Datasets:

chrxiao

/

legal_ambiguity_identification

like 1

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

7. The applicant was born in 1980. He arrived in Russia in 2003. He travelled to Tajikistan on a number of occasions to visit his parents for short periods of time. 8. On 3 May 2011 the applicant was charged in absentia in Tajikistan with participating in an extremist religious movement, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and an international search and arrest warrant was issued in his name. On 6 May 2011 the Tajik authorities ordered his pre-trial detention. 9. On 3 November 2013 the applicant was arrested in Moscow and detained. On 4 November 2013 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow ("the District Court") ordered his detention pending extradition. 10. On 4 December 2013 the Tajik prosecution authorities requested the applicant's extradition on the basis of the above charges. The request included assurances regarding his proper treatment, which were formulated in standard terms. 11. On 12 December 2013 the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 3 May 2014. 12. An appeal by the applicant of 16 December 2013 was dismissed by the Moscow City Court ("the City Court") on 3 February 2014. 13. On 29 April 2014 the District Court again extended the applicant's detention until 3 August 2014. 14. An appeal by the applicant of 5 May 2014 was dismissed by the City Court on 23 July 2014. 15. On 9 October 2014 the applicant's extradition was refused by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, owing to the absence of culpable actions under Russian criminal law. 16. On 13 October 2014 the applicant was released from detention. 17. On 13 October 2014, immediately after his release, the applicant was rearrested for violating migration regulations. 18. On 14 October 2014 the District Court found the applicant guilty of violating migration regulations, fined him and ordered his administrative removal. Allegations by the applicant regarding a real risk of ill-treatment were dismissed, and he was detained pending expulsion. The District Court assessing the risks stated that "[t]he claims of the representative ... are of a speculative nature and not confirmed by the case materials" 19. The above judgment was upheld on appeal by the City Court on 24 October 2014. Claims by the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention were dismissed with reference to the District Court's assessment of the case, which took into consideration "...the nature of the administrative offence, the character of the accused [who was criminally convicted in Russia]... the length of his stay in Russia and other circumstances of the case". 20. According to the latest submissions of his representative in 2015, the applicant was still in detention. 21. On 18 December 2013 the applicant lodged a request for refugee status, referring to persecution in Tajikistan and a real risk of ill-treatment. 22. On 15 September 2014 his request was refused by a final administrative decision of the migration authorities. The applicant challenged that decision in the courts, referring, inter alia, to the risk of ill‑treatment. 23. On 12 November 2015 his appeals were dismissed by a final decision of the City Court.

Ruled as violated by court

9. On 3 November 2013 the applicant was arrested in Moscow and detained. On 4 November 2013 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow ("the District Court") ordered his detention pending extradition. 11. On 12 December 2013 the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 3 May 2014. 13. On 29 April 2014 the District Court again extended the applicant's detention until 3 August 2014. 17. On 13 October 2014, immediately after his release, the applicant was rearrested for violating migration regulations. 18. On 14 October 2014 the District Court found the applicant guilty of violating migration regulations, fined him and ordered his administrative removal. Allegations by the applicant regarding a real risk of ill-treatment were dismissed, and he was detained pending expulsion. The District Court assessing the risks stated that "[t]he claims of the representative ... are of a speculative nature and not confirmed by the case materials" 19. The above judgment was upheld on appeal by the City Court on 24 October 2014. Claims by the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention were dismissed with reference to the District Court's assessment of the case, which took into consideration "...the nature of the administrative offence, the character of the accused [who was criminally convicted in Russia]... the length of his stay in Russia and other circumstances of the case". 20. According to the latest submissions of his representative in 2015, the applicant was still in detention.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

6. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Makhachkala, Republic of Dagestan. 7. In 1990 the applicant started living with Ms T.K. 8. In 1991 and 1992 they had two daughters, Kr. (born on 1 July 1991) and K. (born on 13 July 1992). The applicant did not register his paternity. 9. In 2002 the applicant and T.K. separated. Both girls continued living with the applicant. 10. In 2004 T.K. married Yu.K. 11. In May 2004 Yu.K. registered his paternity in respect of Kr. and K. However, the girls still remained living with the applicant. 12. In July 2007 K. stopped attending school, frequently ran away from home and exhibited delinquent behaviour. She allegedly stole her mother's jewellery. 13. In December 2007, following an application by T.K., K. was placed in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. 14. On 18 February 2008 the Kirovskiy District Court of Makhachkala ("the District Court"), sitting in a single-judge formation composed of Judge I., granted an application lodged by the administration of the Kirovskiy District of Makhachkala to place K. in a closed educational institution for minors for two years and five months. In taking this decision the District Court relied on the following circumstances: K.'s not attending school, running away from home, vagabonding and leading an anti-social and immoral lifestyle, as well as unsuccessful attempts to discipline K. and her being detained in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders. 15. On an unspecified date shortly afterwards K. was placed in a closed educational institution for minors in the town of Pokrov, Vladimir Region, some 2,500 km from her home town of Makhachkala. According to the applicant, his daughter's correspondence with him was subjected to censorship by the facility's administration. 16. In the meantime, the applicant brought proceedings seeking the establishment of his paternity vis-à-vis Kr. and K. 17. On 9 April 2008 the District Court established the applicant's paternity in respect of Kr. and K. and annuled the registration of Yu.K. as the girls' father. 18. At the applicant's request, the Prosecutor of the Republic of Dagestan applied to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan for a supervisory review of the decision of 18 February 2008. 19. The present application was already pending before the European Court of Human Rights when, on 7 August 2008, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the decision of 18 February 2008 as unlawful and unjustified, and discontinued the proceedings. The court held, in particular, that in violation of the procedure established by the Federal Law on Basic Measures for Preventing Child Neglect and Delinquency of Minors, no. 120-FZ of 24 June 1999 ("the Minors Act"), the District Court had decided to place K. in a closed educational institution for minors in the absence of a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings or a decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the latter, and without her having undergone a prior medical examination. 20. On 30 September 2008 K. was released from the closed educational institution for minors and returned home.

