cells where the applicant was held measured from 6.6 square metres (the punishment cell) to 61.2 square metres, and provided an average space of between three and four square metres per person. The design capacity of the cells was not exceeded. 35. Windows in the cells, measuring 1-1.2 by 1.1-1.3 m., were covered with white-painted metal screens, which were removed in December 2002. The cells were illuminated with 60-75 watt filament lamps. 36. All cells were ventilated by a system of exhaust ventilation. In the summertime the window panes were removed in order to provide better access to fresh air. The cells were equipped with a heating system providing an adequate temperature in line with sanitary norms. The average temperature during the summer was maintained at 22 degrees Celsius, and during winter at 18 degrees Celsius. 37. The cells were equipped with wash basins, hot and cold water taps and lavatory pans elevated 35 cm above the floor and separated from the main area by a two-metre-high brick partition. The arrangement of lavatory pans assured the detainees privacy when using them. 38. The cells were equipped with potable water tanks. The quality of the drinking water was regularly checked by the facility’s medical staff. Besides, the detainees were allowed to use electric kettles. 39. In each cell the applicant had an individual bed and was provided with bedding (a mattress, a blanket, a pillow, two bed sheets and a pillow slip). 40. The cells were also equipped with cupboards for food storage, tables and benches. 41. The applicant could take a fifteen-minute shower once a week. After each shower, he received fresh bedding. He was given food three times a day in accordance with the established legal norms. The quality of the food was monitored on a regular basis by the medical staff of the detention facility. On the days when the applicant was taken to court, hot food was delivered to the courthouse. 42. The applicant was allowed a daily one-hour outside walk. The exercise yards were equipped with benches and shelters. 43. The authorities ensured that regular and additional one-off disinfections and disinfestations were carried out in the detention facility. 44. Upon admission to the detention facility the applicant was examined by a general practitioner, psychiatrist and surgeon, who found his health to be satisfactory. During the detention period the applicant made requests for medical assistance on several occasions, complaining of headaches and general weakness. Following the medical check-ups he always received appropriate treatment. In January 2001 the applicant complained of an earache and was diagnosed with left-side exudative pleurisy. From 23 January to 22 February 2001 he received treatment in the prison hospital. 45. In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the director of IZ-61/1 on 22 October and 26 October 2007, 26 May and 27 May 2008, an uncertified and undated table on the number of persons detained in different cells at the same time as the applicant in March 2002–April 2005, the results of a laboratory examination of the microclimate of the cells (illumination, temperature, relative air humidity and air circulation), the results of bacteriological tests following water and sanitary inspections of the detention facility conducted in 2001‑2005, statements by wardens (although not dated) and persons currently detained in IZ-61/1, a copy of the applicant’s prison card stating that he had been provided with bed sheets, cutlery and clothes, as well as a number of certificates concerning the food ration during the relevant period. 46. The applicant did not dispute the size of the cells as submitted by the Government. He claimed, however, that the number of detainees considerably exceeded the design capacity of the cells and that the detainees had to sleep in shifts. 47. The windows in the cells were either heavily barred (cells nos. 44, 48, 43, 42, 50, 76 and 52), or covered with metal screens (cells nos. 39 and 124), or entirely absent (cells nos. 8, 76 and 74). The metal screens were still in place in 2003. 48. The arrangement of the bunks in two or three tiers left the detainees very limited space and access to daylight. The artificial light in the cells was on around the clock, and disturbed the applicant’s sleep. 49. The lavatory in the corner of the cell, which had no flush system, was elevated above the floor and separated by a 1.1-metre partition from the wash basin, but not from the living area. The latter two standards had been set by the “Directives on Planning and Constructing Pre-Trial Detention Facilities of the USSR Ministry of the Interior”, approved on 25 January 1971. 50. The applicant was never provided with any toiletries. 51. On the days when the applicant was taken to the courthouse he received no food, since he was taken from his cell before breakfast and brought back after dinner. No food (hot meal or dry ration) was served to the applicant in the courthouse. On such days the applicant was also deprived of outside walks and showers. 52. The exercise yard was very small and unequipped for physical exercise. The walls of the yard were covered with “shuba”, a sort of abrasive concrete lining designed to prevent detainees from leaning against them. 53. The cells swarmed with cockroaches and bedbugs. Occasionally the detainees were taken to the “blind” cell no. 106 (with no windows, lavatory or water taps) except for two or three of them who stayed behind and treated the cell against bedbugs using a heating lamp or a torch made of newspapers, and against cockroaches using cockroach poison sent to the detainees by their relatives. 54. In support of his statements the applicant produced written depositions by three former cellmates, Mr A.R., Mr Y.T. and Mr Y.R. They stated, in particular, that in 2001-2004 cell no. 41, measuring approximately 30 square meters, had housed 45 to 50 inmates at any one time (Mr A.R.’s deposition), and that in 2002-2004 cell no. 46, measuring approximately 40 square meters, had housed over 30 inmates (Mr Y.T.’s deposition) or as many as 85 (Mr Y.R.’s deposition). They also testified that they and the other detainees had slept in shifts. 55. The Government did not contest that the applicant’s former cellmates were held in the same detention facility as the applicant.

5. The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Yekaterinburg. 6. The applicant was a member of the National Bolsheviks Party. 7. On 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the Presidential Administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor. 8. They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the Presidential Administration and the President’s economic advisor. Through the windows they distributed leaflets with a printed letter to the President that listed his ten alleged failures to comply with the Constitution and contained a call for his resignation. 9. The intruders stayed in the office for one-and-a-half hours until the police broke down the blocked door and arrested them. They did not offer any resistance to the authorities. 10. On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention, relying on the gravity of the charges, the circumstances in which the offences imputed to him had been committed, the methods employed by the offenders, the applicant’s lack of residence registration in Moscow or the Moscow region, and the risks of him absconding, reoffending, putting pressure on witnesses or interfering with the investigation in some other way. 11. On 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of the State (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction of and damage to property in a public place (Articles 167 § 2 and 214). 12. On 11 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges, the circumstances in which the offences imputed to him had been committed and the fact that applicant’s residence registration was in Yekaterinburg rather than in Moscow or the Moscow region. The court concluded that the applicant might abscond, reoffend or interfere with the proceedings. 13. The applicant appealed, asking the court to apply a more lenient preventive measure. He submitted that the District Court’s findings had not been supported by concrete facts. On 31 March 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 14. On 15 February 2005 the charges against the applicant were amended to participation in mass disorder, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 15. On 14 April 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2005 for the following reasons: “There are no reasons to vary the preventive measure. Taking into account the gravity of the charges and [the applicant’s] individual situation, the court considers that there are sufficient indications that [he], once released, might abscond. At the same time, bearing in mind that the parties to the criminal proceedings have already started studying the case file, the extension asked for by the prosecution appears to be excessive and must be limited to three months. This period will be sufficient for all parties to the proceedings to effectively study the entire case file.” 16. In his statement of appeal the applicant asked to be released. He submitted that he could no longer interfere with the investigation as it had been completed. He also referred to his clean criminal record. On 15 June 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified. 17. On 7 June 2005 the investigation was completed and thirty-nine people, including the applicant, were committed for trial. 18. On 20 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow scheduled a preliminary hearing for 30 June 2005 and held that all the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody. 19. On 30 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court held a preliminary hearing. It rejected the defendants’ requests to be released and ordered that they should remain in custody pending trial, citing the gravity of the charges against them and the risk of their absconding or obstructing justice. 20. The trial started on 8 July 2005. 21. During a hearing on 27 July 2005 the applicant and his co-defendants lodged applications for release. On the same date the Tverskoy District Court rejected the requests, finding that their detention was lawful and justified. The applicant appealed. In his appeal submissions he asked to be released. He submitted, in particular, that he had no criminal record, had a permanent place of residence and had positive character references. On 5 October 2005 the Moscow City Court rejected his appeal and upheld the decision of 27 July 2005. 22. On 10 August 2005 the applicant and his co-defendants filed new applications for release. On the same date the Tverskoy District Court rejected the requests. It held: “The court takes into account the defence’s argument that an individual approach to each defendant’s situation is essential when deciding on the preventive measure. Examining the grounds on which ... the court ordered and extended detention in respect of all the defendants without exception ... the court notes that these grounds still persist today. Therefore, having regard to the state of health, family situation, age, profession and character of all the defendants, and to the personal guarantees offered by certain private individuals and included in the case file, the court concludes that, if released, each of the defendants might abscond or obstruct justice in some other way ... In the court’s view, in these circumstances, having regard to the gravity of the charges, there are no grounds for varying or revoking the preventive measure in respect of any defendant ...” 23. On 2 November 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 24. On 8 December 2005 the Tverskoy District Court found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of participation in mass disorder. It sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment, but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation for three years. The applicant was immediately released. 25. On 29 March 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 26. From 16 December 2004 to 8 December 2005 the applicant was held in remand centre no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow. 27. According to the applicant, the remand centre was overcrowded. His cell measured about 15 square metres and housed four to six inmates. The light in the cell was never turned off, disturbing the applicant’s sleep. The cell was infested with cockroaches. It was equipped with a lavatory pan. The pan was separated from the living area by a partition of a metre in height, with the result that the person using the toilet was in view of other inmates. The applicant was allowed to take a shower once a week. Hot water was often unavailable. The applicant had a daily walk of about an hour. The exercise yard was covered and measured 15 square metres. 28. According to the Government, from 16 to 20 December 2004 the applicant was held in cell no. 42, which measured 8.6 square metres and housed two to four inmates. From 20 December 2004 to 22 April 2005 he was held in cell no. 94, which measured 58.7 square metres and housed eighteen to twenty-two inmates. From 22 April to 21 June 2005 he was held in cell no. 36, measuring 13.2 square metres and housing four to six inmates. From 21 June to 6 December 2005 he was held in cell no. 63, which measured 8.6 square metres and housed two to four inmates. From 6 to 8 December 2005 he was held in cell no. 62, which measured 8.3 square metres and housed two to four inmates. The applicant had a separate bunk at all times and was provided with bedding. In support of their position, the Government submitted certificates issued by the remand centre governor on 18 November 2010 and selected pages from the prison population register which recorded, for each day, the number of sleeping bunks and the number of inmates in each cell, and the total number of inmates in each of the eight wings of the remand centre. 29. Relying on certificates of the same date from the remand centre governor, the Government further submitted that all cells were equipped with toilet facilities which were separated from the living area by a partition. There was forced ventilation in the cells. The windows were large and were not blocked by shutters. The cells had sufficient artificial light, which was located so as not to disturb the sleep of the inmates. There were no insects or rodents in the detention facility, as all the cells were disinfected every three months. Inmates had an hour-long daily walk in the exercise yards, which were sufficiently large to allow each inmate to do physical exercise. The showers were working properly and hot water was available at all times.

4. The applicants were born in 1960 and 1967 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. 5. On 16 November 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by the security forces at the Sağırsu Gendarmerie Command. 6. In a report drafted by the gendarmes and signed by the applicant on the same day, it was stated that he was taken into custody on the basis of information contained in a document found on a PKK[1] terrorist. 7. In his statement taken by the gendarmes on 30 November 1993 the applicant confessed in detail to his involvement in the activities of the PKK. 8. On 1 December 1993 the applicant and five others were examined by a doctor at the Siirt Forensic Department, who concluded there were no traces of blows on their bodies. 9. Later on the same day, the applicant was first brought before the Siirt Public Prosecutor then before the judge at the Siirt Magistrates Court where he refuted his statements dated 30 November 1993 and he contested his involvement in the activities of the PKK. He confessed to having possessed a Kalashnikov rifle without a permit. The court ordered his detention on remand. 10. In his petition dated 2 December 1993 filed with the Siirt Assize Court, the applicant alleged that he had been severely tortured for eighteen days while in police custody. He stated that he had been told to strip, blindfolded, severely beaten and strung up by his arms. Moreover, he objected to the court’s decision to detain him on remand. 11. On an unspecified date the Siirt Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction as the charges against the applicant fell within the competence of the State Security Courts. 12. On 21 December 1993 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with engaging in acts aimed at the separation of a part of the territory of the State, under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. 13. At the hearing held on 24 February 1994, the applicant denied the allegations against him and claimed that he had been forced to sign the statements drafted in police custody. The court refused the applicant’s request for release pending trial, in view of the state of the evidence and the nature of the offence of which he was accused. It further decided to join the applicant’s case to the second applicant’s case, as they raised similar issues. 14. On 24 October 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by the security forces at the Siirt Gendarmerie Command. According to the arrest report drafted by the gendarmes and signed by the applicant, he was taken into custody in the village of Koçlu in the course of an investigation concerning the PKK. 15. On 26 October 1993 the applicant took the police officers of the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Siirt Security Directorate to where he was hiding weaponry, namely a Kalashnikov rifle, a hand grenade and bullets. The police officers later drafted an on-site inspection report, describing the location of the hideout and the weapons found there. 16. In his statement taken by the gendarmes on 3 November 1993, the applicant confessed in detail to his involvement in the activities of the PKK. 17. On 5 November 1993 the applicant and six other suspects were taken to the Siirt Forensic Department for an examination. According to the medical report drafted on the same date, no traces of blows were found on the applicant’s body. 18. On the same day, the applicant was brought before the Siirt Public Prosecutor where he accepted having possessed a rifle, a hand grenade and bullets, but denied having participated in the activities of the PKK. Later he was brought before the Siirt Magistrates Court where he reiterated that he had no involvement in the activities of the PKK. The court ordered his detention on remand. 19. In a petition dated 30 November 1993 filed with the Siirt Assize Court, the applicant refuted all the charges brought against him and requested to be released. He alleged that while he was held in police custody, he had had to accept all the allegations against him as he had been severely tortured. Moreover, he maintained that, as the police officers had threatened him, he was afraid to complain about these acts before the public prosecutor and the judge at the criminal court. 20. On an unspecified date, the Siirt Public Prosecutor issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction as the charges against the applicant fell within the competence of the State Security Courts. 21. On 6 December 1993 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court, accusing the applicant and six others of having engaged in acts aimed at the separation of a part of the territory of the State. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. 22. On 24 March 1994, upon the request of the judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the Siirt Assize Court took the statements of eight police officers from the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Siirt Security Directorate, who had questioned the second applicant and had drafted the on-site inspection report. The police officers described the course of events during the on-site inspection. They also maintained that no pressure had been inflicted on the accused. 23. At the hearing of 29 March 1994, the applicants were not present before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. It therefore issued summonses to them for the next hearing, scheduled for 10 May 1994. The court requested that a ballistic examination be carried out by the Diyarbakır Forensic Institute concerning the rifle found in the possession of the second applicant. It continued the applicants’ remand in custody pending trial, but released four other accused persons. 24. At the hearing of 10 May 1994, some of the accused, including the applicants, were present in court. The statements of the police officers who had signed the on-site inspection report were submitted to the court. The court also heard two defence witnesses and asked the accused for their comments. The lawyers of both applicants maintained that they did not have any comments to make concerning these statements. They also demanded the applicants’ release pending trial, contending that the accusations brought against them were unfounded. The court ordered the prolongation of their detention on remand considering the nature of the charges and the content of the case-file. 25. At the nine subsequent hearings which were held between 10 May 1994 and 5 July 1995, the Diyarbakır State Security Court was unable to reach a decision as the relevant ballistic report had not been received. At each hearing, the court rejected the applicants’ requests for release pending trial, in view of the state of the evidence and the nature of the offence. 26. On 25 September 1995 the court received the ballistic report. At the following hearing, held on 21 November 1995, the public prosecutor submitted his opinion on the merits. He proposed that the applicants be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The court rejected once again the applicants’ request for release pending trial because of the serious nature of the charges and the state of the evidence. 27. At the hearing of 5 December 1995, the Diyarbakır State Security Court was unable to give a final decision as the prison authorities had failed to bring the first applicant to court. On 26 December 1995 and 27 February 1996, the court rescheduled the hearing to a later date in order to obtain this applicant’s final statements. 28. On 26 March 1996 the prison authorities again failed to bring the first applicant before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. His lawyer maintained that the applicant was absent against his will and requested the court to postpone the hearing in order to take his last statements. The second applicant repeated his previous statements. The court convicted the applicants of engaging in acts aimed at the separation of a part of the territory of the State. The court sentenced them to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The decision was given in the absence of the first applicant. 29. The applicants appealed against the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 30. On 12 May 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision on the ground that the Diyarbakır State Security Court did not respect the rights of defence during the proceedings. It emphasized in its decision that the court had convicted the first applicant in his absence, depriving him of his right to submit his final defence. It held that, due to the close connection between the accused, it was appropriate to quash the decision in favour of all the accused. 31. On 1 July 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court served a summons on the applicants for the following hearing. 32. On 27 August 1997 the court sent a notice to the Public Prosecutor to ascertain the prison in which the applicants were detained and the address of two of the accused who were released pending trial. Moreover, it requested the population registry office to confirm the apparent death of one of the accused. 33. At the hearing of 7 October 1997 the court requested the transfer of the applicants, who were detained in Amasya and Bartın prisons, to the Diyarbakır Prison. 34. On 18 November 1997 the court postponed the hearing once again as the applicants were still not present and the addresses of the other accused were not yet known to the court. 35. On 27 January 1998 and 10 March 1998 the applicants were present before the court. They submitted their opinion concerning the decision of the Court of Cassation. However, as the other accused, who had been released pending trial, failed to appear, the court was once again unable to reach its final decision. 36. The applicants did not attend the following nine hearings. According to the prison records it was their express wish to not to attend. Moreover during this period neither the office of the public prosecutor nor the population register office submitted to the court the requested information concerning the other accused. 37. At the hearing of 6 April 1999, in the presence of only the applicants’ lawyers, the Diyarbakır State Security Court gave its final decision. It convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. It acquitted one of the accused and decided to sever the case concerning the others whose addresses were still unknown to the court. 38. On 2 June 1999 the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation. In their petition they maintained that, according to Article 135 (a) of the Code on Criminal Procedure, statements that are obtained using forbidden methods, such as torture, pressure or ill-treatment, cannot be taken into consideration by the court. They contended that they had signed their statements under pressure, without knowing their contents. They therefore requested the quashing of the State Security Court’s decision, arguing that it was mainly based on their statements taken in police custody. 39. On 9 November 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court.

6. The applicants were born in 1973, 1975, and 1980 respectively. They were detained in Elazığ Prison in Turkey. 7. On 14 March 1999 the police raided a flat which was used as a cell by Hezbollah in Mardin. The police officers seized, among other things, three computer hard disks during the operation. The applicants' names were recorded on these hard disks as members of Hezbollah. 8. On 4 June 1999 the applicants were arrested by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of being members of Hezbollah. On the same day, the police officers drafted arrest protocols stating that the applicants had been arrested in the course of an operation conducted against the members of the illegal organisation. 9. On 5 June 1999 the public prosecutor of the Diyarbakır State Security Court drew up a list of the materials that were seized during the raid in Mardin in order to place them in the custody of the court, amongst which the computer hard disks were noted. 10. On 11 June 1999 the applicants gave statements to the police where they accepted the charges against them. On the same day, they were brought before the public prosecutor, and thereafter before the investigating judge of the Diyarbakır State Security Court, where they denied both the accuracy of the statements taken by the police and all the charges against them. The investigating judge ordered that the applicants be detained on remand. 11. On 25 June 1999 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court, accusing the applicants of being members of Hezbollah pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 12. At the hearings before the Diyarbakır State Security Court the applicants denied the content of their police statements alleging that they were taken under duress. The court read out the police statements that were taken from M.Ç., M.P. and A.Y. – who were also accused of being members of the same organisation – to the applicants and asked the latter to comment on them. The applicants stated that they did not know these persons, and that they did not accept the parts of the statements that were against them. The court further read out the transcriptions of the hard disks to the applicants and asked them about their counter-arguments against these. They denied the content of these documents. They further stated that they had no idea as to how their names had appeared on the computer hard disks. 13. On 27 December 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court noted that the applicants' police statements were supported by information gathered from the archive of the organisation and further evidence. It accordingly convicted the applicants of the offence as charged and sentenced them to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The applicants appealed. 14. The Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation in his written submissions recommended that the court uphold the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 15. On 27 May 2002 the Court of Cassation, having regard, inter alia, to the opinion of the Principal Prosecutor, upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.

7. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ninovka, a village in the Belgorod region of Russia. 8. On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Novooskolskiy branch of the Savings Bank of Russia, the Savings Bank of Russia and the State. She claimed that the value of her personal savings that had accrued in her accounts by 1991 had significantly dropped following the economic reforms. Her savings were the result of decades of hard work, and she had intended to buy a flat with the money. However, the State had not revalued the amounts on deposit to offset the effects of inflation, as it had been required to do by the Law on revaluation and protection of the savings of citizens of the Russian Federation enacted on 10 May 1995 (Федеральный закон «О восстановлении и защите сбережений граждан Российской Федерации» – “the Savings Act”). 9. On 30 December 1997 the Novooskolskiy District Court, presided over by Judge Lebedinskaya, found in the applicant's favour and awarded her 129,544,106 roubles[1] (RUR) payable by the State treasury. The court rejected the defendants' main argument that the reimbursement scheme under the Savings Act could not be implemented in practice since no special secondary legislation had been passed. Noting that the Savings Act recognised the guaranteed deposits as the State's internal debt and that the State had not introduced the necessary rules in time to enable the debt to be repaid, the court held that the defendants were liable under the civil law. 10. On 28 February 1998 the judgment was set aside on appeal by the Belgorod Regional Court and the case remitted for a retrial. 11. On 8 June 1998 the Novooskolskiy District Court, sitting in the same composition, delivered a judgment similar to its judgment of 30 December 1997. The award, however, was readjusted to RUR 133,963.70. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became final ten days later, on 18 June 1998. 12. Enforcement proceedings commenced on 18 January 1999. 13. On an unspecified date in 1999, while the enforcement proceedings were in progress, the President of the Belgorod Regional Court lodged an application for supervisory review (протест в порядке надзора) of the judgment of 8 June 1998, on the ground that it conflicted with substantive laws. 14. The application was examined on 19 March 1999 by the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court. Having accepted the reasons set out in the application, the Presidium set aside the judgment of 8 June 1998 and dismissed the applicant's claims altogether. The applicant was not informed that the application for supervisory review had been lodged, or invited to attend the hearing before the Presidium. 15. On 17 June 1999 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. 16. On 4 January 2001 a deputy president of the Supreme Court lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of the Presidium of 19 March 1999. 17. On 22 January 2001 the Supreme Court granted the application for supervisory review. It upheld the reasons given by the Presidium for setting aside the judgment of 8 June 1998, but ruled that the applicant's case should not have been dismissed in full, as she had thereby been unjustly deprived of the right to seek reimbursement of the money. It also acknowledged that the applicant's right to be informed that the Presidium was reviewing her case had not been respected. The case was remitted to the Novooskolskiy District Court for a fresh examination. 18. On 4 June 2001 the same composition of the Novooskolskiy District Court delivered its third judgment in the applicant's favour. The award included RUR 188,724 as compensation for devaluation and RUR 60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court stated that the government's systematic delaying of its obligation to revalue the applicant's savings had caused her moral suffering and anguish. 19. On 14 August 2001 the judgment was set aside on appeal by the Belgorod Regional Court and the case remitted for re-examination. 20. On 19 September 2001 the Novooskolskiy District Court, sitting in the same composition, once again reaffirmed its position by awarding compensation in the same amount as in its judgment of 4 June 2001. 21. On 30 October 2001 the appellate court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination by the Novooskolskiy District Court. As it was permitted to do by Article 305-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it ordered that the case should be retried by a different bench. 22. On 27 February 2002 the Novooskolskiy District Court, presided over by Judge Ziminov, dismissed the applicant's case on the ground that her claims had no basis in law. 23. On 2 April 2002 that judgment was upheld by the Belgorod Regional Court. 24. On 8 May 2002 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment following an application by the President of the Regional Court for supervisory review. The Presidium held that the courts below had disregarded the applicant's fundamental rights under the Constitution and the Convention. 25. On 10 June 2002 the Novooskolskiy District Court, sitting in the same composition, delivered a new judgment in which, having regard, inter alia, to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, it granted the applicant's claim in part and awarded her RUR 231,059.19. 26. The defendants' appeal was dismissed on 16 July 2002 by the Belgorod Regional Court, following which the judgment of 10 June 2002 became final. 27. On 1 November 2002 the applicant and a deputy president of the government of the Belgorod Region signed a settlement agreement, in which the applicant promised to abandon her claims arising out of the judgment of 10 June 2002 for a consideration of RUR 248,724. On the same day the agreement was approved by the Novooskolskiy District Court in a consent order, as requested by the parties. 28. On 6 November 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Belgorod Regional Court to have the consent order of 1 November 2002 set aside. 29. On 19 November 2002 the applicant withdrew that application. She said that the government had bought her a flat in Novyi Oskol for RUR 330,000, and that she had no more claims against the State. 30. On 23 March 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the price of the flat did not cover the damage sustained by her because the money she had had in her savings account in 1991, if converted into United States dollars, would exceed the price of the flat. The applicant asked the Court for an order enabling her to recover the difference from the State.

4. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Alushta. 5. On 19 July 1999 she instituted proceedings in the Alushta Court against her former employer seeking recovery of various job-related payments, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the court’s ruling obliging her former employer to amend her work records. 6. On 16 May 2003, following three remittals of the case for fresh examination, the above court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. 7. On 22 December 2003 and 20 April 2006, respectively, the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment. The final decision was served on the applicant on 15 May 2006. 8. According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant twelve times specified her claim. One hearing was adjourned at the applicant’s request. Sixteen further hearings were adjourned at the other party’s request, due to its representative’s failure to appear and the absence of a judge or for unspecified reasons. One forensic examination was ordered by the court (between 19 April 2001 and 26 April 2002).

4. The applicants were born in 1955 and 1959, respectively, and live in Székesfehérvár, Hungary. They represent their minor daughter, Sz.K. before the Court. Sz.K. was born in 1985. 5. In 1986 Sz.K. suffered paralysis as a consequence of a compulsory polio inoculation. In 1987 the applicants, as her representatives, brought an action against the Hungarian State claiming compensation and a monthly allowance. The parties reached a friendly settlement. On the applicants' request, in 1991 the compensation and the allowance were raised. In 1993 the Supreme Court partly accepted their claim for the value of a special car. 6. On 26 November 1993 the applicants brought an action before the Fejér County Regional Court, sitting as a first instance court, claiming a raise in the monthly allowance as a result of inflation and the high cost of schooling. 7. Following the court's order, on 27 June 1994 an expert submitted an opinion on the matter. 8. On 7 January 1995 the applicants modified their action. 9. On 10 February 1995 the Regional Court partly granted the applicants' claims. 10. Upon the applicants' appeal, on 25 January 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court. 11. In the resumed proceedings, on 12 June 1997 the expert submitted another opinion. On 8 August 1997 the applicants clarified their claims about inflation. 12. On 19 September 1997 the Regional Court partly accepted the applicants' claims. 13. On 12 October 1997 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court for the full claim. 14. On 22 July 1998 the applicants requested the court to deliver a judgment, and modified their claims in view of the lapse of time since their appeal had been lodged. 15. On 9 January 2000 the applicants again requested the court to deliver a judgment and modified their claims, given the time lag. 16. On 3 February and 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court held hearings. In a judgment of 6 April 2000, the Supreme Court partly modified the first-instance decision. 17. On the applicants' petition for review, on 14 May 2001 the Supreme Court's review bench increased the award.

4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Omsk. 5. In 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Defence to claim damages in respect of an injury he had sustained during his military service in Afghanistan. 6. On 22 October 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Omsk (“the District Court”) granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him a lump sum compensation of 513,293 Russian roubles (RUR) and life long monthly payments of RUR 8,217.08. The judgment entered into force on 6 February 2002 after it had been upheld on appeal. 7. On 15 February 2002 two writs of execution in respect of each of the awarded amounts were issued and sent to the Omsk Department of the Federal Treasury for payment. 8. By letters of 27 March and 21 October 2002 the Omsk Department of the Federal Treasury returned the writs of execution to the applicant without enforcement. It referred to insufficient funds and invited the applicant to submit the writs of execution to the Ministry of Defence. 9. In 2003 the applicant filed a new action against the Ministry of Defence, complaining about non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 October 2001, as upheld on 6 February 2002, and seeking the adjustment of the awarded amounts to the minimum monthly wage. 10. By judgment of 27 November 2003 the District Court confirmed that the judgment of 22 October 2001, as upheld by the appeal decision of 6 February 2002, had not been enforced in view of the lack of the debtor’s funds, but dismissed the applicant’s claim for increase in payments as unfounded. That judgment was upheld on appeal on 11 February 2004. 11. In December 2004 the sum of RUR 513,293 was paid to the applicant, pursuant to the judgment of 22 October 2001, as confirmed by the appeal decision of 6 February 2002. 12. Since November 2005 the applicant has been in receipt of monthly payments of RUR 8,217.08, as ordered by the judgment of 22 October 2001.

4. The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Trstená. 5. On 7 January 2005 the applicant lodged an action against two individuals with the Dolný Kubín District Court seeking an order for payment of an amount of money by way of compensation in respect of what he considered to have been unjustified use of his real property. 6. On 1 October 2007 the District Court heard the case for the first time, but the hearing was adjourned and, on 1 January 2008, the case was transferred to the Námestovo District Court in the context of reorganisation of the judiciary. 7. On 13 May 2009 the case was heard for the second time and the defendant lodged a counter-claim seeking a ruling declaring him to be the owner of the property in question. 8. Subsequently, the applicant’s action was stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings on the counter-claim, which was eventually dismissed with final and binding effect as of 12 December 2011. 9. Between 12 December 2011 and 16 May 2012 the District Court held four hearings, the applicant provided further and better particulars of his claim, and submitted new evidence. 10. On 30 January 2013 the District Court appointed an expert to draw up a report on the market value of the compensation to be paid for the use of the property in question. On 12 April 2013 a new expert was appointed because it had turned out that the previous expert was related to the lawyer of the defendants. 11. The proceedings are still pending. 12. On 25 May 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the President of the Námestovo District Court about the length of the proceedings. 13. In a letter of reply dated 26 June 2009 the President of the District Court observed that no procedural steps had been taken in the action in 2008 and acknowledged that this amounted to unjustified delay. However, as at that time the proceedings were lawfully stayed, ensuring their acceleration was not practicable. 14. On 13 July 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court contesting the length of the proceedings in his action both before the Dolný Kubín District Court and the Námestovo District Court. 15. On 29 September 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on a number of grounds. It noted first that the action had been dealt with at first instance by two different District Courts. While the applicant had not raised a complaint about any possible delays before the Dolný Kubín District Court with the President of that court at all, he had lodged his constitutional complaint too early after the response of the President of the Námestovo District Court. By doing so, the applicant had failed to allow the President of the Námestovo District Court sufficient time to ensure acceleration of the proceedings. Moreover, as the proceeding before the Dolný Kubín District Court had ended prior to the introduction of the applicant’s constitutional complaint, its part concerning the Dolný Kubín District Court was belated. Lastly, as the case had been pending before the Námestovo District Court only since 1 January 2008, the length of the proceedings before that court was not sufficient to pose any issues under the “reasonable time” requirement. In closing, the Constitutional Court observed that nothing precluded the applicant from raising a fresh constitutional complaint later.

5. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Starachowice. 6. The applicant was serving a prison sentence in Tarnów Mościce Prison following three separate convictions. The overall term of his imprisonment was due to come to an end on 6 January 2002. 7. Pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code applicable to re-offenders, the applicant became eligible for conditional release after having served three-quarters of the overall term of his imprisonment, namely on 6 January 1999. After that date, the applicant requested a court on several occasions to grant him conditional release. However, his requests were denied on grounds of insufficient progress in his rehabilitation. On 20 March 2000 the prison governor requested the Tarnów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) to order the applicant's release (warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie) in view of his satisfactory rehabilitation. The Tarnów Regional Prosecutor objected to that request. 8. On 22 March 2000 the Tarnów Regional Court gave a decision ordering the applicant's conditional release for a three-year probationary period. It placed the applicant under the court officer's supervision and imposed certain other obligations on him. 9. The Tarnów Regional Prosecutor appealed against that decision. The Regional Court did not amend its decision and transmitted the prosecutor's appeal to the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). 10. The hearing before the Court of Appeal was scheduled for 12 April 2000 at 8.45 a.m. On that day the Cracow Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Regional Court. No further appeal lay against the decision of the Court of Appeal. In the applicant's submission, the Court of Appeal's decision was delivered at 9 a.m. 11. Later on 12 April 2000, a certified copy of the Court of Appeal's decision was sent to the Tarnów Regional Court, which received it on 13 April 2000. On the same day the Tarnów Regional Court ordered the governor of the Tarnów Mościce Prison to release the applicant and served him with a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision. The governor received these documents on 14 April 2000. 12. According to the official release certificate, the applicant was released on 14 April 2000. The applicant submitted that he had been released on that date at 4 p.m.

4. The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Zhytomyr, Ukraine. He has been recognised as falling within Category I disabled status (the gravest one) on account of his service during the Second World War. 5. The applicant was an operative who dealt with the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. From 1997 he was on a special priority list of persons to be allocated an apartment by the State. 6. On 31 August 2006 the Korolyovskyy District Court of Zhytomyr ordered Zhytomyr Town Council to provide the applicant with an apartment in accordance with the requirements of section 20 § 10 of the Chernobyl Victims' Status and Social Security Act (see paragraph 12 below). This decision became final. Enforcement proceedings were commenced on 28 September 2006. 7. According to the Government, in February 2008 the bailiff requested from the Korolyovskyy District Court of Zhytomyr replacement of the in-kind award conferred by the decision of 31 August 2006 with an equivalent amount of money. On 8 July 2008 the court dismissed that request. The court's reasoning is unknown, as neither the party furnished a copy of that decision. The State Bailiffs' Service appealed and the proceedings are apparently still pending before the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal. 8. Although the debtor was fined several times by the bailiffs, the decision of 31 August 2006 has not been enforced. On several occasions, in their replies to the relevant applicant's complaints, the State authorities gave explanations based on a lack of funds in the budget to purchase or construct new apartments and the lack of available apartments. The enforcement proceedings are still pending. 9. According to the applicant, he lives in a rented house in poor living conditions (for example, without water supply). The local press described the house as “old” and “ramshackle”.

8. The applicants were born in 1971, 1946 and 1948 respectively and live in Geneva. 9. In 1971 Mariannick Faucherre (the second applicant) and her husband had a daughter, Isabelle Chantal Emonet (the first applicant). The couple divorced in 1985 and the second applicant's former husband died in 1994. 10. Since 1986 Mariannick Faucherre has been living with Roland Emonet (the third applicant), who is divorced and has no children. The three applicants lived together between 1986 and 1992, when the first applicant left to live with the man she had married. The couple divorced in 1998. 11. In March 2000 a serious illness left the first applicant paraplegic. She kept her own home, but needed to be cared for by her mother and the third applicant, whom she regarded as her father. By agreement between the three applicants, it was therefore decided that the third applicant should adopt the first applicant so that they could become a real family in the eyes of the law. 12. On 14 December 2000 the third applicant filed an adoption request with the Canton of Geneva Court of Justice, enclosing two letters attesting to the other two applicants' agreement. 13. On 8 March 2001 the Court of Justice pronounced the adoption. 14. On 15 June 2001 the cantonal civil status authorities informed the second applicant that the adoption had the effect of terminating her legal parent-child relationship with the first applicant and that the latter would take on her adoptive father's surname, as she was henceforth his daughter. The first two applicants objected to the termination of the mother-daughter relationship between them and requested that it be restored. 15. In a letter of 23 July 2001 the cantonal civil status authorities announced that they were standing by their decision, which was based on Article 267 of the Swiss Civil Code (see “Relevant domestic and international law”, paragraph 20 below). Under the provisions of that Article previously existing parent-child relationships were severed on adoption, save in respect of the spouse of the adoptive parent. Mariannick Faucherre and Roland Emonet, however, were simply cohabiting. 16. On 3 September 2001 the President of the Geneva Department of Justice, Police and Transport formally rejected the request for restoration of the mother-daughter relationship. The applicants applied to the administrative court seeking to have that decision quashed and requesting a declaration that the adoption had not severed the mother-child relationship and that the adopted child could keep her name. On 17 December 2001 the applicants instituted parallel proceedings in the Court of Justice to have the adoption order set aside. The court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the present application. 17. On 25 June 2002 the administrative court partly allowed the application, setting aside the decisions of 23 July and 3 September 2001 in so far as they severed the mother-daughter relationship, and ordering the cantonal civil status authorities to restore that relationship. 18. On 2 September 2002 the Federal Office of Justice, having been informed of that decision, referred the matter to the Federal Court. 19. On 28 May 2003 the Federal Court allowed the appeal and invited the cantonal civil status authorities to record the adoption in the civil status register. In its judgment the Federal Court considered whether there was an omission in the Civil Code with regard to the adoption by a cohabitant of his or her partner's child. It pointed out that the adoption of the spouse's child, whether considered as a form of joint adoption or as adoption by a single person, created a legal parent-child relationship between the child and the adoptive parent without severing the existing relationship between the child and its parent. It also pointed out that adoption should be in the interest of the child, so that joint adoption should be the rule and adoption by a single person the exception. The Federal Court noted that adoption by a single person was not subject to any condition other than that of the child's welfare. It concluded that adoption could satisfy that condition only if the link between the partners was strong and lasting, which in principle excluded cohabiting partners, between whom relationships were less stable than between married couples. That was also the reasoning behind the adoption of section 3, paragraph 3, of the Federal Medically Assisted Procreation Act of 18 December 1998, which entered into force on 1 January 2001 and restricted sperm donation to married couples only. The Federal Court reiterated in this connection that the Federal Council had explicitly stated that the requirements in respect of sperm donation could not be less strict than those concerning joint adoption, a possibility which was open only to married couples, that a stable and lasting relationship between the parents was essential to the child's healthy development, and that common-law partnerships were generally less solid than marriages and, unlike marriage, did not guarantee durability and could therefore not be compared with marriage. The Federal Court thus held that Article 264 a) § 3 of the Civil Code could not be applied by analogy, and that there was no omission in the law that needed to be remedied. That court considered that the situation was that provided for in Article 264 b) § 1 of the Civil Code (see “Relevant domestic and international law”, paragraph 20 below). Concerning the Convention, the Federal Court considered that Article 8 did not embody the right to demand a form of adoption that was not provided for by law. Furthermore, the very essence of adoption being the forging of new family ties, prohibiting the accumulation of parent-child relationships was not at variance with Article 8. As to Article 12 of the Convention, the Federal Court repeated that it referred only to marriage and did not confer a right to adopt. The Federal Court also considered the complaint concerning the applicants' unwillingness to accept the legal consequences of the adoption, and found that they could bring proceedings to have the adoption annulled for lack of consent. The judgment was served on the applicants on 3 October 2003.

7. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Weiler (Austria). 8. On 7 January 1994 the applicant applied for a planning permission as he wished to construct a storehouse and production facilities to produce wood chips on his plot of land acquired in 1989. 9. On 24 May 1994 the Feldkirch District Authority (Bezirkshaupt-mannschaft) dismissed this request, finding that there was no adequate access to the applicant's plot of land. On 9 June 1994 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision. 10. On 29 September 1994 the Weiler Municipality issued a building prohibition for the area within which the applicant's plot of land was situated, as it was planning to open re-allocation proceedings (Umlegungs-verfahren) to ensure a more efficient use of the area. The Vorarlberg Regional Government (Landesregierung), which had to decide on the applicant's appeal of 9 June 1994, requested the applicant to comment on the building prohibition. 11. On 9 November 1994 the Weiler Municipality issued a new building prohibition as the previous one had been quashed by the District Authority ex officio. The Vorarlberg Regional Government requested the applicant to comment on the new building prohibition. 12. On 29 December 1994 the Vorarlberg Regional Government, referring to the building prohibition, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the District Authority's decision of 24 May 1994. The decision was served on 15 February 1995. 13. Meanwhile, on 2 February 1995 the applicant had lodged an application against the administration's failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs-gerichtshof), as the Regional Government had not decided on his appeal of 9 June 1994 within the statutory six-month time-limit. On 18 May 1995 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings for failure to decide, as the Regional Government had already issued its decision on 29 December 1994 but ordered the Regional Government to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. 14. On 29 March 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Government's decision of 29 December 1994. He complained that the building prohibition and consequently the refusal of the planning permission were unlawful. 15. On 25 September 1995 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for lack of prospects of success. Subsequently, the applicant requested the case to be transferred to the Administrative Court. 16. On 19 December 1995 the Administrative Court ordered the applicant to supplement his complaint. On 9 February 1996 he complied with this order, and on 3 May 1996 the Regional Government submitted its observations. 17. On 29 August 1996 the Administrative Court allowed the complaint and quashed the Regional Government's decision. It found that there was no indication that the applicant's project interfered with the objective of the intended re-allocation proceedings for which reason the refusal of the planning permission was unlawful. 18. On 15 January 1997 the Regional Government remitted the case to the District Authority. 19. In January 1997 the Weiler Municipality opened the re-allocation proceedings and the District Authority asked the applicant to comment thereupon, as a planning permission could only be issued under the Vorarlberg Regional Planning Act (Raumplanungsgesetz) if the project did not interfere with the objective of the re-allocation proceedings and if the Regional Government authorised the project. On 27 March 1997 the District Authority held a hearing. 20. On 2 May 1997 the applicant filed a request with the Regional Government for the authorisation of his project, as required under the Regional Planning Act. 21. On 5 March 1998, after the applicant had filed a number of comments and requests, he lodged an application for a transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) with the Regional Government, as the District Authority had not decided within the statutory six-month time-limit. 22. On the same day, the applicant lodged an application against the administration's failure to decide with the Administrative Court, on the ground that the Regional Government has failed to give the authorisation as requested under the Regional Planning Act. 23. On 23 March 1998 the Administrative Court ordered the Regional Government to give a decision. 24. On 29 April 1998 the Regional Government refused the authorisation required under the Regional Planning Act. 25. On 14 Mai 1998 the Regional Government allowed the application for a transfer of jurisdiction, but dismissed the request for the planning permission on the ground that the applicant's project would interfere with the objective of the re-allocation proceedings. 26. On 20 May 1998 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant's application against the administration's failure to decide of 5 March 1998 as, meanwhile, the Regional Government had given the relevant decision on 29 April 1998. Further it ordered the Regional Government to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. 27. On 17 June 1998 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court against the Regional Government's decisions of 29 April and 14 Mai 1998. 28. On 5 June 1999 the Regional Government discontinued the re-allocation proceedings ex officio, as the Municipality had not issued a re-allocation plan within two years as required under the applicable law. Since at this stage there was no building prohibition in force, the applicant requested the Regional Government to grant a planning permission on 26 August 1999. 29. On 1 October 1999 the Regional Government rejected the application on the ground that new re-allocation proceedings had meanwhile been opened for which reason the District Authority would have been the competent authority. 30. On 14 October 1999 the applicant applied for a planning permission with the District Authority. 31. On 14 June 2000 the District Authority dismissed the new application. On 16 June 2000 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Regional Government. 32. On 27 April 2000 the Administrative Court again quashed the decisions of the Regional Government of 29 April 1998 and of 14 May 1998, finding that there was no indication that the applicant's project interfered with the objective of the re-allocation proceedings. This decision was served on 13 June 2000. 33. On 28 August 2000 the Regional Government granted both the authorisation which was required under the Regional Planning Act and the planning permission. This decision was served on 30 August 2000.

5. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Rogaška Slatina. 6. On 28 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Celje District Court seeking compensation for damage sustained at the workplace. 7. 20 August 2002 the first-instance issued a decision on costs. The defendant appealed. 8. On 5 February 2003 the Celje Higher Court upheld the appeal. 9. On 4 May 2004 the Celje District Court delivered an interim judgment deliberating on the responsibility and reserving the determination on the amount of compensation and costs for the final judgment. The defendant appealed. 10. On 11 May 2006 the Celje Higher Court upheld the first-instance judgment. 11. On 22 March 2007 the first-instance court delivered a judgment, which was served on the applicant on 6 July 2007.

6. The applicant was born in 1963 and currently lives in the Kėdainiai Social Care Home (hereinafter “the Kėdainiai Home”) for individuals with general learning disabilities. 7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8. The applicant has had a history of mental disorder since 1979, when she experienced shock having discovered that she was an adopted child. She is classed as Category 2 disabled. 9. In 1980, the applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia simplex. In 1984 she was diagnosed with circular schizophrenia. In 1999, the applicant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia with a predictable course. She has been treated in psychiatric hospitals more than twenty times. During her most recent hospitalisation at Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital in 2004, she was diagnosed with continuous paranoid schizophrenia (paranoidinė šizofrenija, nepertraukiama eiga). The diagnosis of the applicant remains unchanged. 10. In 2000 the applicant’s adoptive father applied to the Kaunas City District Court to have the applicant declared legally incapacitated. The court ordered a forensic examination of the applicant’s mental status. 11. In their report (no. 185/2000 of 19 July 2000), the forensic experts concluded that the applicant was suffering from “episodic paranoid schizophrenia with a predictable course” (šizofrenija/paranoidinė forma, epizodinė liga su prognozuojančiu defektu) and that she was not able “to understand the nature of her actions or to control them”. The experts noted that the applicant knew of her adoptive father’s application to the court for her incapacitation and wrote that she “did not oppose it”. The experts also wrote that the applicant’s participation in the court hearing for incapacitation was “unnecessary”. 12. On 15 September 2000 the Kaunas City District Court granted the request by the applicant’s adoptive father and declared the applicant legally incapacitated. In a one-page ruling, the court relied on medical expert report no. 185/2000. Neither the applicant nor her adoptive father was present at the hearing. The Social Services Department of the Kaunas City Council was represented before the court. 13. On 17 May 2001 the applicant’s adoptive father requested her admission to the Kėdainiai Home for individuals with general learning disabilities. The applicant’s name was put on a waiting list. 14. On 13 August 2002 the Kaunas City District Court appointed D.G., the applicant’s psychiatrist at the Kaunas out-patient health centre (Kauno Centro Poliklinika), as her legal guardian. The applicant was present at the hearing. Her adoptive father submitted that “he himself did not agree with being appointed her guardian because he was in disagreement with his daughter (jis pats nepageidauja būti globėju, nes su dukra nesutaria)”. Nonetheless, he promised to take care of her in future and to help her financially. 15. By a decision of 24 March 2003, the director of the health care centre dismissed D.G. from her work for a serious violation of her working duties. The decision was based on numerous reports submitted by D.G.’s colleagues and superiors. 16. On 16 July 2003 D.G. wrote to the Kaunas City District Court asking that she be relieved of her duties as the applicant’s guardian. She mentioned that she had only agreed to become the applicant’s guardian because she had observed a strained relationship between the applicant and her adoptive father. However, D.G. claimed that the applicant’s adoptive father had asked her to hand over the applicant’s pension to him, even though the applicant had been receiving her pension and had been using the money perfectly well on her own for many years. D.G. also contended that the applicant’s adoptive father had attempted to unlawfully appropriate the applicant’s property. 17. On 1 October 2003 the Kaunas City District Court relieved D.G. of her duties as the applicant’s guardian at her own request. In court D.G. had argued that as she was litigating for unlawful dismissal she could not take proper care of the applicant. 18. By letter of 9 December 2003, the Kaunas City Social Services Department suggested to the district court that the applicant’s adoptive father be appointed her guardian, although the Department noted that relations between the two of them were tense. 19. On 21 January 2004 the Kaunas City District Court appointed the applicant’s adoptive father as her legal guardian. The court relied on the request by the Kaunas City Council Department of Health, which was represented at the hearing. The applicant’s adoptive father did not object to the appointment. The applicant was not present at the hearing. 20. Upon the initiative and consent of the applicant’s adoptive father, on 30 June 2004 the applicant was taken to the Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital for treatment. The applicant complained that she had been treated against her will. A letter by the hospital indicates that the applicant’s adoptive father had asked the hospital staff to ensure that her contacts with D.G. were limited on the ground that the latter had had a negative influence on the applicant. However, on 3 September 2004 the prosecutor for the Kaunas City District dismissed the applicant’s allegations, finding that she had been hospitalised due to deterioration in her mental state upon the order of her psychiatrist. The applicant had also expressed her consent to being treated. 21. On 8 July 2004 a panel designated by Kaunas City Council to examine cases of admission to residential psychiatric care (Kauno miesto savivaldybės asmenų su proto negalia siuntimo į stacionarias globos įstaigas komisija) adopted a unanimous decision to admit the applicant to the Kėdainiai Home. 22. On 20 July 2004 a medical panel of the Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital concluded that the applicant was suffering from “continuous paranoid schizophrenia” (paranoidinė šizofrenija nepertraukiama eiga). The commission also stated that it would be appropriate for the applicant to “live in a social care institution for the mentally handicapped”. 23. On 28 July 2004 a social worker examined the conditions in which the applicant lived in her apartment in Kaunas city. The report reads that “the applicant is not able to take care of herself, does not understand the value of money, does not clean her apartment, is not able to cook on her own and wanders in the city hungry. Sometimes the applicant gets angry at people and shouts at them without a reason; her behaviour is unpredictable. The applicant does not have bad habits and likes to be in other persons’ company”. The social worker recommended that the applicant be placed in a social care institution because her adoptive father could not “manage” her. 24. On 2 August 2004 an agreement was concluded between the Kėdainiai Home, the Guardianship Department of Kaunas City Council and the Social Services Department of the Kaunas Regional Administration. On the basis of that agreement, the applicant was transferred from the Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital to the Kėdainiai Home, where she continued her treatment. 25. On 6 October 2004 the applicant signed a document stating that she agreed to be examined by the doctors in the Kėdainiai Home and to be treated there. 26. On 10 August 2004 the applicant’s adoptive father wrote to the director of the Kėdainiai Home with a request that during the applicant’s settling into the Kėdainiai Home she should be temporarily restricted from receiving visits by other people. The director granted the request. Subsequently, the Kaunas District Administration upheld the director’s decision on the ground that the latter was responsible for the safety of patients in the Kėdainiai Home and thus was in a better position to determine what steps were necessary. 27. On 18 August 2004, upon the decision of the Kėdainiai Home director, D.G. was not allowed to visit the applicant. The applicant’s medical record, which a treating psychiatrist signed the following day, states that “[the applicant] is acclimatising at the institution with difficulties, as her former guardian and former doctor [D.G.] keeps calling constantly and telling painful matters from the past (...) [the applicant] is crying and blaming herself for being not good, for not preserving her mother, for having lived improperly. Verbal correction is not effective”. 28. According to a document signed by Margarita Buržinskienė on 23 February 2005, she had called the Kėdainiai Home to speak to the applicant but the employees had told her that, on the director’s orders, the applicant was not allowed to answer the phone (vykdant direktorės nurodymą Daivos prie telefono nekviečia). 29. On 15 June 2006 the applicant’s adoptive father removed her from institutional care and taken her to his flat. On 15 July 2006 the applicant left his home on her own. A police investigation was started following a report by the applicant’s adoptive father of the allegedly unlawful deprivation of the applicant’s liberty. She was eventually found and apprehended by the police on 31 October 2006, and was taken back to the Kėdainiai Home. 30. On 6 September 2007 the applicant left the Kėdainiai Home without informing its management. She was found by the police and taken back to the institution on 9 October 2007. 31. As can be seen from a copy of the record of the Kėdainiai Home’s visitors submitted by the Government, between 2 August 2004 and 25 December 2006 the applicant received one or more visitors on forty-two separate occasions. In particular, her adoptive father saw her thirteen times, her friends and other relatives visited her twenty-six times and she was visited by D.G. on twelve occasions. 32. On 15 July 2004 the applicant asked the Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital to initiate a change of guardianship from her adoptive father to D.G. The applicant wrote that her adoptive father had had her admitted to the psychiatric hospital by force and deception, thus depriving her of her liberty. The hospital refused her request as it did not have competence in guardianship matters. 33. The applicant states that a similar request was rejected by the Kėdainiai Home. 34. On 2 September 2005, assisted by her former guardian and then friend, D.G., the applicant brought an application before the courts, requesting that the guardianship proceedings be reopened and a new guardian appointed. She submitted that she had been unable to state her opinion as to her guardianship, because she had not been informed of and summoned to the court hearing during which her adoptive father had been appointed her guardian. The applicant relied on Article 507 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and stated that her state of health in the previous year could not have been an obstacle to her expressing her opinion as to the appropriateness of the guardian proposed at the court hearing. She claimed that in 2004 she had used to visit her friend in a village for a couple of weeks at a time. The applicant also noted that when she returned to Kaunas, her adoptive father had often threatened to have her committed to a mental asylum. 35. The applicant also argued that by appointing her adoptive father to be her guardian without informing her and without her being able to state her opinion as to his prospective appointment, in contravention of Article 3.242 of the Civil Code and Article 507 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court had disregarded the strained relationship between the two of them. The applicant drew the court’s attention to the ruling of the Kaunas City District Court of 13 August 2002, in which the applicant’s adoptive father had himself stated that their relationship had been tense. The applicant drew the court’s attention to Article 491 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stipulating that the court had to take all necessary measures to avoid a possible conflict between the incapacitated person and her potential guardian. Lastly, she stated that she had only learned of her adoptive father’s appointment in April 2004. 36. By a ruling of 29 September 2005 the Kaunas City District Court decided to accept the applicant’s request for examination. 37. On 27 October 2005 the applicant wrote to the Chairman of the Kaunas City District Court. She complained of her incapacitation on her adoptive father’s devious initiative without having being informed of the incapacitation proceedings. The applicant also pleaded that she had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty and involuntarily admitted to the Kėdainiai Home for an indefinite time and where she had been unable to obtain legal aid. 38. On 7 November 2005 judge R.A. of the Kaunas City District Court held a closed hearing in which the applicant, her guardian (her adoptive father) and his lawyer, and D.G. took part. The relevant State institutions were also represented at the hearing: the Kėdainiai Home, the Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital, the prosecutor and the Social Services Department of Kaunas City Council. The applicant’s doctor did not take part in the hearing. The court noted that the doctor had been informed of it and had asked the court to proceed without him. 39. In her application form to the Court, the applicant alleged that at the beginning of the hearing the judge had ordered her to leave her place next to D.G. and to sit next to the judge. The judge had also ordered D.G. “to keep her eyes off the applicant”. Given that this was not reflected in the transcript of the hearing, on 19 November 2005 D.G. had written to the court asking that the transcript be rectified accordingly. 40. According to the transcript of the hearing, at the beginning thereof D.G. requested that an audio recording be made. The judge refused the request. The applicant asked to be assisted by a lawyer. The judge refused her request, deeming that her guardian was assisted by a lawyer before the court. Without the agreement of her guardian, a separate lawyer could not be appointed. The lawyer hired by the applicant’s guardian was held to represent both the interests of the applicant and her guardian. 41. As the transcript of the hearing shows, the applicant went on to unequivocally state that she stood by her request that the guardianship proceedings be reopened. She argued that she had neither been informed of the proceedings as to her incapacitation, nor those pursuant to which her guardian had been appointed. The decisions had been taken while she had been in hospital. During the hearing, the applicant expressed her willingness to leave the Kėdainiai Home and stated that she was being kept and treated there by force. She submitted that she would prefer to live at her adoptive father’s home and to attend a day centre (lankys dienos užimtumo centrą). The applicant also argued that D.G. had been forced to surrender her duties as her guardian and to allow the applicant’s adoptive father to become her guardian because of pressure from him with the aim of transferring the applicant’s flat to him. The applicant also noted that in the Kėdainiai Home she was cut off from society and had been deprived of the opportunity to make telephone calls. Her friends could not visit her and she was not allowed to go to the cinema. In the Kėdainiai Home “she was isolated and saw only a fence”. The other parties to the proceedings opposed the applicant’s wish that the guardianship proceedings be reopened. 42. In her application to the Court, the applicant alleged that during a break in the hearing she had been ordered to follow the judge to her private office. When the applicant had refused, she had been threatened with restraint by psychiatric personnel. In private, the judge had instructed her not to say anything negative about her adoptive father and that, should she not comply, her friend D.G. would also be declared legally incapacitated. As stated in D.G.’s letter seeking rectification of the transcript (paragraph 39 above), after the break was announced the applicant had wished to stay in the hearing room. However, she had been taken away and had returned very depressed (prislėgta). Responding to a question by the judge as to her guardianship, the applicant replied: “I agree that [my adoptive father] should be my guardian, because God asks that people be forgiving. I just wish that he [would] take me [away] from [the Kėdainiai Home] to Kaunas, to his place... and let me see D.G. and my friends”. 43. It appears from the transcript of the hearing that after the break, when giving her submissions to the court, the applicant agreed to keep her adoptive father as guardian, but insisted on being released from institutional care in order to live with her adoptive father. The relevant State institutions – the Kėdainiai Home, the Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital, the prosecutor, the Social Services Department of Kaunas City Council – and the applicant’s guardian’s lawyer each argued that the applicant’s request for reopening was clearly unfounded and should be dismissed. 44. On 17 November 2005 the Kaunas City District Court refused to reopen the guardianship proceedings on the basis of Article 366 § 1 (6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, ruling that there were no grounds to change the guardian (see Relevant domestic law part below). The court noted that before appointing the applicant’s adoptive father as her guardian, the Kaunas City Council Department of Health had prepared a report on the proposed appointment of the applicant’s guardian and had questioned the applicant, who had not been able to provide an objective opinion about that appointment. The court confirmed that the applicant had not been summoned to the hearing of 21 January 2004, when her guardian was appointed, as the court had taken into consideration the applicant’s mental state and, on the basis of the findings of the relevant health care officials, had not considered her involvement in the hearing necessary. The court further noted that the findings had disclosed tense relations between the applicant and her adoptive father. Even so, the applicant’s adoptive father had been duly performing his duties. The court also referred to statements of the representatives of the Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital and the director of the Kėdainiai Home to the effect that the applicant’s contact with D.G. had had a negative influence on her mental health. 45. The Kaunas City District Court proceeded to fine D.G. 1,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 290 euros (EUR)) for abuse of process. It noted that D.G. had filed numerous complaints before various State institutions and the courts of alleged violations of the applicant’s rights. Those complaints had prompted several inquiries which had revealed a lack of substantiation. The court noted: “... by such an abuse of rights, [D.G.] caused damage to the State, namely the waste of time and money of the court and the participants in the proceedings. The court concludes that [D.G.] has abused her rights ... and the vulnerability of the incapacitated person”. 46. D.G. appealed against the above decision. She noted, inter alia, that the 21 January 2004 ruling to appoint the applicant’s adoptive father as her guardian had been adopted by judge R.A. The same judge had dismissed the applicant’s request that the court proceedings be reopened, although this was explicitly prohibited by Article 370 § 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant also submitted a brief in support of D.G.’s appeal, arguing that persons admitted to psychiatric institutions should have a right to know the reasons for their admission. Moreover, they should be able to contact a lawyer who is independent from the institution to which they have been admitted. 47. The appeal by D.G. was dismissed by the Kaunas Regional Court on 7 February 2006 in written proceedings. The court did not rule on the plea that the district court judge R.A. had been partial. 48. On 11 May 2006 the Supreme Court declared D.G.’s subsequent appeal on points of law inadmissible, as it had not been submitted by a lawyer and raised no important legal issues. 49. By a ruling of 7 February 2007 the Kaunas City District Court, following a public hearing attended by social services representatives and the applicant’s legal guardian, granted the guardian’s request to be relieved from the duties of guardian and property administrator. The applicant’s adoptive father had argued that he was no longer fit to be her guardian because of his old age (seventy-seven years at that time) and state of health. The Kėdainiai Home was appointed temporary guardian and property administrator. The applicant was not present at the hearing. 50. On 25 April 2007, the Kaunas City District Court held a public hearing and appointed the Kėdainiai Home as the applicant’s permanent guardian and administrator of her property rights. The applicant was not present at that hearing; the court did not give reasons for her absence. 51. On 1 February 2006 a criminal inquiry was opened on the initiative of some of the applicant’s acquaintances, who alleged that the applicant had been the victim of Soviet-style classification of illnesses which was designed to repress those who fall foul of the regime. The complainants submitted that, as a result of the persistent diagnoses of schizophrenia, the applicant had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty, had been ill-treated and had been overmedicated in the Kėdainiai Home, and that her property rights had been violated by her guardian. 52. On 31 July 2006 the investigation was discontinued, no evidence having been found of an abuse of the applicant’s interests, either pecuniary or personal. It was established that the immovable property belonging to the applicant had been let to a third person, with the proceeds used to satisfy the applicant’s needs. The applicant had had a bank account opened in her name on 6 October 2005, and the deposit made on that date had since been left untouched. Moreover, the applicant’s guardian had transferred to her account the sum received from the sale of their common property. There was thus no indication that the applicant’s adoptive father had abused his position as guardian. 53. As regards the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty, the prosecutor noted that the applicant had been admitted to an institutional care facility in accordance with the applicable legislation. The prosecutor acknowledged that the freedom of the applicant “to choose her place of residence [was] restricted (laisvė pasirinkti buvimo vietą yra ribojama)”, but further noted that she was: “... constrained to an extent no greater than necessary in order to take due care of her as a legally incapacitated person. The guardian of [the applicant] can change her place of residence without first obtaining a separate official decision; she is not unlawfully hospitalised. Therefore, her placement in the Kėdainiai Home cannot be classified as an unlawful deprivation of liberty, punishable under Article 146 § 2 (3) of the Criminal Code”. 54. The prosecutor had also conducted an inquiry into an incident which had occurred at the Kėdainiai Home on 25 January 2005. After questioning the personnel of the Home, it was established that on that day the applicant had been placed in the intensive supervision ward (intensyvaus stebėjimo kambarys), had been given an additional dose of tranquilisers (2 mg of Haloperidol) and had been tied down (fiksuota) for fifteen to thirty minutes by social care staff. 55. The prosecutor noted the explanation of the psychiatrist at the Home, who admitted that the applicant’s restraint had been carried out in breach of the applicable rules, without the approval of medical personnel. However, after having read written reports on the incident produced by the social care personnel, he considered the tying down to have been undertaken in order to save the applicant’s life and not in breach of her rights. 56. Questioned by the prosecution as witnesses, social workers at the Kėdainiai Home testified that 25 January 2005 had been the only occasion on which the applicant had been physically restrained and placed in isolation. The measures had only been taken because at that particular time the applicant had shown suicidal tendencies. 57. The prosecutor concluded that the submissions made by the complainants were insufficient to find that the applicant’s right to liberty had been violated by unnecessary restraint or that she had suffered degrading treatment. 58. On 30 August 2006 the higher prosecutor upheld that decision. 59. With the assistance of D.G., the applicant addressed a number of complaints to various State authorities. 60. On 30 July 2004, in reply to a police inquiry into the applicant’s complaint of unlawful detention in the Kėdainiai Home, the Kaunas City Council Social Services department wrote that “[in] the last couple of years, relations between the applicant and her adoptive father have been tense. Therefore, on the wish of both of them, until 21 January 2004 [the applicant’s] legal guardian was D.G. and not her adoptive father”. 61. The Ministry of Social Affairs also commissioned an inquiry, including conducting an examination of the applicant’s living conditions at the Kėdainiai Home and interviews with the applicant and the management of the Home. The commission established that the applicant’s living conditions were not exemplary (nėra labai geros), but it was promised that the inhabitants would soon move to new premises with better conditions. However, it was noted that the applicant received adequate care. The commission opined that it was advisable not to disturb the applicant, given her vulnerability and instability. It was also emphasised that the State authorities were under an obligation to be diligent as regards supervision of how the guardians use their rights. 62. On 6 January 2005 D.G. filed a complaint with the police, alleging that the applicant had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty and of contact with people from outside the Kėdainiai Home. By letter of 28 February 2005, the police replied that no violation of the applicant’s rights had been found. They explained that, in accordance with the internal rules of the Kėdainiai Home, residents could be visited by their relatives and guardians, but other people required the approval of the management. At the request of the applicant’s guardian, the management had prohibited other people from visiting her. 63. On 17 May 2005 upon the inspection performed by food safety authorities out-of-date frozen meat (best before 12 May 2005) was found in the Kėdainiai Home. However, there was no indication that that meat would have been used for cooking. On 20 February 2006 the Kaunas City Governor’s office inspected the applicant’s living conditions in Kėdainiai and found no evidence that she could have been receiving food of bad quality. 64. On 28 April 2006 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Health about her admission to long-term care. By letter of 12 May 2006, the Ministry noted that no court decision to hospitalise the applicant had been issued, and that she had been admitted to the Kėdainiai Home after her adoptive father had entrusted that institution with her care. 65. On 6 October 2006, the Ministry of Health and Social Services, in response to the applicant’s complaints of alleged violations of her rights, wrote to the applicant stating that it was not possible to investigate her complaints because she had left the Kėdainiai Home and her place of living was unknown. Prosecutors were in the middle of a pre-trial investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s disappearance from where she had previously been living. 66. By a decision of 18 December 2006, the Kaunas City District prosecutor discontinued a pre-trial investigation into alleged unlawful deprivation of the applicant’s liberty.