Ruled as violated by court

18. At the applicant's request, the Prosecutor of the Republic of Dagestan applied to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan for a supervisory review of the decision of 18 February 2008.

It is arguable whether or not this detention of a minor counts as by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant was born in 1986 in the Georgian SSR of the USSR. In 1996, when he was ten years old, his parents divorced and he moved with his mother to Kaluga in Russia. In 2003, the applicant graduated from high school in Kaluga and began studies at the Finance and Economics Institute. 6. On 4 May and 17 October 2005 the applicant was convicted of various offences and given a custodial sentence. Upon his release on 29 February 2008, he returned to Kaluga. 7. On 12 January 2012 the police stopped the applicant in the courtyard of his house and charged him with illegal residence in Russia. 8. On the following day the Kaluzhskiy District Court in the Kaluga Region found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence under Article 18.8 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (failure to leave Russia upon the expiry of the authorised period of stay and illegal residence) and sentenced him to a fine of 2,500 Russian roubles (62 euros) and administrative removal from the Russian Federation. Pending removal, the District Court held that the applicant should be held in the detention centre. On 24 January 2012 the Kaluga Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision on appeal. 9. The applicant asked the District Court to postpone the enforcement of the removal order, emphasising that it was currently unenforceable because he had no identity documents and because he was not a Georgian national and could not be sent to Georgia. On 12 April 2012 the District Court refused the applicant's request in a summary fashion. 10. The applicant was held in the administrative detention centre operated by the Kaluga regional police. He shared Cell 13 measuring 8.7 square metres with five Uzbek nationals awaiting deportation. The cell had only one window, 90 centimetres by 120 centimetres, protected with three layers of thick netting and fitted with a matte glass. Two light bulbs, 40 Watts each, lit the cell. The cell was not ventilated. 11. The toilet bowl sunk into the floor was located 40 centimetres from the nearest bed. It was cleaned with cold water without detergent. Prisoners were given three litres of water per day, it was not allowed to boil it. Once a week prisoners were taken to the shower room. There was not enough hot water for all of them and they took turns skipping the shower. 12. There was no calendar or clock in the cell. Nor was there a radio, television, books or newspapers. Board games were forbidden. The applicant did not speak the Uzbek language and could not communicate with his cellmates. 13. Prisoners were taken outdoors in groups of thirty. The yard was small, six by four metres, so they huddled together. It had no sports equipment or awning for bad weather. 14. The applicant's complaints to a prosecutor were rejected as unfounded. In January and March 2012 two members of the Kaluga public monitoring commission visited the facility. Their report corroborated the applicant's description of his conditions of detention. 15. In May 2012 the applicant developed pulmonary tuberculosis. He was transferred for treatment to a civilian hospital in Kaluga. Upon his discharge, he took advantage of the absence of police escort and absconded. A search operation was launched; the applicant was located on 30 January 2013 and returned to the detention centre. 16. On 31 January 2013 the applicant was placed on board of a Tbilisi-bound flight and left Russia.