4. The applicant was born in 1973. He is serving a prison term in Ilava. 5. On 23 May 2003 the applicant lodged a civil action for damages against the Nitra Regional Police Authority in respect of events surrounding his deprivation of liberty. 6. On 12 December 2003 the Nitra District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The Nitra Regional Court quashed the decision as being erroneous on 31 May 2004. 7. On 26 October 2004 the case was assigned to a different judge of the Nitra District Court. On 5 April 2005 that court dismissed the applicant’s request for waiver of court fees. On 31 May 2005 the Regional Court quashed that decision as being incorrect. 8. On 6 December 2005 the case was assigned to a different District Court judge as the judge dealing with the case had requested her exclusion. In the first half of 2006 the District Court obtained information about the applicant’s financial situation. In September 2006 it received factual information from the Ministry of the Interior. 9. On 2 May 2007 the District Court refused to appoint a lawyer to represent the applicant. On 28 August 2007 the Regional Court quashed that decision holding that the applicant had been denied his right of access to a court. The file was returned to the District Court on 6 December 2007. It appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant on 7 December 2007. 10. Between May and July 2008 the District Court asked the applicant’s lawyer to complete the action. The modified action was submitted on 8 August 2008. 11. On 20 November 2008 the file was transmitted to the Piešťany District Court with a request to hear the applicant in prison. The file was returned to the Nitra District Court on 5 August 2009 with the explanation that the applicant insisted on being heard by the court dealing with his claim. 12. In the meantime, on 6 March 2009, the Nitra District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the appointment of a different lawyer to represent him. The Regional Court upheld that decision on 30 April 2009. 13. As the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the lawyer, the District Court asked the Bar Association for further information on 25 November 2009. On 5 February 2010 it revoked the lawyer’s appointment and appointed the Legal Aid Centre in Bratislava to represent the applicant. On 16 April 2010 the Legal Aid Centre informed the District Court that the applicant had refused communicating with its lawyers. The applicant explained that he disagreed to a prison officer being present during the conversation. In view of further information submitted on 7 July 2010, the District Court decided not to revoke the appointment of the above institution on 4 November 2010. 14. On 3 February 2011 and 12 April 2011 the Legal Aid Centre informed the District Court that the applicant had refused communicating with its lawyers in writing and that he did not wish to be represented by them. 15. On 11 May 2011 the applicant specified his claim. On 18 July 2011 and 9 October 2011 respectively he informed the court that he did not wish to be represented by the Legal Aid Centre and that he asked for a different representative to be appointed. 16. The civil proceedings are pending. 17. On 12 June 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings before the District Court as being manifestly ill-founded. 18. On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s second complaint about the duration of the proceedings before the District Court. 19. On 7 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the third complaint of the applicant about the duration of the proceedings before the Nitra District Court. It examined the period subsequent to its above decision of 13 November 2009 and held that its duration was principally due to the applicant’s conduct. 20. On 10 December 2003 the applicant lodged an action for damages against the prison administration alleging that prison guards had ill-treated him. 21. On 21 April 2004 the District Court declared it inadmissible as being unclear. The Nitra Regional Court quashed the decision on 12 October 2004 as being erroneous. 22. On 10 January 2005 the applicant asked for exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee. On 1 April 2005 he informed the District Court, in reply to the request for a form concerning his financial situation, that he had filed his case with the European Court. He did not trust the State organs and did not intend to proceed with the case. The District Court enquired about the applicant’s financial situation and received replies from various State organs. On 21 July 2005 it dismissed the request for waiver of court fees. The decision was quashed by the Regional Court on 28 October 2005 on the ground that the District Court had failed to establish all relevant facts and had failed to give relevant reasons for its conclusion. In January 2006 the District Court attempted to have the Regional Court’s decision served, but it was informed that the applicant had been moved to a different prison. 23. In April 2007 the District Court asked the applicant whether he wished to pursue his claim in view of his above statement of 1 April 2005. On 25 May 2007 and 22 June 2007 the applicant replied that he could not respond without legal assistance. On the latter date he asked the court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer. On 23 October 2007 the District Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings. 24. On 3 January 2008 the lawyer confirmed that the applicant wished to pursue his case and clarified that the action had been lodged against the Ministry of Justice. 25. In January 2008 the applicant complained to the District Court about the lawyer’s conduct, claiming that the lawyer had acted without the applicant’s consent and that he had not followed the applicant’s instructions. On 8 August 2008 the lawyer modified the applicant’s claim. 26. On 29 September 2008 the applicant asked for a different lawyer to be appointed to represent him. The District Court dismissed that request on 6 March 2009. On 30 April 2009 the Nitra Regional Court upheld the first‑instance decision. 27. As the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the lawyer, the District Court asked the Bar Association for further information on 25 November 2009. On 5 February 2010 it revoked the lawyer’s appointment and appointed the Legal Aid Centre in Bratislava to represent the applicant. On 16 April 2010 the latter informed the District Court that the applicant had refused to speak to its lawyers during their visit in prison. In view of further information submitted on 7 July 2010 the District Court decided not to revoke the appointment of the above institution on 4 November 2010. 28. On 3 February 2011 and 12 April 2011 the Legal Aid Centre informed the court that the applicant had objected to being represented by it. 29. In May 2011 the applicant specified his claim. On 18 July 2011 and 9 October 2011 respectively he informed the court that he did not wish to be represented by the Legal Aid Centre and that he asked for a different representative to be appointed. 30. The civil proceedings are pending. 31. On 12 June 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the length of the District Court’s proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded. It observed that the applicant had not sufficiently cooperated with the District Court and that the latter had actively dealt with the applicant’s numerous submissions and procedural requests. The court had also sent several requests to a number of State organs in order to establish the applicant’s financial situation. Having regard to the circumstances of the case it concluded that there had been no unreasonable delays attributable to the District Court. 32. On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s second complaint about the length of the proceedings before the District Court as being manifestly ill-founded. 33. On 7 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the third complaint of the applicant about the duration of the proceedings before the Nitra District Court. It examined the period subsequent to its above decision of 13 November 2009 and held that its duration was principally due to the applicant’s conduct. 34. On 17 December 2002 a telephone company sued the applicant for a sum of money. The Nitra District Court issued a payment order which was quashed following the applicant’s objection. In a judgment of 14 October 2003 District Court ordered the applicant to pay a sum to the plaintiff. 35. On 27 February 2004 the Nitra Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment. 36. Subsequently the District Court appointed a lawyer to the applicant. It scheduled two hearings in October 2004. In January 2005 the applicant was heard in prison. On 3 May 2005 the District Court delivered its second judgment ordering the applicant to pay a sum to the plaintiff. 37. On 10 November 2006 the Regional Court confirmed the first‑instance judgment in part. It ordered the District Court to determine the outstanding part of the claim. The court of appeal dealt with the case for sixteen months, the file was returned to the District Court on 26 January 2007. 38. Between 27 March 2007 and 3 July 2008 the District Court scheduled six hearings, arranged for the applicant to be heard in prison and obtained additional evidence and information. On the latter date it determined the outstanding sum due by the applicant. 39. On 18 September 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the duration of the proceedings before the Nitra District Court which had by then lasted three and a half years. 40. On 9 October 2008 the Nitra Regional Court modified the District Court’s judgment of 3 July 2008. It became final on 9 February 2009. The Regional Court further quashed the decision on the costs and returned that aspect of the case at first instance. The District Court re-determined the costs and lawyer’s fees on 24 April 2009. On 30 September 2009 the Regional Court quashed that decision. The District Court gave the final decision on the issue on 22 April 2010.

5. The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Chişinău. 6. The applicant was arrested and placed in detention on 25 October 2005 on suspicion of having stolen some mobile telephones. 7. According to the applicant, immediately after his arrest the police started to ill-treat him almost every day during lunch breaks and in the evenings in order to try to force him to confess to numerous other offences which he had not committed. Although he was being detained on suspicion of stealing mobile telephones, he was interrogated by police officers from the homicide squad who tried to make him admit to having committed a murder. Since he refused to make any confession and denied the accusations, he was taken on 31 October 2005 to an office in the General Police Headquarters, where five police officers tortured him for several hours. His hands and legs were tied together behind his back and he was suspended on a metal bar. The police officers put a gas mask on his head and periodically closed the air tube. Two wires were placed under the gas mask and attached to his ears and he was given electric shocks. He was beaten on his head with two-litre plastic bottles filled with water and was hit on his ears. Periodically, the applicant lost consciousness. After reviving him the police officers continued the acts of torture. They attached wires to his hips and administered electric shocks to him and beat him. He was later taken off the metal bar and laid on the floor. A weight of thirty-two kilograms was placed on his back and he was left lying on the ground for approximately ten minutes. The applicant’s hands and feet were subsequently untied; he felt severe pain in the region of his lower back and was unable to move his feet. He was made to sit on a chair; however, he fell down. He was put back on the chair by two police officers, who kept telling him something, but he could not hear them. He was then taken to his cell. His cellmates put him on a bed, where he was left lying for two days. The allegations of beatings are disputed by the Government. 8. Since the applicant could not stand up, he was visited by two doctors on 3 November 2005. They were accompanied by one of the police officers who had allegedly tortured him. The police officer told the doctors that the applicant had fallen from his bed. The doctors diagnosed the applicant with hysteria and recommended that he be seen by a neurologist. The applicant was then taken to another room, where he was allegedly told by a police officer not to tell anybody about the acts of torture. He was allegedly threatened with death or imprisonment for twenty-five years. A police officer wrote a report on behalf of the applicant stating that nobody had beaten him up and that he had fallen from his bed and had caught a cold; he allegedly forced the applicant to sign the report. 9. On 4 November 2005 the applicant’s father employed a lawyer, who immediately lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office alleging ill‑treatment. 10. On an unspecified date the applicant was allegedly taken again to an office at the police station. Since he could not walk, he was lifted by two police officers. The police officers who had tortured him were in the office along with three other police officers. He was made to sit on a chair and was kicked and punched. The police officers allegedly requested that he withdraw the complaint about ill-treatment, and threatened him with death. 11. The ill-treatment was allegedly repeated on several occasions. According to the applicant, he was beaten with bottles filled with water, punched, kicked and told to confess and to withdraw the complaint about ill-treatment. 12. On 11 November 2005 the applicant was examined by a forensic doctor who later wrote the following in his report (no. 5908): “Current situation: bruise on the left arm, lateral, middle third, oval shape, yellow/brown colour, size 6 x 9 cm. In the region of both knees and below the right patella, numerous abrasions covered by dark brown scabs, partly detached from the skin at their edges, ranging in size from 0.6 x 0.5 cm to 3.5 x 2.5 cm in one place ... Conclusions: the neurologist’s findings have not reached us as at 24 November 2005, nor have the X-rays of the lumbar section of the spinal column, to which examination certificate no. 92894 refers .... It is therefore impossible to determine the reasons why the victim is unable to move unassisted. The abrasions visible in the patellar region of the knee joints and the bruises visible on the left arm could have been caused by a blunt instrument and are not less than six or seven days old at the time of examination .... It is impossible to establish with greater accuracy from how long ago the bruises and abrasions date because of the delay in presentation for medical examination. Hospitalisation of the victim in a specialised medical establishment would enable a more accurate diagnosis to be made and the consequences for his state of health to be assessed.” 13. On 18 November 2005, following complaints by the applicant’s lawyer, Amnesty International organised action in support of the applicant by publishing on their Internet site a description of the applicant’s case and an appeal to people from all over the world to write to the Prosecutor General of Moldova, the Moldovan Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Moldovan Embassy in their country asking them to take action such as conducting a medical examination of the applicant, carrying out an effective investigation into his complaints of torture and allowing the applicant to meet his lawyer in conditions of confidentiality. 14. On 23 November 2005 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Moldovan Minister of Foreign Affairs expressing concern about the situation of S. Gurgurov and about the refusal of the authorities to transfer him to a hospital as recommended by doctors. He requested information. 15. On an unspecified date between 21 and 25 November 2005 the applicant was visited by a delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which described his case in its report (see paragraph 54 below). It appears that in their reply to the CPT’s report the Government did not comment on the latter’s findings. 16. On 1 December 2005 the Moldovan Ombudsman wrote to the Prosecutor General informing him about the allegations of torture against the applicant and the fact that no medical assistance had been provided to him by that date. On 11 January 2006 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the Ombudsman that the applicant’s complaint appeared to be ill‑founded. 17. On 1 December 2005 during questioning by a prosecutor one of the applicant’s cellmates stated that the applicant could not walk and that he had to be helped by his cellmates to go to the toilet. All the prison guards stated that the applicant could walk perfectly well and that they had not noted any signs of beatings on him. Only one guard stated that the applicant was limping. Two of the applicant’s cellmates stated that he was faking his condition. Another stated that the applicant could not stand or even sit and that he had to be helped by his cellmates to go to the toilet. 18. On 9 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal ordered the applicant’s release from detention. 19. On 10 December 2005 the applicant was hospitalised and underwent the following medical examinations: radiography of the head and back, echoencephalography, electroencephalography, computerised tomography, ultrasound of the internal organs and functional computerised investigation. The diagnosis following the investigations was the following: consolidated fracture of the cranial bones (skull broken, without pieces relocated); a 6 x 16 mm focal cerebral contusion in the left temporal cortical area and dilatation of the ventricular system (a contusion with augmented volume of the brain ventricular system); a post-craniocerebral trauma state; cerebral contusion of the left hemisphere (temporal area); medullar contusion L1-L2 with flask tetraparesis, especially on the inferior limbs (trauma of the back, 1st and 2nd lumbar spines, damaging the spinal cord and causing partial paralysis, especially of the legs). 20. On 20 December 2005 the prosecutor in charge of the case ordered examination of the applicant by a panel of forensic doctors and directed the panel to give answers to the following questions: “1. Did Mr Gurgurov suffer from diseases of the nervous system before his arrest? 3. Did Mr Gurgurov have any injuries at the moment of his arrest which could have led to the worsening of his present state of health? 4. Is it possible that the applicant’s problems with his central nervous system and his capacity to move were caused by the administering of electric shocks? If so, what are the after-effects of electric shocks and how long do they last?” 21. On 16 January 2006 a panel of three forensic doctors examined the applicant’s medical documents and gave the following answers: “1 and 2. The applicant’s medical history does not contain anything to suggest that he suffered from any diseases of the nervous system before his arrest. 3. At the time of his medical examination on 11 November 2005 he had bruises on his left arm and scratches on his knee, which are considered to be light injuries... 4. During further medical investigations of the applicant he was found to be suffering from paralysis of the feet and left arm. The paralysis is not a consequence of a craniocerebral or spinal trauma or of the administering of electric shocks and its gravity is not assessable.” The forensic panel added that in reaching its conclusions it had not paid attention to the earlier findings concerning the fracture of the cranial bones and the cerebral contusion (see paragraph 19 above) because it had not been presented with the original radiographic images. The panel also added that it could not be ruled out that the applicant was simulating his condition, and that only a psychiatric investigation could exclude that possibility. 22. On 18 January 2006 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint concerning his allegations of ill-treatment. It relied on the statements of one of his cellmates who had contended that the applicant was faking his condition, the statements of police officers who denied having ill‑treated the applicant, the medical report of 11 November 2005 and the conclusion of the medical report of 16 January 2006 to the effect that: “the paralysis is not a consequence of a craniocerebral or spinal trauma or of the administering of electric shocks and its gravity is not assessable...” 23. Starting on 15 February 2006 the applicant underwent a medical check-up at the “Memoria” Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, a non-governmental organisation financed by the European Union and a member of the General Assembly of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). He appears to have been subjected there to detailed medical tests and examinations by various medical specialists. In a document entitled “Extract from the medical records”, dated 26 February 2006, issued by the Centre, it was stated, inter alia, that the applicant was suffering the after-effects of cranial trauma (cerebral contusion of the left hemisphere predominant in the temporal area), organic cerebral post-traumatic syndrome, post-traumatic bilateral adhesive otitis, post-traumatic cochlear neuritis, bilateral neuro-sensorial deafness, and medullar lumbar contusion L1-L2 with flask tetraparesis of the inferior limbs. A number of psychological conditions characteristic of victims of torture were also found. The Centre also decided to help the applicant to fund surgery in order to “regain his hearing at least partially”. 24. On 26 June 2006 the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Moldova, Valeriu Balaban, wrote a letter to the Moldovan Bar Association in which he stated, inter alia, the following: “Lately, the Prosecutor General’s Office has been confronted with the phenomenon whereby some Moldovan lawyers involve international organisations specialising in the protection of human rights in the examination by the national authorities of criminal cases. These organisations are used as an instrument for serving personal interests and for enabling suspected persons to avoid criminal responsibility. Examples of such incidents are the case of Gurgurov, triggered by the lawyer Ana Ursachi, and the case of Colibaba, triggered by the lawyer Roman Zadoinov. The international media coverage of these cases prompted action by the representatives of Amnesty International with a view to safeguarding the rights of the above lawyers’ clients. After having examined with sufficient thoroughness the complaints alleging torture and abuse on the part of the police ... the prosecutor’s office dismissed the complaints on the ground of lack of proof that offences had been committed. ... ... In such circumstances the irresponsible attitude and behaviour of the lawyers Ana Ursachi and Roman Zadoinov give rise to concern. They knew that no acts of torture had been committed against their clients. However, they complained to international organisations without first attempting to use the national mechanism for solving such problems. They presented the facts erroneously in order to win their cases... Such practices by lawyers will be investigated by the Prosecutor General’s Office in order to determine whether they have committed the offence provided for in Article 335 § 2 of the Criminal Code, by making public on an international scale false information about alleged breaches of human rights which gravely prejudice the image of our country. Accordingly, the Bar Association is called upon to take account of the facts described above, to bring to the attention of lawyers the situation so created and to prevent as far as possible any prejudice to the authority of the Republic of Moldova.” The above letter generated a heated debate in the media. On 30 June 2006 the Moldovan Bar Association issued an official statement in which it qualified the Prosecutor General’s letter as an attempt to intimidate lawyers. In an interview to the newspaper Ziarul de Garda the President of the Bar Association declared, inter alia, that it was an attempt to intimidate lawyers so that they would no longer complain to the Court. 25. It appears that the prosecutor’s office did not inform the applicant about its decision of 18 January 2006 until late June 2006. On 17 July 2006 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision of 18 January 2006 and argued, inter alia, that the prosecutor’s office had not examined the complaint properly. He argued that the prosecutor’s office had not paid attention to the fact that on 25 October 2005, on the day of his arrest, the applicant had been in good health. The prosecutor’s office had also failed to question persons who had seen the applicant on 3 November 2005, when he was brought before a court, including the judge, prosecutor and persons present in the court. The prosecutor had not questioned the doctors who had examined the applicant, or asked the applicant to identify the persons who had allegedly tortured him and the offices where the alleged torture had taken place. The prosecutor had failed to investigate why police officers from the homicide division were questioning the applicant, who had been charged with stealing mobile telephones. 26. On 13 February 2007 the appeal was dismissed by the Riscani District Court on the ground that the applicant’s lawyer had failed to observe the ten-day time-limit for challenging the prosecutor’s decision. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice on 3 July 2007. 27. In the meantime, in June 2007, the applicant was officially recognised as having a second-degree disability. In the medical documents issued by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Family Matters it was recommended that he should not work. The reasons given for declaring him disabled were “the after-effects of severe head trauma dating from October 2005, injury to the spine and post-traumatic deafness in both ears”. 28. It appears that on an unspecified date in August or September 2007 the applicant broke his hip as a result of falling down in the stairwell, and spent two months in hospital. 29. On 15 October 2007 the Chişinău prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint about his alleged ill-treatment. The prosecutor based his decision on essentially the same reasons as the decision of 18 January 2006. The applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision. 30. On 1 November 2007 a higher-ranking prosecutor quashed the decision of 15 October 2007 and ordered the re-examination of the case. He instructed the lower-ranking prosecutor to examine the medical documents, to find out whether the applicant had been suffering before his arrest from any conditions which had been discovered after he was taken into detention and to question the doctors who had examined him. 31. On 11 December 2007 a prosecutor requested the Ministry of Health to establish a medical panel to verify the applicant’s condition in view of the contradictions in the existing medical reports, namely the report of 16 January 2006 and the decision recognising him as having a second‑degree disability. 32. On 9 January 2008 a junior health minister wrote to the prosecutor’s office informing it that a panel had been set up which had intended to conduct a medical examination of the applicant on 27 December 2007. However, the applicant had failed to appear before the panel. 33. On 12 March 2008 the same junior minister wrote to the prosecutor’s office informing it that the applicant had not shown up for a medical examination scheduled for the same date. 34. In a letter of 14 April 2008 addressed to the junior health minister, the chief neurologist wrote that the applicant had been seen by him at the beginning of April and that the applicant was in a wheelchair and had undergone hip-replacement surgery. The applicant had a severe weakness in his limbs on the right side. The doctor concluded that the applicant was suffering from severe movement dysfunction on the right side and a less severe dysfunction of the movement of the left foot. According to the doctor it was very difficult to tell the cause of the applicant’s condition, which could either be the result of a trauma or have been simulated. 35. On 6 May 2008 the prosecutor’s office reiterated its request to the Ministry of Health for a repeat medical examination of the applicant by a panel of doctors. The prosecutor’s office requested that the medical panel answer the following questions: “1. Did Mr Gurgurov suffer from any diseases of the central nervous system before [his arrest on 25 October 2005]? 3. Did Mr Gurgurov have any injuries at the time of his arrest which could have led to the worsening of his present state of health? 7. What are the reasons for recognising him as suffering from a second-degree disability and what are the rules according to which this status was granted to him? 36. On 15 May 2008 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office that the prosecutor in charge of the case was prolonging its examination unnecessarily. 37. On 6 June 2008 a panel of three forensic doctors, two of whom were members of the panel which issued the report of 16 January 2006, examined the applicant’s medical history and gave the following answers: “1 and 2. The applicant’s medical history does not contain anything to suggest that he suffered from any diseases of the nervous system before his arrest. 3. At the time of his medical examination on 11 November 2005 he had bruises on his left arm and scratches on his knee, which could not have any influence on the state of his health. 4. The applicant’s injuries are not characteristic of self-mutilation; however, it cannot be ruled out that they were inflicted by himself. 6. The panel does not have in its possession any information which would allow it to conclude that the applicant was subjected to electric shocks. 7. Normally, invalidity is granted after the examination of the individual’s medical history and medical examination by specialised doctors... 8. The age of the applicant’s injuries was correctly established in the medical report of 11 November 2005. His neurological problems were established in the report of 16 January 2006. It is impossible to establish more precisely their age. 9 and 10. There is no causal link between the injuries and his current state. His injury of September 2007 is not at the origin of his severe movement dysfunction.” 38. On 11 June 2008 the prosecutor’s office issued a decision dismissing again the applicant’s criminal complaint about his alleged ill-treatment. The decision relied, inter alia, on the medical report of 6 June 2008. The applicant challenged the decision before an investigating judge. However, the appeal was dismissed and the applicant was directed to lodge his appeal with the higher-ranking prosecutor, which he did. 39. On 13 February 2009 the Prosecutor General’s Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the prosecutor office’s decision of 11 June 2008. It concluded that the applicant was simulating his condition. In reaching this conclusion it relied on testimonies from several of the applicant’s former cellmates and on the medical report of 6 June 2008. 40. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code read as follows: Article 309 Extorting of confessions (1) The act of forcing someone to confess to a criminal offence or to make statements during questioning, by means of threats or by other illegal means on the part of the person carrying out a criminal investigation ... shall be punishable by imprisonment of up to three years... (2) The same act accompanied by: (a) violence; (b) cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; ... Shall be punishable by imprisonment of three to eight years... Article 309 § 1 Torture (1) Intentionally causing intense physical or mental pain or suffering, especially with a view to obtaining information or testimonies ... shall be punishable by imprisonment of two to five years. ... (3) The actions referred to in paragraph 1 ..., carried out: (c) by two or more persons; (e) with the use of special instruments of torture or other objects adapted for that purpose; (f) by an official, shall be punishable by imprisonment of five to ten years... 41. The relevant findings of the CPT during its visit to Moldova between 21 and 25 November 2005 read as follows (unofficial translation): “46. At the remand centre (EDP) of the Department for the fight against organised crime, one detainee interviewed by the delegation alleged that, on the evening of 25 October 2005, at the Riscani district police station, he had been punched and kicked in a third-floor office, in order to make him confess to various offences. On the next day, he had been transferred to the Municipal Police Headquarters EDP, from where he had, during the period for which he was held (until 2 November according to the relevant registers), been transferred on several occasions, sometimes to the Riscani police station and sometimes to the Municipal Police Headquarters (transfers confirmed by the examination of the relevant registers). He alleged that he had been ill-treated on these premises. In particular, he alleged that, on 31 October, in a second-floor office at the Municipal Police Headquarters, he was subjected to several forms of ill-treatment: an attempt to suffocate him by placing a gas mask over his face; suspension in what is known as the swallow position; slaps on his ears; electric shocks administered via electrodes placed behind his ears and on his hips; placement of a heavy dumbbell weight on his back. As a consequence of the ill-treatment inflicted, he had briefly lost consciousness, and, furthermore, had been unable to move for the next four days. Furthermore, according to the detainee concerned, he had not been given a form informing him about his rights until the end of the morning of 26 October, which was when he said that he had met an officially assigned defence counsel. The first judge before whom he had been brought on the third day of his deprivation of liberty was said not to have reacted to his allegations of ill-treatment. On 3 November he had been brought before a judge who had served a compulsory residence order on him. In spite of this decision, he had been transferred to the EDP of the Department for the fight against organised crime on that same day, on the basis of an arrest warrant issued in 2001, after undergoing a medical examination at a hospital casualty unit. He said that he had also been beaten during this new detention in an office of this Department, and had been threatened to make him stop lodging complaints. 47. The medical screening carried out on his admission to the EDP at the municipal police headquarters referred only to an injury sustained prior to his arrest. A medical examination of this detainee carried out in hospital by a neurologist on 3 November recorded signs of traumatism in the region of his left arm and both knees, and put forward the diagnosis of hysteria, with a recommendation that further paraclinical examinations be carried out. On 4 November 2005, his lawyer had asked the Prosecutor General for a forensic medical examination. However, the examination took place late, i.e. on 11 November 2005 [forensic report No. 5908, see paragraph 12 above] and it is stressed that, due to this fact, it is impossible to establish precisely how old the lesions observed were, as well as that it is necessary to hospitalise the detainee for assessment and for a precise diagnosis. 48. The examination of this detainee by the delegation’s doctors revealed two small bilateral tympanic tears consistent with his allegations of slaps on the ears, as well as atypical motor deficiency disorders, highly suggestive of a major psychological trauma. In view of this person’s state of health, the delegation asked for action to be taken to ensure that he received the medical assistance that his condition necessitated, including psychological care. The CPT would like to receive this information within one month. Moreover, the CPT reiterates its delegation’s request to be informed of follow-up action taken regarding this detainee’s complaint and of the results of any investigation carried out in this respect. 49. Without prejudice to the follow-up given to this detainee’s complaint and to the conclusions of the investigations carried out, the CPT wishes to emphasise that this case is indicative of unacceptable inertia on the part of the agencies concerned in the face of allegations of severe ill-treatment/torture, and of the flagrant failure by the authorities to implement the main recommendations of the Committee intended to prevent ill-treatment (set out in paragraphs 21 and 23 of its report on the 2004 visit) and in terms of providing the fundamental safeguards (set out in paragraphs 30, 32 and 34). It is crucial for these recommendations to be implemented immediately, and there is no convincing argument which could justify any delay whatsoever in taking action. Only their implementation can give clear indication as to the willingness of the Moldovan authorities to put an end to the phenomenon of ill-treatment. The CPT therefore calls upon the Moldovan authorities to take decisive steps, at every appropriate level, to ensure that all the recommendations relating to the prevention of ill-treatment by the police and to compliance with fundamental safeguards made by the Committee in its report on the 2004 visit are implemented without further delay...”

5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Berdsk, a town in the Novosibirsk Region. 6. The applicant is a public prosecutor. 7. On an unspecified date in early 2003 he applied for a free housing provided by law for this category of state officials. 8. By judgment of 21 April 2003 the Tsentralny District Court of Novosibirsk ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the local and regional authorities jointly “...to provide [the applicant] with a flat in a State or municipal housing for a family of four people with a living surface measuring 36 sq. metres, and taking into account the applicant's right to an additional living area of not less than 20 sq. metres or in the form of a separate room...” 9. Upon the respondent's appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on appeal on 17 June 2003. On that day the judgment became binding. 10. The respondents did not enforce the judgment immediately. On 28 and 30 July 2003, the Bailiff's Office (“the bailiffs”) initiated enforcement proceedings. 11. According to the Government, the Novosibirsk Regional Administration was unable to execute the judgment as, pursuant to Decree of 27 December 1991, the property rights in respect of all State housing in the Novosibirsk Region had been transferred to municipal authorities. 12. On 20 April 2004 the Tsentralny District Court of Novosibirsk rejected the authorities' request to adjourn the execution of the final judgment. 13. On 24 September 2004 and 19 November 2004 the same court rejected the applicant's requests to award him compensation which would allow him to purchase a flat. 14. The prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the bailiff on 11 December 2004. On 19 January 2005, in response to the applicant's complaint, the Berdsk Town Court found the acts of the bailiff in the applicant's enforcement proceedings arbitrary and unlawful and ordered the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings in this respect. On 25 May 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court once again urged the prosecutor to open criminal proceedings. 15. On 1 February 2006 the Berdsk Town Council sent a letter to the applicant, offering to provide him with a three-room flat of 77.5 sq. metres in total surface. 16. By letter of 2 February 2006 the applicant sent a letter to the bailiffs in which he agreed to this offer. 17. On 13 February 2006 the Novosibirsk Regional Administration allocated 1,500,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for acquisition of a flat for the applicant. 18. By decision of 17 May 2006 the bailiffs terminated the proceedings in the case as the judgment of 21 April 2003, as upheld on 17 June 2003, had been enforced. 19. According to the parties, the applicant was granted a three-room flat of 77.5 sq. metres in total surface under a social tenancy agreement.

4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Karacabey. 5. On 17 October 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of armed robbery and murder. On 27 October 1996 he was placed in detention on remand. On 4 November 1996 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant in the Bursa Assize Court. On 27 November 1997 the applicant was released pending trial. Subsequently, on 29 June 2001 the Bursa Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him and this judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 March 2002. 6. On 5 August 2002 the applicant applied to the Bursa Assize Court, seeking compensation for both non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained. 7. On 23 January 2003 the Bursa Assize Court awarded the applicant 358,071,000 Turkish[1] liras (TRL) for pecuniary damage and TRL 3,000,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also decided that no default interest should be applied. 8. On 31 March 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment. 9. On 26 April 2004 the applicant applied to the Bursa Enforcement Office and requested the payment of TRL 6,022,015,000, including interest running from the date of the judgment. On 10 August 2004 the Treasury objected to the interest rate, but paid the amount of TRL 5,727,000,000 which was not in dispute. Following the objection of the Treasury, proceedings commenced before the Bursa Enforcement Court to determine the exact amount and interest rate to be paid by the Treasury. On 26 October 2004 the Bursa Enforcement Court dismissed the objection of the Treasury. Subsequently, on 25 February 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, holding that the interest rate should be calculated on the basis of that laid down in the Budget Law. The case was then remitted to the Enforcement Court. Following a re-examination of the case, and based on an expert report, on 10 June 2005 the Enforcement Court ordered an additional payment of TRL 479,450,000 to the applicant. This amount was paid in August 2005. Consequently, the domestic authorities had applied an interest rate of 50% per annum between 23 January 2003 and 1 January 2004, and 15% per annum as from 1 January 2004.