Ruled as violated by court

10. The applicant was held in the administrative detention centre operated by the Kaluga regional police. He shared Cell 13 measuring 8.7 square metres with five Uzbek nationals awaiting deportation. The cell had only one window, 90 centimetres by 120 centimetres, protected with three layers of thick netting and fitted with a matte glass. Two light bulbs, 40 Watts each, lit the cell. The cell was not ventilated.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant was born in Baku, Azerbaijan, in 1992 and came to Russia in 2003, together with his mother and grandmother. He graduated from a secondary school and a vocational training college in St Petersburg. He has no identity documents. 6. On 7 February 2014 the Kirovskiy District Court in St Petersburg found the applicant guilty of illegally residing in Russia, which was an offence Article 18.8 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, imposed a fine on him and ordered his administrative removal from Russia. The judgment described him as a "native" (уроженец) and a national of Azerbaijan. Pending his removal, the applicant was to be detained in the special facility for the detention of aliens (СУВСИГ УФМС по СПб и ЛО) located in Krasnoye Selo in the Leningrad Region. 7. On 12 February 2014 the Federal Migration Service requested the Consulate General of Azerbaijan in St Petersburg to submit information about the applicant's nationality. Replying to that inquiry, on 14 April 2014 the Consulate confirmed that the applicant was not a national of that State. 8. On 19 May 2014 a bailiff asked the District Court in St Petersburg to discontinue the enforcement proceedings because the applicant could not be issued with travel documents or removed from Russia. 9. By a judgment of 17 July 2014, as upheld on appeal on 30 October 2014, the St Petersburg courts refused to discontinue the proceedings, finding that the bailiff had not shown that she had taken sufficient measures to secure the applicant's removal. 10. On 7 August 2014 counsel for the applicant asked the St Petersburg City Court to review the Kirovskiy District Court's judgment by way of supervisory review, to annul the sanction of administrative removal and to release the applicant. Counsel pleaded in particular that the applicant's removal was not a realistic prospect and that his continued detention could only be justified if deportation proceedings were genuinely in progress. On 25 November 2014 a deputy president of the City Court acceded to her request. Noting that the applicant was not an Azerbaijani national, the judge found that his removal was not feasible and that his detention was likely to become indefinite. He amended the judgment, replacing the removal with the requirement to leave Russia voluntarily under control. 11. On 27 November 2014 the applicant was released. 12. The applicant described his conditions of detention as follows. From 7 to 20 February 2014 he shared Cell 307 measuring 17 square metres with ten other detainees. It was not furnished, inmates unrolled mattresses for the night. From 20 February to 5 May 2014 he was held in a smaller, seven‑square-metre cell (Cell 310), together with five or six persons. Two-tier bunk beds were brought in only in late April 2014. From 5 May to 27 November 2014 he was in Cell 309 measuring seventeen square metres. Initially it had accommodated twelve persons but their number rose to seventeen in November when they started renovating the cells on the seventh and eighth floors of the facility. Detainees had to remain within the floor on which their cell was located; they could not go outside or to other floors. Outdoor exercise was limited to a fifteen-minute walk once a week because there was not enough staff to supervise the detainees. The facility did not have a library, board games, radio or workshop, or offer any other meaningful activities.

Ruled as violated by court

6. On 7 February 2014 the Kirovskiy District Court in St Petersburg found the applicant guilty of illegally residing in Russia, which was an offence Article 18.8 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, imposed a fine on him and ordered his administrative removal from Russia. The judgment described him as a "native" (уроженец) and a national of Azerbaijan. Pending his removal, the applicant was to be detained in the special facility for the detention of aliens (СУВСИГ УФМС по СПб и ЛО) located in Krasnoye Selo in the Leningrad Region. 7. On 12 February 2014 the Federal Migration Service requested the Consulate General of Azerbaijan in St Petersburg to submit information about the applicant's nationality. Replying to that inquiry, on 14 April 2014 the Consulate confirmed that the applicant was not a national of that State.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Baku. 5. He was the chairman of the Azerbaijani National Statehood Party. 6. In December 2010 the applicant sold his car to a certain E.R., who encountered a number of technical problems with it. 7. On 7 January 2011 E.R. contacted the applicant and they agreed to meet on the same day. During the meeting E.R. expressed his dissatisfaction with the car and requested that the applicant return his money and take the car back. The applicant got angry, started to insult E.R. and then assaulted him together with a certain C. 8. A passer-by intervened and stopped the altercation. E.R. reported the incident to the police on the same day. 9. On 8 January 2011 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant by the Nasimi District Police Office under Article 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. The investigator's decision stated that at around 8.30 p.m. on 7 January 2011 the applicant and a certain C. had insulted and assaulted E.R. on the street in Baku. 10. On 8 January 2011 the police compiled a record of the applicant's arrest as a suspect. 11. On 10 January 2011 the applicant was charged under Articles 127.2.3 (deliberate infliction of less serious injury to health) and 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. 12. On the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the charges brought against the applicant and an application from the prosecutor to apply the preventive measure of remanding the applicant in custody, ordered his detention pending trial for a period of two months. The court justified the application of the preventive custodial measure by the gravity of the offences imputed to him, the risk of his reoffending and the likelihood that he might abscond if released. 13. On 12 January 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, stating that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that the court had failed to substantiate the necessity for his detention pending trial. He also submitted that the court had failed to take account of his personal situation and to consider the possibility of another preventive measure, such as house arrest or release on bail. 14. On 17 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there were no grounds to quash the first-instance decision. 15. On 2 March 2011 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case applied to the court for an extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention for a period of one month. He submitted that more time was needed to complete the investigation. 16. On 3 March 2011 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant's detention pending trial by one month, until 8 April 2011. The court justified its decision by the need for more time to carry out further investigative actions, the complexity of the criminal case and the likelihood that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation if released. 17. On 4 March 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to substantiate its decision on his continued detention. 18. On 9 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court's decision of 3 March 2011. 19. No further extension decisions are available in the case file. 20. On 17 June 2011 the Nasimi District Court found the applicant guilty on all counts and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. 21. The applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence by a presidential pardon issued on 17 March 2016.