5. The applicants were born in 1977 and 1956 respectively and live in Zagreb. 6. The first applicant is a person divested of legal capacity owing to his mental and physical retardation. He goes to a workshop for adults at the V.B. primary school in Zagreb for twelve hours a week. He is taken care of by his mother, the second applicant. The medical documentation of 16 June 2008 submitted in respect of the first applicant describes his health as follows: “... in his very early childhood he suffered from purulent meningitis, which resulted in permanent consequences and epilepsy. He is retarded in his mental and physical development and is under the constant supervision of a neurologist and psychiatrist. Owing to hydrocephalus he has had a Pudenz valve [a type of cerebrospinal fluid shunt] implanted. ... his eyesight is very poor ... and he is dependent on his mother as regards feeding, dressing, personal hygiene and moving about. His spine is mobile but painful in the lower region. ... he suffers from severe foot deformation, ... has difficulty walking; walking on his toes and heels is not possible. Mentally he is emotionally distant, fearful and he has a poor vocabulary. ...” 7. The applicants live in a ground-floor flat in a block of flats in Špansko, a part of Zagreb. The A.K. primary school is nearby in their neighbourhood. 8. It appears that the applicants were subjected to harassment between July 2008 and February 2011. They alleged that pupils from the A.K. primary school, all minors, frequently harassed them, and in particular the first applicant, at all times of the day, especially when the pupils returned home from school in groups and in the late afternoon and evening when they gathered without parental supervision on and around a wooden bench in front of the balcony of the applicants’ flat. The harassment, in their submission, was motivated by the first applicant’s health and both applicants’ Serbian origin. A larger group of children, also minors, came daily to a park in front of the applicants’ flat, shouted obscenities at the first applicant, called him names and wrote insulting messages on the pavement. The children often rang the applicants’ bell, asking when the first applicant was going out. They often spat at him. 9. A police report of 31 July 2008 shows that the second applicant called the police at 9.12 p.m. and complained that unknown young persons were harassing her son and had smashed some objects on her balcony. The police arrived at the applicants’ home at 9.30 p.m. and the second applicant told them that at about 6 p.m. she and the first applicant had left the flat and that when they had returned at about 9 p.m. she had found the balcony ruined and all the flower beds torn up. She also told the police that the first applicant had been harassed for a longer period of time by children in the neighbourhood on account of his mental retardation. She named two of the children. 10. On 2 March 2009 the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre ordered the supervision of the parental care of D.K., a pupil at A.K. primary school, on account of his poor school results, problematic behaviour and tendency to commit criminal offences. There was no mention of his involvement in the harassment of the applicants. 11. A medical report drawn up on 6 April 2009 shows that the first applicant had been psychologically and physically harassed in the street and that he had cigarette burns on both hands. The doctor asked the social authorities to institute proceedings for the protection of the first applicant as a person with serious mental disorders and described him as a peaceful and benign person who could not and did not know how to defend himself from the abusers. 12. In a letter of 20 April 2009 to the Ombudswoman for Persons with Disabilities, the second applicant complained that on 4 April 2009 two children, D.K. and I.M., had harassed the first applicant. She alleged that while riding their bicycles they had approached the first applicant and burned his hands with cigarettes. She also complained that the first applicant had been continually harassed by children attending a nearby school on the basis of his mental retardation and added that she had on numerous occasions complained to the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre and the authorities of the A.K. primary school, but to no avail. 13. On the same day the applicants’ lawyer complained to the police about the incident of 4 April 2009. 14. A police report of 5 May 2009 records that on that day on the premises of the II Zagreb Police Station the police interviewed D.K., born in 1997, and P.B., born in 1995. The relevant part of the report in respect of D.K. reads: “When asked whether he remembers the event of 4 April 2009 in ... Zagreb, [D.K.] said that at about 12 noon he was there with his friend I.M., who is in the seventh grade at A.K. primary school, and that P.B., an older boy from the seventh grade of the same school, arrived together with two men, unknown to him, who were playing with a ball. A person who is disabled and has had problems from birth and who lives in a block of flats in ... Street was playing between the buildings. At one point, P.B. lit a cigarette, approached Dalibor and burned his right hand several times, after which they all ran away because that person started to shout.” The relevant part of the report in respect of P.B. reads: “When asked whether he remembers the event of 4 April 2009 in ... Zagreb, concerning the harassment of a disabled person, Dalibor Đorđević, [P.B.] says that he was not present on that occasion but that at the beginning of that week during the morning break he had met D.K., who is in the fifth grade at the same school and who told him that he [D.K.] and I.M. at about 12 noon on Saturday had burned with a cigarette the hand of a person named Dalibor in ... Street who lives on that street and is disabled. When asked a further question as to whether he knew what that person looks like, he answered that he used to go to play on that street with other boys from the neighbourhood and he saw that person, who is about thirty, strongly built, has short salt-and-pepper hair and a pale complexion and has difficulty speaking. That person plays with other children who tease him and he runs after them and beats them.” 15. A police report of 7 May 2009 records that on that day on the premises of the II Zagreb Police Station the police interviewed I.M., born in 1994. The relevant part of the report reads: “When asked whether he remembers the event of 4 April 2009 in ... Zagreb, concerning the harassment of a disabled person, Dalibor Đorđević, between thirty and forty years old, [I.M.] said that he remembered that occasion, that it was a Saturday ... and that he took his bicycle and went ... with D.K. to ... Street, where they saw Dalibor, a person disabled from birth, between the buildings, playing with a ball with some children who took the ball and did not want to return it to him. When he saw this, he [I.M.] asked the children why they did not give the ball back to Dalibor, and Dalibor started to shout and wave his hands. The children then threw the ball and he took it. He [I.M.] was holding a cigarette in his left hand ... and as he was passing Dalibor on his bicycle he [Dalibor] started to wave his hands and slapped him a few times on the hand in which he was holding the cigarette and thus Dalibor burned his hand. He was sure that he burned Dalibor only once and he was sorry for it. He did not understand why Dalibor reacted in such a manner because it was not his [I.M.’s] fault that some children took his ball. The pupil P.B. was not with them. ... When asked a further question as to whether Dalibor had problems with other children, [I.M.] answered that he is often on that street where Dalibor plays ball with other boys and that these children tease Dalibor because of his illness ... and then he runs after them and catches them. In the end [I.M.’s] mother R. was advised to keep an eye on I.M.’s behaviour. She said that she had no problems with him and she did not know why he had done this.” 16. On 19 May 2009 the II Zagreb Police Station sent a report to the Zagreb State Attorney’s Juvenile Office stating that – on 16 April 2009 they had received a letter from the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre stating that it had received a letter from the second applicant in which she had alleged that her son had been ill-treated by D.K. and others and enclosed medical documentation; and – on 30 April 2009 they had received a letter from the Ombudswoman for Persons with Disabilities stating that she had also received a letter from the second applicant who was seeking help in connection with the frequent harassment of the first applicant. The police also informed the Zagreb State Attorney’s Juvenile Office about the interviews they had conducted with the children D.K., I.M. and P.B. 17. In a letter of 20 May 2009 the II Zagreb Police Station informed the Ombudswoman that they had interviewed the children I.M. and D.K., that they had contacted the headmaster of A.K. primary school, that the police officers from the station had been informed about the problems and that they had regularly patrolled the streets in question. 18. On 17 July 2009 the police informed the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre that they had established that on 4 April 2009 at about 12 noon the first applicant had been playing with a ball in the street with some boys from the neighbourhood who had taken his ball away, which had upset him. When the boys I.M. and D.K. had gone past the first applicant he had waved his hands and I.M. had unintentionally burned them. 19. On 16 July 2009 the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre drew up a report on the first applicant. The relevant part of the report reads: “ ... On 6 August 2008 [the first applicant’s] mother, Radmila, complained to us about harassment of Dalibor, alleging that the children ... were visiting the girls V.K. and I.K., who lived in their block of flats. The K. girls said that they had not harassed Dalibor and that the leader of the group had been H.B. An agreement has been reached with the K. girls and their mother, J.F., that the girls will stop hanging around in front of the block of flats and will find another place to do so in order to avoid conflicts. 20. On 27 July 2009 the Zagreb Municipality State Attorney’s Office informed the second applicant that the perpetrators of the criminal offence of violent behaviour under Article 331 § 1 of the Criminal Code were D.K. and I.M., who were children below 14 years of age, and that therefore no criminal proceedings could be instituted against them. The second applicant was instructed that she could bring a claim for compensation in civil proceedings. 21. A police report of 5 September 2009 states that on that day the second applicant called the police at 8.40 p.m. complaining about noise in the park. When the police arrived at 8.45, the second applicant told them that in the meantime the children had left. 22. A medical report in respect of the first applicant drawn up on 8 September 2009 indicates that he had constantly been harassed by children, who had burned his hands, shouted at him and made noise in front of the applicants’ balcony. It stated that it was necessary for the first applicant to spend time outdoors. 23. A report drawn up on 17 September 2009 by the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre indicates that they had interviewed I.M. and his mother. Since I.M. expressed regret about the incident of 4 April 2009, there was no need for any further measures. 24. On an unspecified date in September 2009 the headmaster of A.K. primary school sent a letter to the parents informing them that in their neighbourhood lived a young man with disabilities named Dalibor who had been frequently harassed by schoolchildren. The headmaster expressly stated that the children had admitted to “a number of brutal acts” against Dalibor, such as making derogatory remarks, using insulting language and swearing, behaving provocatively, taking his ball and burning his hands with cigarettes. The parents were asked to talk to their children and warn them about the possible consequences of such behaviour. 25. The relevant part of the written record of a parent-teacher meeting held on 30 September 2009 at A.K. primary school reads as follows: “... At all parent-teacher meetings in the new school year we have drawn the parents’ attention to a young man with special needs who lives in the school’s neighbourhood and who has been harassed by pupils from our school, mostly verbally and sometimes physically. His mother often seeks help from the school employees, and a social welfare centre and the Ombudswoman for Persons with Disabilities have also been involved. The parents were asked to talk to their children and raise their awareness about the problem of accepting differences and the need for peaceful coexistence. The parents present commented on the matter. Some of them mentioned that the young man in question had sometimes also been aggressive, that he had approached young girls in an inappropriate manner and that they had expressed a fear of him and tended to avoid the area where he usually was. Some also commented that he should not be out in public and that he should spend time in conditions appropriate for him or in the park under the constant supervision of a guardian. The headmaster noted all the comments and promised to contact the competent social welfare centre. ...” 26. On 1 October 2009 the applicants’ lawyer sent a written complaint to the Zagreb Municipality State Attorney’s Office. She stated that her clients were two Croatian nationals of Serbian origin, a mother and her son who suffered from mental and physical retardation. She explained that her clients lived about seventy metres away from A.K. primary school and that they had been constantly harassed by schoolchildren, at all times of the day and mainly when the children went home from school in groups and in the late afternoon and evening when they gathered around a bench in front of the applicants’ balcony without parental supervision. She alleged that the harassment had already been going on for about four years and was motivated by the applicants’ Serbian origin and the first applicant’s disability. A group of children aged from 10 to 14 hung around daily in front of the block of flats where the applicants lived, shouting insults and obscenities and calling them names. They also wrote insulting remarks on the pavement in front of the building. The lawyer further described the incident of 4 April 2009. Relying on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, she complained that there was no effective remedy in the Croatian legal system affording protection from violent acts by children. She also described the events of 5 and 7 September 2009, when a group of children had insulted the first applicant and, on the latter date, taken a ball from him. On 10 September 2009 a group of boys had urinated in front of the applicants’ door. On 14 September 2009 about fourteen pupils from the fourth and fifth grades had pushed the first applicant, insulted him and taken a ball from him. The day after a boy had shouted insults at him. She also alleged that the children had physically attacked the first applicant on at least ten different occasions and had often spat at him. On 31 July 2008 the children had ruined the applicants’ balcony by tearing up all the flower beds and by throwing stones and mud onto the balcony. A few days later they had thrown a carton of chocolate milk onto the balcony. The second applicant had reported the harassment to the social services, the police, the Ombudswoman for Persons with Disabilities and the school authorities. Despite the good will of all those concerned, the harassment of the applicants had continued. 27. A medical report in respect of the first applicant drawn up on 7 October 2009 indicates that he had constantly been harassed by children. 28. A medical report in respect of the first applicant drawn up on 9 November 2009 indicates that he had been attacked by children a few days before, which had greatly upset him. Psychotherapy was recommended. 29. A medical report in respect of the first applicant drawn up on 14 December 2009 states that “everyone hit him mercilessly with snowballs”, which had scared him. 30. A medical report in respect of the first applicant drawn up on 14 January 2010 indicates that the first applicant suffered from constant anxiety and a feeling of being persecuted because “nothing ha[d] been done to resolve his situation”. 31. A police report of 19 March 2010 states that the second applicant called the police that day at 9.18 p.m. because of “problems with children”. When the police arrived at 9.25 p.m. the second applicant told them that the children had been playing with a ball in the park and had then hit her window with the ball and run away. 32. A medical report in respect of the first applicant drawn up on 11 April 2010 indicates that the first applicant was attacked by a group of children and was hit by a ball on the nose. 33. The applicants alleged that on 13 May 2010 a group of children, including a boy, P., pushed the first applicant against an iron fence in the park. He fell and hit his head and right leg. He was disoriented and uncommunicative for three days. Medical documents drawn up on the same day show that the first applicant suffered from swelling in his right leg and skin abrasion on the left side of his forehead. He was unable to walk for five days and the second applicant had to borrow a wheelchair for him. The medical report also indicates that the first applicant had stumbled and sprained his ankle and had also hit his head. 34. On 14 May 2010 the second applicant complained to the police that on 13 May 2010 a boy, P.B., had pushed the first applicant against a wall and had also taken his ball. 35. On 20 May 2010 the applicants’ lawyer wrote to the Zagreb Municipality State Attorney’s Office complaining that since her last letter of October 2009, there had been further incidents of violence and harassment against the applicants. The relevant part of the letter reads: “... On 5 November 2009 two boys, one of whom was P., verbally abused the first applicant, which scared him. The second applicant informed the school counsellor about the incident but has not received a reply. On 14, 18 and 21 December 2009 a group of children threw snow at the applicants’ window and on one of those occasions covered their balcony with snow. On 15 December 2009 a group of children verbally insulted the first applicant in the street. On 22 February 2010 the second applicant was called by a social worker from the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre, J.S., who told her that the only way to resolve the situation was to bring a civil action. On 19 March 2010 the children kept throwing a ball at the applicants’ windows, about which the police were informed. On 20 March 2010, while the first applicant was riding on a bus, a group of children shouted his name, which upset him. On 10 April 2010 a boy whose first name was R. hit the first applicant on the nose with a ball, which disoriented him and caused him pain. The second applicant informed the police about it. The police conducted a two-hour interview with her and expressed their regret but informed the second applicant that nothing could be done because any kind of inquiry would show that the children had only been joking. On 13 May 2010 a group of children, including P., pushed the first applicant against an iron fence in the park. He fell and hit his head and right leg. He was disoriented and uncommunicative for three days. On 18 May 2010, when the first applicant was sitting on a swing, a group of children approached him and made obscene gestures and told him that he was stupid.” 36. On the same day the lawyer complained about the harassment of the applicants to the Ombudswoman for Children and asked for advice. 37. The applicants alleged that on 24 May 2010 a group of boys hit the first applicant’s head against an iron fence in the park and said that they enjoyed it. A medical report in respect of the first applicant drawn up on the same day indicates that he had been pushed against an iron fence and had hit his head on it. 38. On 25 May 2010 the Zagreb Municipality State Attorney’s Office informed the applicants’ lawyer that it had no jurisdiction in the matter since the complaints concerned children who were not criminally responsible. 39. On 26 May 2010 the headmaster of A.K. primary school informed the applicants’ lawyer that the school authorities had taken all measures they deemed appropriate, such as discussion with the pupils concerned and the provision of information to all parents at parent-teacher meetings about the problems the applicants had encountered with the pupils. 40. On 31 May 2010 the Ombudswoman for Children informed the applicants’ counsel that she had no jurisdiction in the matter. 41. A medical report in respect of the first applicant drawn up on 29 June 2010 indicates that he had continually been attacked by children in the neighbourhood. 42. Medical reports in respect of the first applicant drawn up on 29 June, 25 October and 24 November 2010 and 9 February 2011 indicate that the first applicant had continually been attacked by children in the neighbourhood. 43. On 1 July 2010 the police interviewed P.B., a pupil attending A.K. primary school, about the incidents of 13 and 14 May 2010, in which he denied his involvement. 44. The applicants alleged that on 13 July 2010 at 9 p.m. four boys and a girl made repeated lewd comments in a loud voice under the applicants’ window. When the second applicant asked them to be quiet they replied provocatively, using the Serbian dialect in direct allusion to the applicants’ Serbian origin, telling her: “Call the police, we are not afraid [zovi bre policiju, mi se ne bojimo]”. The second applicant reported this incident on 14 July 2010 to a social worker from the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre, Ms J.S. 45. On 19 July 2010 the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre interviewed V.K., who lived in the same block of flats as the applicants. She denied her involvement in the harassment of the applicants. She also said that children and alcoholics frequently gathered at the bench in front of the block of flats where she lived and made screaming noises, which irritated her family as well. 46. On 2 August 2010 the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre informed the police that the second applicant had complained of continued harassment and violence against the first applicant. The police were asked to take appropriate measures. 47. On 26 August 2010 the police interviewed Z.B., a pupil attending A.K. primary school, who denied any involvement in the harassment of the first applicant. 48. On 27 August 2010 the second applicant asked the Zagreb Municipality for the wooden bench beneath the applicants’ window to be removed. 49. The applicants alleged that on 31 August 2010 at around 3 p.m., when they were returning home from a shop, a boy known to them as M. rode past them on a bicycle and shouted insults at the first applicant, saying, inter alia: “Dalibor is a fag”. The first applicant felt extremely anxious and stressed. 50. The applicants alleged that on 1 September 2010 at 6.45 p.m. three boys on bicycles rode up in front of their window and threw rubbish and screamed. At 7.20 p.m. more children gathered around the wooden bench in front of the applicants’ window and repeatedly hit a nearby metal fence, thus making a lot of noise. They also threw a stone at the applicants’ window and made lewd comments in loud voices. At 10.03 p.m. the second applicant called the police. Since the police did not come, she called them again at 10.28 p.m. The police said that they would come but that they had other calls to answer as well. The police arrived at 10.32 p.m. and told the children to move a few metres away from the applicants’ window. They made no attempt to identify the children. A police report of the same day indicates that at 9.21 p.m. the second applicant had called the police and complained about noise in the park. When the police arrived at 10.35 p.m. they had not found anyone in front of the building. 51. The applicants alleged that on 3 September 2010 a group of about ten children gathered around the bench and made an unbearable amount of noise. At 10.15 p.m. the second applicant called the police, who arrived at 10.40 p.m. and ordered the children to go away, without, however, making any attempt to identify them. A police report of the same day indicates that at 10.20 p.m. the second applicant had called the police and complained about noise in the park. When the police arrived at 10.25 p.m. they had not found anyone. 52. The applicants alleged that on 5 September 2010 at about 9 p.m. they noticed, on returning from church, that an unidentified white substance had been thrown at their window in their absence. There were also some children screaming under their window. At 10 p.m. the second applicant called the police. The applicants further alleged that on 7, 8, 14, 23 and 27 September 2010, children gathered around the bench and made an unbearable amount of noise. 53. On 23 September 2010 the police interviewed I.S., a pupil attending A.K. primary school, who denied any involvement in the harassment of the first applicant. 54. The applicants alleged that on 2 October 2010 five boys gathered around the bench and made loud noises. At 7.40 p.m. seven boys threw balls at the applicants’ window and made noise until late at night. At 11.38 p.m. the second applicant called the police, who arrived at a quarter past midnight and told the boys to leave without asking them any questions or making any attempt to identify them. A police report of the same day indicates that the second applicant had called the police at 11.40 p.m. and complained about noise. When the police had arrived at a quarter past midnight they had not found anyone. 55. The applicants further alleged that on 4 October 2010 at 4 a.m. they were awakened by a car alarm outside their window. Some children were banging on the outer wall of their flat, making a very loud noise. The first applicant’s pet rabbit died that night and he attributed the rabbit’s death to the events of that night, which made him extremely upset. On 15 October 2010, while the applicants were not at home, someone spat on their living-room window until it was completely covered in saliva. On 23 October and 7, 14 and 19 November 2010 groups of children gathered around the bench, making a lot of noise. 56. On 17 November 2010 the Zagreb Municipality informed the second applicant that her request for the removal of the bench situated beneath the balcony of the applicants’ flat had been denied. 57. The applicants alleged that on 22 November 2010, while they were coming home from a shop, a group of children shouted after them: “Dalibor, Dalibor!” The first applicant was paralysed with fear and asked his mother why they would not leave him alone. The second applicant wrote to the Office of the President of Croatia and the Ombudswoman for Persons with Disabilities about the harassment of her son, seeking their assistance in connection with the removal of the bench. On 5 December 2010 at around midnight some children threw snowballs at the applicants’ window, which terrified the first applicant. 58. On 14 December 2010 the Ombudswoman for Persons with Disabilities recommended to the Zagreb Municipality that the bench be removed. The bench was removed in February 2011. The applicants alleged that on the same day, some children destroyed a metal container under their window where the gas meters were located. 59. The applicants alleged that further incidents occurred as follows. On 5 February 2011 a group of children shouted provocatively at the second applicant on the street, using the Serbian dialect (“De si bre?”). On 8 February 2011 at 6.40 p.m. some children rang the applicants’ doorbell and then ran away. On 10 February 2011 the applicants went to a hairdresser, taking a detour in order to avoid the children. However, they met a group of children who shouted “Dalibor!” in a provocative manner. On 13 February 2011 at 12.30 p.m. seven boys ran around the applicants’ flat, banged on the walls, climbed onto their balcony, peered into the flat and laughed loudly. At 9.45 p.m. a group of boys sang the song “We are Croats” beneath the applicants’ window. 60. A medical report of 9 March 2011 in respect of the first applicant indicates that owing to stress he often bit his lips and fists, and that he had a twitch in his left eye and symptoms of psoriasis. It also mentioned that he had frequently been attacked and ridiculed and that it was necessary to ensure a calm and friendly environment for him.

4. The applicants were born in 1972 and 1962 respectively and live in İzmir. 5. In the course of criminal proceedings against them, the applicants were remanded in custody between 7 March 2000 and 30 March 2000. 6. Following their acquittal, the applicants applied to the Bergama Assize Court on 13 July 2000 and sought compensation for both non‑pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained. 7. On 12 February 2001 the İzmir Assize Court, relying on the experts' report, awarded each applicant 86,801,820 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately EUR 51) for pecuniary and TRL 500,000,000 (approximately EUR 300) for non-pecuniary damage. It further awarded the applicants a certain amount for costs and expenses incurred before the criminal court. The court, however, did not rule on the applicants' request for interest running from the date of their action. 8. On 30 November 2001 the Court of Cassation rectified a calculation mistake and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. This decision was not served on the applicants but was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court on 16 January 2002. The applicants failed to provide the date on which they learned of this judgment. 9. On 8 May 2002 the applicants applied to the İzmir Provincial Finance Directorate requesting payment of their compensation. The authorities paid the amount due on 11 December 2002.