Ruled as violated by court

12. On the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the charges brought against the applicant and an application from the prosecutor to apply the preventive measure of remanding the applicant in custody, ordered his detention pending trial for a period of two months. The court justified the application of the preventive custodial measure by the gravity of the offences imputed to him, the risk of his reoffending and the likelihood that he might abscond if released. 13. On 12 January 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, stating that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that the court had failed to substantiate the necessity for his detention pending trial. He also submitted that the court had failed to take account of his personal situation and to consider the possibility of another preventive measure, such as house arrest or release on bail. 14. On 17 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there were no grounds to quash the first-instance decision. 15. On 2 March 2011 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case applied to the court for an extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention for a period of one month. He submitted that more time was needed to complete the investigation. 16. On 3 March 2011 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant's detention pending trial by one month, until 8 April 2011. The court justified its decision by the need for more time to carry out further investigative actions, the complexity of the criminal case and the likelihood that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation if released. 17. On 4 March 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to substantiate its decision on his continued detention.

12. On the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the charges brought against the applicant and an application from the prosecutor to apply the preventive measure of remanding the applicant in custody, ordered his detention pending trial for a period of two months. The court justified the application of the preventive custodial measure by the gravity of the offences imputed to him, the risk of his reoffending and the likelihood that he might abscond if released. 13. On 12 January 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, stating that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that the court had failed to substantiate the necessity for his detention pending trial. He also submitted that the court had failed to take account of his personal situation and to consider the possibility of another preventive measure, such as house arrest or release on bail. 14. On 17 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there were no grounds to quash the first-instance decision. 15. On 2 March 2011 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case applied to the court for an extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention for a period of one month. He submitted that more time was needed to complete the investigation. 16. On 3 March 2011 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant's detention pending trial by one month, until 8 April 2011. The court justified its decision by the need for more time to carry out further investigative actions, the complexity of the criminal case and the likelihood that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation if released. 17. On 4 March 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to substantiate its decision on his continued detention. 18. On 9 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court's decision of 3 March 2011.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Glodeni. 5. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application he was a pensioner who received an amount equivalent to some fifty-eight euros (EUR) per month. On 5 May 2014 the Minister of Social Protection organised a meeting with the inhabitants of the applicant's town. The applicant was also present and after the meeting he asked the Minister a question about the method of calculation of his pension. He contended that the coefficient employed for the calculation had been wrong and that his pension was too small. The Minister replied that his pension was high enough and questioned in an ironic manner whether the applicant even understood the meaning of the words used in his question. The answer infuriated the applicant and he cursed and slapped the Minister in the face. 6. On the same day, following the Minister's complaint, criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on charges of hooliganism. 7. On 12 May 2014 the prosecutor in charge of the case ordered the applicant's psychiatric examination in order to determine whether he was fit to plead in the criminal proceedings. 8. On 29 May 2014 a commission of psychiatrists speculated that the applicant might suffer from either dementia or amnesia. However, they did not reach a final conclusion and recommended the conduct of an in-patient psychiatric examination. 9. On 2 July 2014, at the prosecutor's request, the Glodeni District Court ordered an in-patient psychiatric forensic examination of the applicant. The applicant challenged the above decision but without success. His appeal and appeal on points of law were rejected by the Bălți Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice on 28 August and 15 October 2014, respectively. 10. On 18 September 2014 the applicant was arrested by a group of five police officers and taken to the Chișinău Psychiatric Hospital. Upon arrival, the applicant was asked to sign several pre-printed documents, the meaning of which was that he was giving his formal consent to hospitalisation and treatment. He signed them, but wrote on one of them that he did not consent to being subjected to a psychiatric examination (nu sunt de acord cu expertiza). 11. On 20 September 2014 the applicant was visited by his son in hospital. After the visit the son employed a lawyer who started to take measures in order to have the applicant released. 12. On 24 September 2014, at the lawyer's advice, the applicant wrote to the hospital administration a letter stating that he had been hospitalised against his will on 18 September 2014 and that if he had signed anything, he wished to withdraw his signature. 13. On 25 September 2014 the applicant was released from hospital. It appears from a video submitted by the applicant's representative, that the door of the hospital ward where the applicant was detained was locked and that one could enter or exit only with the approval of the medical staff. 14. On 30 September 2014 the prosecutor in charge of the case applied to the Glodeni District Court to have the applicant remanded in custody pending trial for a period of thirty days. 15. On 4 November 2014 the Glodeni District Court rejected the prosecutor's request and found that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of his forceful hospitalisation. 16. By a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 26 December 2017 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to a criminal fine of 4,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), the equivalent of some EUR 180.

Ruled as violated by court

10. On 18 September 2014 the applicant was arrested by a group of five police officers and taken to the Chișinău Psychiatric Hospital. Upon arrival, the applicant was asked to sign several pre-printed documents, the meaning of which was that he was giving his formal consent to hospitalisation and treatment. He signed them, but wrote on one of them that he did not consent to being subjected to a psychiatric examination (nu sunt de acord cu expertiza).

While it could be argued that this was a lawful detention of a person with unsound mind, the consensus according to the court decision is that it was forceful hospitalisation.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicants, who are police officers, were born in 1967, 1978, 1976, 1979 and 1964 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Chișinău and Caușeni and the remaining applicants live in Bender. 6. On 14 June 2006 officers Mangîr, Vasiliev and Condrea, who were conducting a criminal investigation in Tiraspol, were arrested by the secret service of the self-proclaimed "Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria" ("MRT")[1]. During their arrest they managed to call the Bender police station. 7. The other two applicants (officers Daţco and Pohila) went to Tiraspol to clarify the reasons for the arrest of their colleagues, but were also arrested upon their arrival. 8. The applicants were placed in the Tiraspol Remand Centre (IVS Tiraspol). 9. On 17 June 2006 officers Pohila, Daţco and Vasiliev were released without charge and without any explanation for their arrest. 10. On 18 June 2006 officer Mangîr was allegedly beaten up and injected with an unknown substance, which rendered him unconscious for four days. After his release he was admitted for in-patient treatment in the hospital of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Moldova, where he was diagnosedwith, inter alia, concussion. 11. On 20 June 2006 the Tiraspol City Court issued a warrant for officer Mangîr to be detained for thirty days. On 23 June 2006 the "MRT" authorities released officers Mangîr and Condrea. The head of the "MRT" secret service declared in an interview that the officers had been released after Russian authorities had "given assurances" that Moldovan authorities would not "kidnap people" in the "MRT". 12. The applicants were accused in the "MRT" media of being members of "black squadrons" created for the purpose of kidnapping politicians and other persons causing nuisance to the Moldovan authorities. According to the applicants, during their detention they were questioned by the "MRT" secret service and forced to declare that in Tiraspol they had been trying to kidnap "MRT" politicians. Officers Pohila, Daţco and Vasiliev were allegedly beaten on the soles of their feet and threatened with the killing of members of their families, as well as with being transferred to cells occupied by common criminals, where they would be ill-treated or even killed. 13. Officer Condrea was allegedly subjected to so-called "Palestinian hanging" for up to seven hours and was taken to his cell unconscious thereafter. 14. The applicants described as follows their conditions of detention at the Tiraspol Remand Centre. The cells in which they had been held had been in the basement and had not had access to natural light. In the absence of ventilation and because of overcrowding it had been difficult to breathe. Officer Condrea submits that he was detained in the same cell as that in which Mr Ilie Ilaşcu had been detained (for more details see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004‑VII). 15. During their detention the applicants did not have any daily exercise and were not given access to a shower; they could not receive parcels containing food from their relatives, they did not have bed linen and they were not allowed to be seen by doctors. 16. After the applicants' release the Moldovan authorities initiated two sets of criminal proceedings concerning their unlawful detention and their alleged ill-treatment while in detention. However, several years later the investigation was discontinued. 17. The applicants were also subjected to medical check-ups, which found no traces of violence on their bodies. Only one applicant, Stefan Mangîr, was found to be suffering from the consequences of concussion.

Ruled as violated by court

16. After the applicants' release the Moldovan authorities initiated two sets of criminal proceedings concerning their unlawful detention and their alleged ill-treatment while in detention. However, several years later the investigation was discontinued.

The applicants were detained unlawfully, but did not receive compensation.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Râbniţa. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 28 July 1999, the applicant was arrested in Râbniţa by virtue of a decision of a prosecutor from the self-proclaimed "Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria" (the "MRT"; for further details about the "MRT", see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004‑VII, and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). He was charged with fraud and incitement to bribery. 8. On 17 May 2000, the Camenca District Court, which was under the jurisdiction of the "MRT", convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. According to the applicant, he appealed, but his appeal was rejected by the "MRT" Supreme Court on an unspecified date. 9. The applicant initially served his sentence in Tiraspol Prison no. 2. On 25 October 2001, he was transferred to Pruncul Prison Hospital, which was under the control of the Moldovan authorities. On 30 October 2001, he signed a form of authority authorising the Chişinău-based non-governmental organisation Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) to represent him before this Court. That form of authority, together with the application form, reached the Court on 19 November 2001. 10. On 20 November 2001, a lawyer from LHR informed the Moldovan Prosecutor General's Office that the applicant and seven other people were being held in Pruncul Prison Hospital on the basis that they had been convicted by "MRT" courts. He asked for their immediate release, in view of the fact that they had been convicted by unlawful courts. He also submitted that some of those eight detainees had already lodged applications with the Court, and that a failure to immediately release them or any attempt to transfer them back to the "MRT" authorities would result in the Republic of Moldova incurring responsibility. A similar letter was sent on the same day to the Minister of Justice. 11. On 21 November 2001, members of LHR organised a press conference, during which they informed the media of the circumstances of the case and of the letter sent to the Prosecutor General's Office on the previous day. 12. Also on 21 November 2001, all eight detainees, including the applicant, were allegedly transferred back to "MRT" prisons. 13. On 23 November 2001, LHR informed the media of the detainees' transfer back to the "MRT" authorities on 21 November 2001. 14. On 26 November 2001, the Head of the Penal Institutions Department of the Ministry of Justice informed LHR that the detainees mentioned in their request of 20 November 2001 were not being held at Pruncul Prison Hospital. 15. On 7 December 2001, the lawyer from LHR wrote to the "MRT" Ministry of Justice, asking for permission to see the applicant and stating that he was planning to lodge in the applicant's name an application before the Court. He never received a reply to that letter. 16. On 22 January 2002, the applicant was released from prison on the basis of an amnesty act. 17. The applicant described the conditions of his detention in the "MRT" in the following manner. He was allegedly detained in a cell with several people suffering from tuberculosis, and risked contracting that disease himself. During his detention in Tiraspol Prison no. 2, approximately 100 detainees there died of tuberculosis. He was also affected by parasitic insects. The applicant is a person with a category 3 disability, but he was not given any medication during his detention. Food was served only once a day and was of very poor quality.