5. The applicants were born in 1984 and 1958 respectively and live in Drabeši parish, Amata municipality. 6. According to the applicants, they have been involved in various disputes with the local police in their area, that is, with officers of the Cēsis District Police Department (Cēsu rajona policijas pārvalde). As established by an internal investigation, on 14 March 2004 there was an incident involving police officer J.M. of the Cēsis District Police Department and both applicants. The police officer and the second applicant had a discussion in a car. The first applicant approached the car and the police officer fired a shot. It hit the roof of the car. Following an internal investigation into the incident, police officer J.M. was discharged from the Cēsis District Police Department for having committed a serious breach of the rules of discipline by carrying firearms while under the influence of alcohol. The police officer stood trial; there is no information concerning the outcome of those proceedings. 7. The Government disagreed with the applicants’ account but provided no further information as regards the criminal proceedings against police officer J.M. 8. On 30 June 2004, at 1 p.m., police inspector J.S. and police cadet V.D. of the Cēsis District Police Department were patrolling in the Amata parish of the Cēsis District when J.S. saw the first applicant driving a car. The officers knew that the first applicant’s driving licence had been suspended after several violations of the traffic rules. J.S. approached the first applicant and informed him that he was committing a violation of the traffic rules by driving without a valid driving licence. The first applicant did not reply. Instead, he got out of the car and went into the mechanic’s workshop Ģikši, which belonged to his father, the second applicant. Although J.S. continued to shout towards the first applicant, requesting him to stop and come back, the latter did not pay any attention. Accordingly, J.S. and V.D. decided to apprehend him in order to draw up an administrative offence report. They followed him, took hold of his hands and attempted to walk him towards the police car. However, the first applicant resisted by pulling his hands away, pushing the police officers away and falling on the ground in order to drag J.S. down with his weight. In addition, the workshop employees actively obstructed the officers’ arrest of the first applicant by dragging him away, as well as by grabbing the police officers’ uniforms. At some point, the first applicant managed to break free and ran off. 9. J.S. started to pursue him, while V.D. drove the police car in order to intercept the first applicant and call for support. The officers caught the first applicant in the courtyard of the Jaunģikši country house and, after a short struggle, the first applicant was apprehended by J.S., V.D. and a second police patrol, which had arrived as reinforcement. In addition, the officers apprehended the second applicant, who had arrived at Jaunģikši and attempted to obstruct the first applicant’s arrest. 10. Both applicants were taken to the Cēsis District Police Department, where they were placed in the short-term detention facility. 11. On the same date the first applicant was given an administrative fine for a violation of the traffic rules. 12. In addition, criminal proceedings were instituted against both applicants for assault on a representative of public authority. 13. The applicants contested the Government’s version of events, which was largely based on the testimony of the police officers during the first applicant’s trial, to which they objected. The applicants alleged that the police officers had assaulted the first applicant and detained the second applicant for no reason. The first applicant claimed that the police officers had forcibly held his arms behind his back, pushed him to the ground, tried to break his ribs with their knees, and dragged him to the ground on the premises of the workshop Ģikši, where he had first been stopped. They had also taken his mobile phone. When he had managed to break free of the police officers’ grip, he had fled. 14. V.D. had caught up with the first applicant in the courtyard of Jaunģikši. He had pushed him to the ground and dealt him numerous blows, including to his face. The second applicant and a witness, K.R., had arrived at the scene. The second applicant had seen V.D. dragging the first applicant along the ground by his hands; the first applicant’s face had been red and swollen, covered in sand and with blood round his lips. Then J.S. had arrived, pointed a gun and threatened to use it. After twenty minutes another police car arrived. The applicants and the witness K.R. had been taken into custody and placed in the short-term detention facility in Cēsis. 15. The record relating to the administrative fine had been drawn up on 30 June 2004 at about 7.30 p.m. 16. According to the first applicant, following the events of 30 June 2004 he requested on several occasions to be examined by a forensic medical expert to determine if he had any bodily injuries. An expert examination was ordered on 2 July 2004 but was not carried out until much later. The results of this examination have not been made available to the Court. 17. While the first applicant was in the Cēsis short-term detention facility an ambulance was called on several occasions at his request because he felt ill. On 1 July 2004, at 2.37 p.m., an ambulance arrived at the detention facility. The first applicant complained about bruises on his body and a headache and a note was made of the first applicant’s statement that on the previous day police officers had beaten him and he had felt sick. He was diagnosed with cephalgia (headache). He was examined by an ambulance doctor, who did not find any bruises on his body and concluded that the first applicant’s account was not consistent with his objective state of health. 18. At 4.46 p.m. on 3 July 2004 an ambulance arrived at the first applicant’s request as he felt ill and had pains in his stomach. He was diagnosed with trauma to the head, “susp.” concussion and hyperthermia. The notes again recorded him as stating that he had been placed in custody following a fight with police officers. He complained of a headache, feeling ill, lack of alertness and not being able to sleep at night. He requested a forensic medical examination. This time the ambulance doctor concluded that the first applicant’s account did correspond to his objective state of health. 19. According to a report drawn up by the first applicant’s family doctor on 30 May 2005, following the events of 30 June 2004 he had regularly visited doctors in Rīga and Cēsis to minimise the effects of concussion. He had been examined on several occasions and diagnosed with post-traumatic symptoms, including post-traumatic pulsating cephalgia, post-traumatic astheno-depressive symptoms and an unexplained increase in body weight of 20 kilograms over a nine-month period, plus post-traumatic problems in the cerebral cortex and possible post-traumatic hypertonic disease. 20. The Government disagreed but provided no further information concerning the first applicant’s state of health at the material time. 21. After the applicants’ arrest on 30 June 2004, they were held at the short-term detention facility in Cēsis, which was located in a police department. 22. According to the applicants, the conditions therein were degrading – the cell was cold and had a foul smell. There were no toilets, instead two buckets were provided. There were no mattresses and they had to sleep on a bare wooden platform; no blankets were provided and the police did not allow them to use the blankets supplied by the applicants’ mother and wife. 23. The Government did not agree with the applicants’ description of the detention conditions. 24. On 11 July 2004 the second applicant was released. 25. On 13 July 2004 the first applicant was transferred to Valmiera Prison, where he remained until his release pending trial on 11 August 2004. 26. On 13 December 2004 the Chief of the Cēsis District Police Department replied to various enquiries by the first applicant. He mentioned, among other things, that under the internal prison regulations they were not allowed to hand over blankets supplied by relatives to detainees; that there were no rules regarding smells in the cells; and that the use of buckets as toilets was temporary (since 1999) and due to financial problems. Works were in progress to rectify this. 27. It appears that the second applicant’s complaint to the Cēsis District Police Department of 2 November 2004 about, among other things, the fact that he had had to sleep on a bare wooden platform for eleven days, received no reply. 28. On 30 June 2004 an inspector of the Cēsis District Police Department, D.B., instituted a criminal inquiry against the applicants in connection with the events of 30 June 2004. She initially classified the events as “assault on a representative of public authority” under section 269, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law. At about 4.50 p.m. on the same day, the applicants were detained at the police station on the basis of section 120, paragraph 1, of the former Code of Criminal Procedure. 29. On 2 July 2004 the applicants’ detention was authorised by a judge of the Cēsis District Court and this was confirmed on appeal on 7 July 2004. 30. On 9 July 2004 inspector D.B. sent the case to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Cēsis District Court for the purpose of bringing charges against the applicants. She classified the offence as “resisting a representative of public authority” (section 270 of the Criminal Law). On the same date a prosecutor brought charges against the first applicant under section 270, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law. 31. On 11 July 2004 the prosecutor lifted the second applicant’s detention order because there was not sufficient evidence to bring charges against him. On 10 August 2004 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings against the second applicant for lack of evidence that he had committed an offence under either section 269 or section 270 of the Criminal Law. 32. On 13 July 2004 the first applicant was placed in Valmiera Prison. On 11 August 2004 he was released. On 17 August 2004 the preliminary investigation was completed and the case materials were sent to the Cēsis District Court. 33. The hearings in the first applicant’s trial before the Cēsis District Court took place between 8 and 11 November 2004 and between 14 and 20 December 2004. A verdict was pronounced on 20 December 2004 whereby the first applicant was convicted of resisting a representative of public authority using violence, as defined in section 270, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law. He was given a suspended sentence of one and a half years’ imprisonment. The court heard the testimony of the police officers, the applicants and several direct and indirect witnesses, and examined circumstantial evidence. In particular, witness K.B. testified during the trial that when the applicant had been arrested at Ģikši he had not resisted. Rather, the police officers had used force against him and pushed him to the ground in order to handcuff him. The court did not believe K.B. because in his testimony at the pre-trial stage he had testified to the contrary: that the first applicant had resisted and the police officers had not used force. The court gave more credence to the two statements K.B. had given at the pre-trial stage. Witnesses R.M. and A.S. testified that the first applicant had resisted the police officers, but had not struck them. Witnesses A.O., V.T. and I.T. testified that the applicant had not resisted as he had been on the ground, although he had tried to run away. In addition, witnesses V.T. and I.T testified that police officer V.D. had confiscated V.T.’s mobile phone when the latter had tried to call the police. Witness [X].B. testified that when running away from Ģikši the first applicant had asked him for a mobile phone to call the second applicant. None of the witnesses testified that they had heard the first applicant or the police officers swearing or threatening each other. The testimony of all the witnesses in fact related to the events at Ģikši and not to the events at the Jaunģikši country house. Further, the court gave credence to the testimony of the police officers, who claimed that the first applicant, before entering the premises of Ģikši, had made violent threats against them. There was no other evidence in support of the testimony of the police officers. The court did not give credence to the first applicant’s submissions that the police officers had used force against him at Ģikši, and thus rejected that testimony as his defence position. All in all, the court concluded as follows: “[The first applicant] actively resisted the police officers. He tried to break free of the officers’ grip, pushed the police officers, did not allow them to lead him away; while being restrained he fell to the ground, using his body weight in an attempt to escape from their grip, did not allow them to lead him away and tried to break free of their grip using one and then the other hand; he wriggled on the ground and would not follow the police officers, who were thus obliged to struggle with him in order to get him into the police vehicle, whereupon he broke free and fled”. During the trial the prosecutor dropped the charges against the first applicant in relation to his resistance at Jaunģikši. The court found that there was no evidence of it and did not give credence to the testimony of the police officers in that respect. The court also held that there was no evidence that the police officers had kicked and pushed the first applicant. It did not give credence to the testimony of the first and second applicants in that respect. The court also found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the first applicant had struck the police officers at Ģikši. He was not found responsible for inflicting minor bodily injuries on the police officers, and their civil claims in that regard were rejected. 34. On 7 July 2005, following an appeal by the first applicant, the Vidzeme Regional Court set aside the district court’s judgment and acquitted him. The court heard evidence from his mother and the family doctor. The police officers were not present. The first applicant’s mother testified that in her opinion the actions of the police officers could have been motivated by revenge since the first applicant had previously dated V.D.’s sister. The regional court concluded that the actions for which the first applicant had been convicted were to be classified as an administrative offence under section 175 of the Code of Administrative Violations. The court noted that the district court had agreed with the prosecutor’s recommendation to withdraw the charges concerning resistance by the first applicant at Jaunģikši. Similarly, the district court had dismissed the charges of active violence against the police officers at Ģikši causing them minor bodily injuries, and the applicant was not held responsible in that regard. The regional court did not agree with the district court that the police officers’ testimony had greater credence. It did not agree that the first applicant’s testimony and the supporting testimony of the witnesses ought to be dismissed as lacking credence. The court considered that the statements of the police officers and of the first applicant were to be evaluated equally critically. These persons had an equal interest in giving testimony to justify their actions, the police officers in respect of the arrest of the first applicant and his bodily injuries, and the first applicant in relation to driving a car without a valid driving licence and resisting the police officers. The court dismissed as incorrect the district court’s conclusion that the testimony of the police officers had been consistent. It highlighted various inconsistencies between the testimony they had given at different times. It also dismissed their claims that they had acted politely towards the first applicant and had complied with the rules on discipline. The court also took into account the apparent conflict between the applicants and the Cēsis District Police Department. In particular, the events of 14 March 2004 were noted. The court expressed doubts about the objectivity of the police officers of that police department towards the applicants. Concerns about their objectivity were evident from the preliminary investigation procedure as a whole. First of all, no bodily injuries had been recorded in the first applicant’s detention order even though the police officers had used force against the applicant. Second, even though the first applicant had been examined by an ambulance doctor twice and a diagnosis established, no mention of it had been contained in the forensic report. The court noted that it had been impossible for the first applicant to prove that he had sustained concussion because he was being held in custody, whereas it had been a duty incumbent on the investigating authorities to examine his physical condition and on the forensic expert to take it into account. Third, the same officer (D.B.) had taken decisions in both the first applicant’s case and that of the police officers; in such circumstances her impartiality was questionable. The court also concluded that the prosecutor dealing with the case had been keen to send the first applicant’s case for trial as soon as possible. 35. On 20 September 2005, upon appeals on points of law submitted by the prosecutor and the police officers, the Senate of the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Vidzeme Regional Court and sent the case to a regional court for fresh consideration. The Senate ruled that the appellate court had erred in its conclusion that the actions for which the first applicant had been convicted by the first-instance court were not of a criminal nature within the meaning of section 270, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law. His actions had not been passive and had thus been wrongly classified by the appellate court as an administrative offence under section 175 of the Code of Administrative Violations. The Senate concluded that the appellate court had not adequately evaluated the facts of the case and the actions of the police officers from the perspective of their lawfulness. In reply to the first applicant’s request for criminal proceedings to be instituted against the police officers and D.B., the Senate noted that it did not have competence to comply with such a request. (b) Second round of proceedings 36. On 5 December 2006 the Latgale Regional Court examined the first applicant’s appeal against the district court’s judgment anew, and upheld the ruling. A prosecutor, both police officers, the first applicant and his counsels attended the hearing. The Latgale Regional Court established that the first applicant had actively resisted the police officers and thus committed a criminal offence under section 270, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law. The court found no evidence that the police officers had struck or kicked the first applicant at Ģikši. The Latgale Regional Court did not give credence to the testimony of the first applicant’s mother before the Vidzeme Regional Court regarding a possible revenge motive, since the case materials did not support it. 37. On 19 January 2007 a senator of the Supreme Court informed the first applicant that his appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Latgale District Court had been dismissed without a review on the merits since it disputed the assessment of the evidence and such a complaint did not fall within the competence of the cassation court. 38. On 12 July 2004 inspector D.B. of the Cēsis District Police Department adopted a decision refusing to institute the criminal proceedings against police officers J.S and V.D. in response to the first applicant’s complaint. She noted: “A review of the case materials does not bear out the allegation that the police officers abused their official position in relation to [the first applicant]; they acted in compliance with the powers vested in them to prevent and stop [the first applicant’s] misdemeanours. Having fully reviewed the case materials, I consider that inspector J.S. and cadet V.D. of the Cēsis District Police Department did not abuse their official position within the meaning of section 318, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law, therefore it is refused to institute the criminal proceedings.” 39. On 5 July 2004 the first applicant’s counsel complained to the Cēsis District Prosecutor’s Office and to the Prosecutor General that the investigation by officer D.B., as supervised by prosecutor A.S., had been biased. He mentioned that they had repeatedly made requests for a forensic examination to be carried out to establish whether the first applicant had any bodily injuries, and that it had not been carried out until that date. In his complaint to the Prosecutor General, the first applicant’s counsel requested that the investigation be handed over to another investigative authority. 40. On 12 July 2004 a prosecutor of the Cēsis District Prosecutor’s Office replied that there was no evidence that the forensic examination had been delayed. She noted that such an examination had been requested on 2 July 2004. She did not consider that the investigation had not been objective. 41. On 14 July 2004 a prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Vidzeme Regional Court replied to another complaint, noting that after an examination of the case materials there was no evidence that the Cēsis District Police Department and the Cēsis District Prosecutor’s Office were not interested in carrying out an objective and detailed investigation. The request to hand over the investigation to another investigative authority was therefore refused. 42. On 10 August 2004 the Chief of the Cēsis District Police stated, in reply to a complain by the first applicant’s mother, that with regard to the events of 30 June 2004 at the mechanic’s workshop Ģikši and the Jaunģikši country house, criminal proceedings had been instituted for assault on the police officers. The actions of J.S. and V.D. had been reviewed in these proceedings and it had been concluded that they had not exceeded their official authority within the meaning of section 317 of the Criminal Law. The first applicant’s mother was informed that on 9 July 2004 the case had been sent to the prosecutor’s office and that charges had been brought against the first applicant in this connection. 43. On 31 August 2004 the Chief of the State Police wrote to the first applicant’s mother informing her that he had reviewed her complaints about the police officers of the Cēsis District Police Department and their actions on 30 June 2004. He also noted that the information provided by her was of significant importance for the criminal proceedings against the first applicant and thus she should address all her complaints to the Cēsis District Court in that regard. 44. On 13 September 2004, in reply to a complaint by the first applicant’s mother, a prosecutor of the Cēsis District Prosecutor’s Office stated that the decision to refuse to institute the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been left unchanged as she did “not see any reason to overturn that decision”. 45. According to a note by an inspector at the Cēsis District Police Department dated 21 October 2004, the first applicant had been transported from the short-term detention facility in Cēsis:  to the Cēsis District Court on 2 July 2004;  to the Vidzeme Regional Court on 9 July 2004;  to Valmiera Prison on 13 July 2004. 46. On 13 December 2004 the Chief of the Cēsis District Police Department replied to various enquiries by the first applicant. He noted that during the course of reviewing the possible criminal case materials against the police officers, inspector D.B. had questioned them. She had also added transcripts of the first applicant’s testimony during the criminal proceedings against him to the case materials, as well as the testimony of witnesses I.T. and A.S. She had not, however, held a confrontation between the police officers and the first applicant, because a confrontation between the first applicant and J.S. and the second applicant and V.D. had taken place during the preliminary investigation in the criminal case against the first applicant. The first applicant was seen by the following persons in the short-term detention facility in Cēsis:  1 July 2004 from 9.00 a.m. to 9.20 a.m. – inspector J.V. for questioning;  1 July 2004 from 12.10 to 2.40 p.m. – inspector D. B. for questioning with counsel;  2 July 2004 from 4.15 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. – inspector S.G. for the detention hearing;  3 July 2004 from 4.55 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. – ambulance doctor to check the first applicant’s state of health;  5 July 2004 from 12.40 to 12:50 – inspection by a forensic medical expert;  8 July 2004 from 3.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. – inspector D.B. for confrontation, with counsel;  9 July 2004 from 7.45 a.m. to 12.05 – to the Vidzeme Regional Court as regards the detention measure;  9 July 2004 from 1.25 p.m. to 3.15 p.m. – prosecutor A.S. for bringing charges, with counsel;  4 August 2004 from 10.30 a.m. to 12.00 – prosecutor J.R. for questioning, with counsel;  9 August 2004 from 3.45 p.m. to 4.10 p.m. – prosecutor A.S. for a conversation;  11 August 2004 from 2.00 pm to 5.25 p.m. – prosecutor A.S. for questioning, with counsel. 47. On 16 December 2004 a prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Vidzeme Regional Court, following a complaint by the first applicant, quashed the 12 July 2004 decision on the ground that the review had been deficient: a forensic report on the first applicant’s medical examination had not been included in the case-file materials; the second applicant had not been questioned about the events of 30 June 2004; and the applicable regulations regarding the criteria for the use of force had not been mentioned. 48. On 5 January 2005 a second decision refusing to institute the criminal proceedings was adopted by the Cēsis District Police Department. The first applicant did not receive a copy of that decision. No copy has been made available to the Court. 49. On 1 March 2005 a prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Vidzeme Regional Court, upon another complaint by the first applicant, informed him of the decision of 5 January 2005 and of his right to lodge a complaint against that decision, even if he had not received a copy, with the Cēsis District Prosecutor’s Office. Mention was also made of the judgment of 20 December 2004, whereby the first applicant was “found guilty under section 270, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law and therefore [his] suggestions about the fabrication of that criminal case by the Cēsis District Police Department and [his] complaint that officer D.B. of the Cēsis District Police Department had reviewed the case materials [were] groundless”. 50. On 1 March 2005 a prosecutor of the Cēsis District Prosecutor’s Office, upon a complaint by the first applicant, informed him that he did not see any grounds to overturn the decision of 5 January 2005 because the first applicant mentioned no new facts and because there was no evidence that the police officers had struck the applicant with their fists or legs as stated in the judgment of 20 December 2004. The prosecutor’s letter contained a reference to the fact that the applicant had been informed about the decision of 5 January 2005. 51. On 20 June 2005 a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General, upon a complaint by the first applicant’s mother, reviewed the case materials and upheld the decision of 5 January 2005. 52. On 15 September 2005 the Chief of the Cēsis District Police Department, upon a request by the first applicant, replied that the material under no. 834/04, which included the decision of 5 January 2005, had been sent to the Vidzeme Regional Court. 53. On 21 October 2004 the first applicant applied to the Cēsis District Court with a view to instituting criminal proceedings against J.S and V.D. In his application he gave his version of the events that had taken place at the mechanic’s workshop Ģikši and the Jaunģikši country house, and asked that the relevant material be sent to an impartial authority for a preliminary investigation. On 5 November 2004 the court forwarded the material to the Cēsis District Prosecutor’s Office. 54. During his trial before the Cēsis District Court, the first applicant testified, in particular, that the events at Jaunģikši had been as follows. “V.D. jumped out of his car, ran towards me, twisted my arms behind my back, pushed me to the ground, held me on the ground with his knees, twisted my arms and dealt several blows to my sides and my head. I did not see, but I think that the blows were made with his legs. While I was lying on the ground my father and K.R. drove up”. 55. In the 20 December 2004 judgment the Cēsis District Court did not examine this episode because the prosecutor had withdrawn the charges against the first applicant in relation to his resistance at Jaunģikši. The district court accepted the withdrawal, noting: “the victims’ testimony that at Jaunģikši Z. Timofejevs continued to resist has not been confirmed; nor has the testimony of both [the applicants] that the police officers punched and kicked Z. Timofejevs”. 56. During his trial before the Vidzeme Regional Court on 7 July 2005, the first applicant testified in connection with the events at Jaunģikši as follows: “...the police officers caught up with me, they started delivering blows to my body, kicked me in the head, and twisted my arms. Then my father and K.R. arrived”. In the hearings the first applicant’s counsel requested that a decision be made with a view to instituting criminal proceedings against J.S. and V.D. 57. In the judgement of 7 July 2005, the Vidzeme Regional Court noted that the prosecution had withdrawn the charges against the first applicant in respect of his resistance at Jaunģikši. The regional court also noted as follows: “... taking into account the witness statements before the first-instance court, the expert report and information provided by the ambulance medics, on 30 June 2004 bodily injuries were inflicted on Z. Timofejevs during his arrest; however, the issue of the lawfulness of the police officers’ actions does not relate to the charges brought against Z. Timofejevs since the appellate court under section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to comply with its limitations on adjudication. The issue of the criminal liability of J.S. and V.D. has already been decided, as evidenced by the added material under no. 834/04. The court notes that on the ground of the illnesses discovered, Z. Timofejevs and his counsel may apply to the prosecutor’s office requesting that the decisions included in the material under 834/04 be reconsidered, and asking for the appropriate forensic examination”. 58. On 19 September 2005, in his comments on the appeals of J.S. and V.D. on points of law, the first applicant once more asked the Senate of the Supreme Court to send the material to institute a criminal investigation into the actions of J.S., V.D. and D.B., referring to various criminal offences, and that the preliminary investigation be carried out by the Internal Security Department of the State Police, since the officials of the Cēsis District Police Department were not impartial. The first applicant mentioned, among other things, that in the courtyard of Jaunģikši, near the corner of a farm building (saimniecības ēka), V.D. had delivered blows to his body with his legs while he was on the ground. 59. In the decision of 20 September 2005 the Senate of the Supreme Court noted that it was not competent to decide on the alleged criminal responsibility of police officers J.S. and V.D. in respect of the first applicant’s bodily injuries during his arrest.

5. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Velenje.¸ 6. On 26 June 1995 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. 7. On 11 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,833,150 tolars (approximately 15,980 euros) for the injuries sustained. Between 27 December 1999 and 29 January 2002 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions. Between 30 September 1998 and 11 January 2001 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing. Of the four hearings held between 3 April 2001 and 12 March 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. However, a hearing scheduled for 22 June 2000 was called off on the applicant’s request since he had received the employer’s reply to his claim only one day before this date. During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical 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 29 April 2002. 8. On 13 May 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed. On 21 April 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded. The judgment was served on the applicant on 24 May 2005. 9. On 16 June 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). The proceedings are still pending.

6. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šiauliai. 7. In accordance with an agreement on the division of their mutual property with her former husband, approved by a court decision on 27 September 1995, the applicant was entitled to a number of shares in two companies owned by the husband. 8. On 17 May 1996 the applicant brought a civil action, requesting that the value of the shares in one of the companies be awarded to her. 9. On 6 September 1996, during the hearing of the applicant’s case, the Šiauliai City District Court discovered some evidence of crime, allegedly committed by the director and the chief accountant of those companies. In particular, they were suspected of embezzlement and fraud (Articles 274 § 2 and 275 § 1 of the Criminal Code as then in force). The court considered that, in these circumstances: “it was not possible to assess the value of [the applicant’s] claims; therefore, her civil action should be referred for an examination in the framework of the criminal proceedings.” 10. On 10 October 1996 the applicant was afforded the status of a victim in those proceedings. 11. On 18 November 1996 she was granted the status of a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings. She was further granted the status of a civil claimant on 18 November 1996. 12. On 20 January 1997 several other criminal procedures against the director were joined in one set of proceedings. 13. On 25 June 1997 an expert examination was ordered. It was completed on 17 October 1997. 14. On an unspecified date the applicant requested the institution of further criminal proceedings against the director and other employees of the companies, alleging that they had falsified certificates as to the number and value of the shares which had belonged to her former husband. On 5 December 1997 the prosecutors dismissed her request. 15. On 13 January 1998 the bill of indictment against the director of the companies and three other co-accused was approved. The original charges of embezzlement and fraud were supplemented with accusations of forgery and negligent accountancy (respectively, Articles 207 § 1 and 322 of the Criminal Code as then in force). 16. On 17 February 1998 the accused were committed for trial. 17. Hearings scheduled for 7 April and 18 May 1998 were adjourned at the request of the defendants. 18. On 18 June 1998 the court ordered a further expert examination. It was completed on 29 December 1999. 19. On 27 March and 12 June 2000 the trial was adjourned due to the illness of the defendants. 20. Hearings scheduled for 6 and 7 September, 25 October, 27 November and 14 December 2000 and 23 January 2001 were partially adjourned because certain witnesses failed to appear before the court. The court questioned those witnesses present and ordered the police to bring the remaining witnesses to the next hearing. 21. On 21 February 2001 the hearing was adjourned due to the illness of the judge. 22. On 27 May 2001 the hearing was again adjourned due to the failure of certain witnesses to appear. 23. On 30 May 2001 the hearing was further adjourned since one of the defendants had failed to appear due to illness. 24. On 27 June 2001 another expert examination was ordered at the request of the prosecution. 25. In a letter to the prosecution of 4 October 2001, the Šiauliai City District Court noted that the proceedings had lasted an unduly long time due to deficiencies in the pre-trial investigation. 26. On 29 January 2002 the Šiauliai City District Court decided to exclude the applicant from the list of civil claimants. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decision, the courts ruling that domestic law did not provide her with a right of appeal. 27. On 18 February 2002 the Šiauliai City District Court convicted the defendants. 28. In a letter of 28 May 2002, the Supreme Court informed the applicant that she could appeal against the judgment of 18 February 2002. 29. On 1 July 2002 the applicant requested renewal of the time-limit to lodge an appeal against her exclusion from the list of civil claimants. 30. On 11 June 2002 the Šiauliai City District Court granted her request. It was noted that the courts had erred in deciding that the domestic law had precluded the applicant from appealing. 31. On 19 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal whereby she challenged the decision of 29 January 2002 and the judgment of 18 February 2002. 32. On 5 July 2002 the Šiauliai City District Court refused to admit the applicant’s appeal. The court noted that the applicant was not a participant in the trial, and therefore was not entitled to appeal against the judgment 18 February 2002. Moreover, the court found that the applicant had failed to comply with the time-limit for appeal without good reason. 33. On the same date the applicant challenged that decision. 34. On 25 July 2002 the Šiauliai Regional Court granted her appeal. The court renewed the time-limit for appeal against the judgment of 18 February 2002. It was noted, inter alia, that the courts had unduly restricted the applicant’s rights by refusing to accept her appeal. 35. On 2 August 2002 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the decision of 29 January 2002 whereby the applicant had been deprived of the status of civil claimant. It was noted that the impugned decision had breached the applicant’s rights. The judgment of 18 February 2002 was also quashed, and the case was remitted for a fresh examination. 36. A hearing scheduled for 8 October 2002 was adjourned as one of the defendants, certain witnesses and defence counsel had failed to appear. 37. On 11 November 2002 the trial hearing was further adjourned due to the failure to summon one of the defendants. 38. Following the applicant’s hierarchical complaint about the actions of the Šiauliai City District Court, an inquiry was conducted by the Šiauliai Regional Court. In a letter of 27 November 2002, the latter informed the applicant that the Šiauliai City District Court had not undertaken all the necessary measures to ensure a speedy trial. 39. On 3 January 2003 the Šiauliai City District Court convicted the defendants of forgery and negligent bookkeeping, and acquitted them of the original charges of embezzlement and fraud. 40. By the same judgment, the trial court decided to leave the applicant’s civil claims “without examination”. The court noted that the defendants had neither been accused of nor tried for offences which could have caused damage to the applicant’s interests as a shareholder. It further reasoned that, as a shareholder, the applicant had no entitlement to any part of the property of a joint-stock company. Only if the company had been liquidated could she claim a part of its property, together with other shareholders. It noted that the applicant had a possibility to pursue her claims by way of a separate civil action. The court concluded that “the applicant should not be deemed a victim or civil claimant in this case”. 41. The applicant appealed, complaining that she had incurred significant pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, particularly as the examination of the case had taken almost seven years. She reiterated that the criminal case had been instituted on the basis of her civil action, and that she had been granted the status of victim and civil claimant. 42. On 12 March 2003 the Šiauliai Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It noted: “The victim, Baškienė, took part in the examination of the case throughout the proceedings; she was entitled [inter alia] to submit a civil claim and the evidence in order to substantiate it. However ... the submission of a civil claim does not presuppose the obligation on the part of the court to satisfy it. ... The first-instance court has reasonably established that the victim’s right to part of the company’s property would only arise in accordance with company law, and has correctly noted that [the applicant] could defend her property rights in accordance with the civil procedure. ... When adopting the ... judgment, the court must also decide on the civil claim. Civil claims can only be granted if [the defendants are convicted], and it is established that the civil claimant had suffered pecuniary damage due to the criminal acts in question; finally, there must be a causal link between the criminal actions and the damage incurred. ... The defendants were not tried for any offence which could have caused damage to [the applicant]. ... As to [the applicant’s] property rights, they are not the object of this criminal case. It is the object of civil law and has only to be decided in accordance with the civil proceedings.” 43. The court further noted that the examination of the case had been unjustifiably long, in breach of Article 18 of the Criminal Code, the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights. The court concluded however that, despite the acknowledgement of the breach, “it was not possible to remedy this flaw at the current stage of the proceedings”. On the same date, the judgment of 3 January 2003 entered into force. 44. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, complaining, inter alia, that the courts had failed to bring additional charges of forgery against the defendants, which would have allowed their conviction and the satisfaction of her civil claims. She also alleged that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. 45. On 7 October 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. The Supreme Court established that the prosecution had rightly refused to bring additional charges against the defendants, as they had found no evidence of the crimes alleged by the applicant. 46. With respect to the applicant’s civil claims, the Supreme Court noted that her entitlement to a certain number of shares had not been questioned. It also found that, in the share certificates issued by the defendants, the number and value of shares belonging to the applicant had been wrongly calculated and did not correspond to the data appearing in the company’s statute. The Supreme Court concluded, however, that this error did not restrict the applicant’s rights as a shareholder; nor did it cause her any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. The Supreme Court further concluded that, in such circumstances, there had been no basis to grant the applicant the status of a civil claimant. 47. Finally, the Supreme Court endorsed the findings of the appellate court as to the length of the proceedings. It emphasised, however, that it was not reasonable to consider that the excessive length was an “essential violation” of the Code of Criminal Procedure since, in such a case, the decisions of the lower courts would have to be quashed, and this would have only further prolonged the examination of the case. 48. The applicant did not bring a new civil action.

4. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in İstanbul. 5. On 8 September 1999 at 5.15 a.m. the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). According to the arrest protocol, the police officers had to use force to apprehend the applicant since he resisted the arrest. The applicant refrained from signing this document. The applicant alleged that, contrary to what was indicated in the arrest protocol, he had been arrested on 5 September 1999. 6. Following his arrest, the applicant was blindfolded, put in a car and threats were uttered against him. After being driven around for some time, still blindfolded, he was taken to the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. There, the applicant was allegedly punched, kicked, beaten on the head and the back with a truncheon and threatened with death. He also alleged that his testicles were squeezed. 7. On 8 September 1999 at 7.10 a.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor in the Haseki State Hospital who noted an ecchymosis of 9 x 3 cm on the left of the lower part of his abdominal region. The doctor concluded that there were marks of physical violence on the applicant's body and considered that he should be examined by an urologist. On the same day at 7.25 a.m. the applicant was examined by an urologist who found, by using the technique of palpation, that the applicant's testicles were painful and sensitive. 8. On 9 September 1999 the applicant was again examined by a general practitioner in the Haseki State Hospital who considered that the applicant should be taken to an internist. According to the report drawn up by the doctor, the applicant was brought to him as he was on a hunger strike in police custody. The applicant was then taken back to the Security Directorate. 9. On 11 September 1999 the applicant was again examined by a general practitioner in the Haseki State Hospital who noted that the applicant was brought before him because of hunger strike. The doctor considered that the applicant should be examined by an internist. On the same day, the applicant underwent a blood test. 10. On 12 September 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor in the Haseki State Hospital who noted that there was no sign of physical violence on his body. 11. On the same day, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. In his statement, he maintained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that, therefore, he had started a hunger strike. Subsequently, on the same day, the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. Before the judge, the applicant maintained that he had been kept in police custody for about one week and that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during custody. He further denied the accusations against him. The judge ordered the applicant's release as there was no strong evidence demonstrating that he had committed the offences of which he was accused. 12. On 14 September 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the Büyükçekmece public prosecutor's office against the police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Security Directorate, who had allegedly ill-treated him. In his petition, the applicant maintained that he had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty between 5 and 8 September 1999 and that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. He further contended that on the fourth or fifth day of his detention in police custody he had fainted due to ill-treatment and that he awoke in the Haseki State Hospital. He finally maintained that on 12 September 1999 the doctor had drawn up the medical report without examining him. 13. Upon receipt of the applicant's petition, on the same day the Büyükçekmece public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant who reiterated his complaints and requested that the police officers who had ill‑treated him be punished. The public prosecutor then requested the doctor at the Büyükçekmece Health Centre to examine the applicant and submit a medical report. 14. Still on the same day, the applicant was examined by a medical expert from the Büyükçekmece Health Centre, who observed two scarred incisions of 0.5 cm each on his nose and on his left heel, a scarred incision of 2-3 cm on his left elbow and an ecchymosis of 2 cm on his abdominal region. 15. On 15 September 1999 the applicant was examined by two medical experts from the Human Rights Foundation who noted the following marks and considered that the applicant's account of events was consistent with the marks observed on his body: “...a scabbed wound of 2 x 1 cm on the left elbow, a scabbed wound of 0.5 x 1 cm on the right side of the lower lip, an old wound of 0.5 cm in diameter on the forehead, a scabbed wound on the left heel, a dark brown ecchymosis of 3 x 1 cm on the left lower part of the sternum, haemorrhage on the upper part of the external part of the outer ear....” 16. On 20 September 1999 the Büyükçekmece public prosecutor issued a decision of lack of territorial jurisdiction and sent the investigation file to the Fatih public prosecutor's office. 17. On 23 and 26 November 1999 respectively the Fatih public prosecutor took statements from two police officers who were on duty at the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate at the time of the applicant's detention in police custody. The first officer R.D. contended that he had signed the document containing the applicant's statements but had not participated in the questioning. He denied the allegations against him. He further maintained that there had been no need to torture the applicant as the security forces had already found several organisational documents of the PKK in his house. The second officer, İ.K., denied the accusation and claimed that members of illegal organisations generally made this kind of false accusation. He further contended that the minor marks mentioned in the medical report of 14 September 1999 did not result from torture. He alleged that they might have been the marks resulting from handcuffing. 18. On 19 February 2001 the Fatih public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant, who reiterated his allegations and emphasised that he had been arrested on 5 September 1999, although the date on the arrest protocol was 8 September 1999. 19. On 20 February 2001 the Fatih public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of the police officers. He found that there was no evidence other than the applicant's allegations on which to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers. 20. On 15 May 2001 the applicant filed an objection against the decision of 20 February 2001. 21. On 29 August 2001 the Beyoğlu Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objection. This decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 9 October 2001.

4. The applicant was born in 1965 and resides in Bulgaria. 5. The applicant was a defendant in several criminal proceedings for different offences and was convicted a number of times. 6. On an unspecified date in 1992 criminal proceedings for murder committed in Bulgaria were opened against the applicant and another person. 7. On an unspecified date the applicant moved to the Czech Republic. In September 1993 he was charged with, inter alia, robbery and unlawful possession of firearms committed in the Czech Republic and was detained in a prison in Prague. On 7 April 1995 he was released and on 31 May 1995 the criminal proceedings against him for robbery and unlawful possession of firearms in the Czech Republic were discontinued as the Bulgarian authorities undertook to prosecute him for these offences in Bulgaria instead. 8. In a decision of 7 March 1996, taken in camera, the Prague City Court allowed the applicant’s extradition to Bulgaria, noting that there he would also be prosecuted for the robbery and the unlawful possession of firearms committed in the Czech Republic. 9. On 8 July 1996 the applicant was extradited from the Czech Republic on account of criminal proceedings opened against him in Bulgaria for a number of offences, including murder. 10. The Court has not been provided with information about the course of the proceedings for murder between 1992 and 2005. 11. On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant’s case was brought to the Plovdiv Regional Court. 12. By a judgment of 26 May 2006 the Plovdiv Regional Court acquitted the applicant. 13. The judgment was upheld on 27 June 2007 by the Sofia Court of Appeal. From the materials at the Court’s possession it appears that in so far as the judgment concerned the applicant’s acquittal, it was not appealed against and entered into force. 14. In March 1999, pursuant to a commitment undertaken before the Czech authorities in 1995 (see paragraph 7 above), the Bulgarian authorities opened criminal proceedings against the applicant for the robbery and unlawful possession of a gun, offences committed in the Czech Republic. 15. On 25 October 2001 the applicant was charged with the above offences. 16. On 12 July 2002 the proceedings were stayed as the victims of the robbery could not be found for questioning. On 22 July 2003 they were resumed upon the applicant’s request. 17. In August 2003 the Bulgarian authorities requested form the Czech and the Spanish authorities to carry out certain investigative actions and to provide information and documents in connection to the above offences. 18. On 11 September 2003 the proceedings were divided into two separate cases. 19. The case for unlawful possession of firearms ended on 1 April 2004 by a judgment of the Plovdiv District Court that became final on 19 April 2004. The court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year imprisonment, which was close to the minimum sentence for this offence. In determining the sentence it took into account, among other mitigating circumstances, the fact that the offence had been committed more than ten years ago. 20. Meanwhile, on 2 October 2003 the charges for robbery against the applicant were dropped. On 18 July 2005 the applicant was informed that he was not subject to charges under these proceedings. However the proceedings continued. 21. On 7 July 2006 the prosecution authorities discontinued the proceedings against the applicant for lack of sufficient evidence that he had committed the robbery. The proceedings continued against an unknown perpetrator.

4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, the Kherson region. 5. The State owns 75% of the shares in the Pivdenelektromash Company (hereafter “the Company), which is therefore subject to the moratorium on the forced sale of property of State-owned entities, barring the attachment and sale of its assets. 6. On 5 June 2000 the Kherson Regional Court of Arbitration (hereafter “the Arbitration Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring debt recovery. This decision led, inter alia, to the suspension of the enforcement of all court judgments given against the Company. 7. Following the adoption of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Arbitration of 10 August 2000, which directed that the bankruptcy proceedings should not impede the execution of judgments awarding salary arrears, the Novokahovsky City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) restarted enforcement proceedings against the Company in such cases. 8. On 15 January 2001 the Arbitration Court approved a rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to rehabilitate the Company’s business. On 17 January 2002 the court found that enforcement proceedings of any kind contradicted the June 2000 injunction, particularly in view of the pending rehabilitation programme, the success of which could be jeopardised if the Bailiffs’ actions continued (cf. Trykhlib v. Ukraine, no. 58312/00, 20 September 2005, §§ 7-14). 9. The applicant is a former employee of the Company. In September 2002 he brought proceeding against it, claiming salary arrears. On 26 September 2002 the Nova Kakhovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) granted this claim and awarded the applicant UAH 2,517.58[1]. The judgment became final and was sent to the Bailiffs’ Service for compulsory enforcement. 10. In a letter of 13 March 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the award could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds. 11. On 9 December 2003 the Minister for Justice issued a circular letter, informing the Bailiffs that the injunction against debt collection in bankruptcy cases did not extend to warrants for the execution of judgments awarding salary arrears. 12. On 15 January 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant’s case. On 23 January 2004 it ordered the attachment of the Company’s accounts. However, on 27 February 2004 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court, on the trustee’s appeal, quashed these decisions because the Bankruptcy Act envisaged the obligatory suspension of enforcement proceedings pending the resolution of a bankruptcy case. The exemption of the payment of salary arrears from the general injunction against debt recovery concerned only the Company’s current salary expenditures (see Trykhlib v. Ukraine, cited above, § 20). 13. The judgment of the City Court of 26 September 2002 remains unenforced.