Ruled as violated by court

9. The applicant initially served his sentence in Tiraspol Prison no. 2. On 25 October 2001, he was transferred to Pruncul Prison Hospital, which was under the control of the Moldovan authorities. On 30 October 2001, he signed a form of authority authorising the Chişinău-based non-governmental organisation Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) to represent him before this Court. That form of authority, together with the application form, reached the Court on 19 November 2001. 10. On 20 November 2001, a lawyer from LHR informed the Moldovan Prosecutor General's Office that the applicant and seven other people were being held in Pruncul Prison Hospital on the basis that they had been convicted by "MRT" courts. He asked for their immediate release, in view of the fact that they had been convicted by unlawful courts. He also submitted that some of those eight detainees had already lodged applications with the Court, and that a failure to immediately release them or any attempt to transfer them back to the "MRT" authorities would result in the Republic of Moldova incurring responsibility. A similar letter was sent on the same day to the Minister of Justice. 12. Also on 21 November 2001, all eight detainees, including the applicant, were allegedly transferred back to "MRT" prisons. 14. On 26 November 2001, the Head of the Penal Institutions Department of the Ministry of Justice informed LHR that the detainees mentioned in their request of 20 November 2001 were not being held at Pruncul Prison Hospital. 15. On 7 December 2001, the lawyer from LHR wrote to the "MRT" Ministry of Justice, asking for permission to see the applicant and stating that he was planning to lodge in the applicant's name an application before the Court. He never received a reply to that letter. 16. On 22 January 2002, the applicant was released from prison on the basis of an amnesty act. 17. The applicant described the conditions of his detention in the "MRT" in the following manner. He was allegedly detained in a cell with several people suffering from tuberculosis, and risked contracting that disease himself. During his detention in Tiraspol Prison no. 2, approximately 100 detainees there died of tuberculosis. He was also affected by parasitic insects. The applicant is a person with a category 3 disability, but he was not given any medication during his detention. Food was served only once a day and was of very poor quality.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Chișinău. 6. At the time of the events the applicant was the owner of a company, incorporated in Moldova, which ran an erotic video-chat business in Chișinău. It employed young female models who provided erotic shows via webcam to customers outside Moldova in exchange for payment. 7. On 3 March 2015 the applicant was arrested and accused of pimping (proxenetism). 8. On 7 March 2015, at the request of a public prosecutor, the Centru District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of thirty days. The applicant appealed against the order and argued that his detention had not been based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. He submitted that he could not be accused of pimping, in that the female models employed by him had not been engaged in prostitution. He argued that the prosecutor and the court which had ordered his detention had applied an extensive interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the offence of pimping. He also argued that the existing case-law of the domestic courts did not contain anything which would enable erotic video-chat activity to be assimilated with prostitution and pimping. The applicant also contended that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for remanding him in custody. 9. On 16 March 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and held that there had been grounds to believe that he might abscond or interfere with the investigation. The court did not respond to the applicant's argument about a lack of reasonable suspicion and the allegation of extensive interpretation of the criminal law. 10. On 31 March 2015 the Centru District Court upheld a request by the Public Prosecutor and prolonged the applicant's detention for another thirty days. The applicant appealed on the same grounds as on the first occasion. However, his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 7 April 2015. 11. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a habeas corpus request, which was upheld by the Centru District Court on 27 April 2015; the applicant was released from detention. 12. During the proceedings the applicant explained that, prior to starting the video-chat business, he had consulted a lawyer to make sure that the activity was legal in Moldova, and he had been assured that it was not illegal. He also submitted that he had seen numerous similar businesses in Chișinău, which had strengthened his belief that the activity was not unlawful. 13. On 30 December 2016 the Centru District Court found the applicant guilty as charged but ordered that the criminal proceedings against him be terminated on the basis of an amnesty law. One of the conditions for applying the amnesty law was for the applicant to admit his guilt and express remorse. The applicant did not appeal against this decision. 14. In deciding the case, the court sought an opinion from the State Agency for the Protection of Morality as to whether the acts committed by the female models employed by the applicant could be qualified as prostitution and, thus, whether the applicant's activity could be qualified as pimping. The opinion of 21 October 2015, which was the key element in convicting the applicant and was subsequently used in other similar cases, stated that the actions of the female models employed by the applicant could be considered acts of prostitution, in that their clients could obtain sexual gratification as a result of the models' performance and because the models were paid for those acts. Thus, the fact that the applicant obtained revenue from the above activity could be considered pimping.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "prompt," it appears that after being held on reasonable suspicion, the applicant was not brought promptly to trial, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Yerevan. He is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and at the material time he headed a political movement called "Civil Disobedience". 6. On 5 May 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 190 § 3 (1) of the Criminal Code (money laundering) in respect of the applicant. 7. On 7 May 2007 the applicant was arrested and on 10 May 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan ordered the applicant's detention for a period of two months, upon an application by the investigator, taking into account the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence and the fact that the applicant, if remaining at large, could abscond and obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings. The applicant objected to that application, arguing that the investigator had failed to submit any well‑founded arguments in support of the allegation that he would abscond or obstruct justice, whereas he had no previous convictions, was known to be of good character, had a permanent place of residence and stable social life, and was a well-known public figure. The District Court's decision stated that it could be contested before the Criminal Court of Appeal within fifteen days. 8. On 11 May 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal, raising similar arguments. 9. On 24 May 2007 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to uphold the decision of the District Court, finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence, the particular circumstances of the case and the possible investigative measures to be carried out gave sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation. 10. On 2 July 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan extended the applicant's detention by two months, upon an application by the investigator, finding that the applicant, if remaining at large, could obstruct the investigation, abscond, exert unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and commit another offence. The District Court's decision stated that it could be contested before the Criminal Court of Appeal. 11. On 3 July and 3 September 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal, raising arguments similar to those previously raised. 12. On 24 July 2007 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to uphold the decision of the District Court, finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence, the particular circumstances and complexity of the case; the investigative measures to be carried out and the applicant's behaviour, namely his refusal to give any testimony, which was a factor slowing down the investigation, gave sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and also abscond. 13. On 31 August 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan extended the applicant's detention by two months, upon an application of the investigator, on the same grounds as before. The District Court's decision stated that it could be contested before the Criminal Court of Appeal. 14. On 3 September 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal, raising arguments similar to those previously raised 15. On 6 September 2007 the investigator decided to replace the applicant's detention with a written undertaking not to leave his residence and to release him in view of the fact that the investigative measures would take some time and it was no longer necessary to keep the applicant in detention. 16. On 17 September 2007 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to leave the applicant's appeal of 3 September 2007 unexamined in view of the fact that he had been released.

Ruled as violated by court

7. On 7 May 2007 the applicant was arrested and on 10 May 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan ordered the applicant's detention for a period of two months, upon an application by the investigator, taking into account the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence and the fact that the applicant, if remaining at large, could abscond and obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings. The applicant objected to that application, arguing that the investigator had failed to submit any well‑founded arguments in support of the allegation that he would abscond or obstruct justice, whereas he had no previous convictions, was known to be of good character, had a permanent place of residence and stable social life, and was a well-known public figure. The District Court's decision stated that it could be contested before the Criminal Court of Appeal within fifteen days. 9. On 24 May 2007 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to uphold the decision of the District Court, finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence, the particular circumstances of the case and the possible investigative measures to be carried out gave sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation. 10. On 2 July 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan extended the applicant's detention by two months, upon an application by the investigator, finding that the applicant, if remaining at large, could obstruct the investigation, abscond, exert unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and commit another offence. The District Court's decision stated that it could be contested before the Criminal Court of Appeal. 12. On 24 July 2007 the Criminal Court of Appeal decided to uphold the decision of the District Court, finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence, the particular circumstances and complexity of the case; the investigative measures to be carried out and the applicant's behaviour, namely his refusal to give any testimony, which was a factor slowing down the investigation, gave sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and also abscond. 13. On 31 August 2007 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan extended the applicant's detention by two months, upon an application of the investigator, on the same grounds as before. The District Court's decision stated that it could be contested before the Criminal Court of Appeal.

While it depends on the definition of "prompt," it appears that after being held on reasonable suspicion, the applicant was not brought promptly to trial, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Százhalombatta. 5. On 11 April 2009, quoting the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention on charges of terrorist acts and other related offences involving abuse of firearms and explosives on the grounds that he might abscond for fear of a severe punishment, might frustrate the on-going investigation by colluding with accomplices still at large, or might execute the planned offences or re-offend. 6. The detention measure was extended on 8 May and again on 7 August 2009. The court reiterated its earlier reasons, adding that the risk of collusion was serious, since certain other suspects had not yet been apprehended. 7. A further extension was ordered on 9 November 2009. The court stated that the applicant was being prosecuted for terrorist acts committed as an associate of an organised criminal group whose plans entailed a real risk of loss of life. It was of note that the group had existed for quite some time and had been committed to carrying out terrorist acts. Moreover, the volume of evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion, as weighed individually against the applicant, was increasing. 8. On 9 February 2010 the applicant's detention was again extended, the court noting that, in view of the grounds for his detention, not even his clean criminal record, family ties and settled background could provide adequate justification for a less strict measure. 9. On 7 April 2010 the measure was renewed, with special reference to the fact that the case was concerned with a series of crimes committed over a long period of time by a criminal organisation. 10. On 9 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held under house arrest, holding that the danger of his re-offending was not of a degree that justified his continued detention, noting also that the investigation was about to be wrapped up and that, in any case, some accomplices in the case had already been released pending trial. The applicant was released from detention the next day. During the ensuing period he complied with the rules of house arrest. 11. On 7 July 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal again ordered the applicant's detention. It held that the charges of several very serious offences committed over a long time in an organised group were of such gravity that they could not be addressed merely by house arrest. 12. The measure was extended on 4 August 2010. In addition to the previously cited reasons, the court considered that there was no reason to assume that the applicant's political motivation behind the incriminated acts had subsided, which meant that the risk of re-offending was real. 13. On 24 November 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal ordered the applicant's house arrest, observing that the applicant had abided by the previous house arrest (see paragraph 10 above) and holding that the risk of re-offending was slight. 14. On 20 September 2012 the applicant's house arrest was replaced by a restraining order, which was eventually lifted on 6 July 2014. 15. On 22 April 2015 the applicant was again detained on remand for the purposes of prosecution for a new offence allegedly committed during the on-going proceedings. He was accused of having threatened and harassed a relative of one of the witnesses in the main case. For want of evidence, this new investigation was discontinued on 30 October 2015. 16. On 18 December 2015 the applicant was released from detention and put under house arrest, which lasted until 27 July 2016. 17. On 30 August 2016 the applicant and his accomplices were convicted. He was sentenced to 12 years in a strict-regime prison. 18. Both the defendants and the prosecution appealed. The outcome of the ensuing proceedings is unknown.

Ruled as violated by court

5. On 11 April 2009, quoting the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention on charges of terrorist acts and other related offences involving abuse of firearms and explosives on the grounds that he might abscond for fear of a severe punishment, might frustrate the on-going investigation by colluding with accomplices still at large, or might execute the planned offences or re-offend. 6. The detention measure was extended on 8 May and again on 7 August 2009. The court reiterated its earlier reasons, adding that the risk of collusion was serious, since certain other suspects had not yet been apprehended. 7. A further extension was ordered on 9 November 2009. The court stated that the applicant was being prosecuted for terrorist acts committed as an associate of an organised criminal group whose plans entailed a real risk of loss of life. It was of note that the group had existed for quite some time and had been committed to carrying out terrorist acts. Moreover, the volume of evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion, as weighed individually against the applicant, was increasing. 8. On 9 February 2010 the applicant's detention was again extended, the court noting that, in view of the grounds for his detention, not even his clean criminal record, family ties and settled background could provide adequate justification for a less strict measure. 9. On 7 April 2010 the measure was renewed, with special reference to the fact that the case was concerned with a series of crimes committed over a long period of time by a criminal organisation. 11. On 7 July 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal again ordered the applicant's detention. It held that the charges of several very serious offences committed over a long time in an organised group were of such gravity that they could not be addressed merely by house arrest. 12. The measure was extended on 4 August 2010. In addition to the previously cited reasons, the court considered that there was no reason to assume that the applicant's political motivation behind the incriminated acts had subsided, which meant that the risk of re-offending was real. 15. On 22 April 2015 the applicant was again detained on remand for the purposes of prosecution for a new offence allegedly committed during the on-going proceedings. He was accused of having threatened and harassed a relative of one of the witnesses in the main case. For want of evidence, this new investigation was discontinued on 30 October 2015.

5. On 11 April 2009, quoting the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention on charges of terrorist acts and other related offences involving abuse of firearms and explosives on the grounds that he might abscond for fear of a severe punishment, might frustrate the on-going investigation by colluding with accomplices still at large, or might execute the planned offences or re-offend. 10. On 9 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held under house arrest, holding that the danger of his re-offending was not of a degree that justified his continued detention, noting also that the investigation was about to be wrapped up and that, in any case, some accomplices in the case had already been released pending trial. The applicant was released from detention the next day. During the ensuing period he complied with the rules of house arrest. 11. On 7 July 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal again ordered the applicant's detention. It held that the charges of several very serious offences committed over a long time in an organised group were of such gravity that they could not be addressed merely by house arrest. 13. On 24 November 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal ordered the applicant's house arrest, observing that the applicant had abided by the previous house arrest (see paragraph 10 above) and holding that the risk of re-offending was slight. 14. On 20 September 2012 the applicant's house arrest was replaced by a restraining order, which was eventually lifted on 6 July 2014. 15. On 22 April 2015 the applicant was again detained on remand for the purposes of prosecution for a new offence allegedly committed during the on-going proceedings. He was accused of having threatened and harassed a relative of one of the witnesses in the main case. For want of evidence, this new investigation was discontinued on 30 October 2015. 16. On 18 December 2015 the applicant was released from detention and put under house arrest, which lasted until 27 July 2016.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

7. The applicant was born in 1987 and lived in Syria before he came to Russia in 2015. 8. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 9. On 23 March 2016 the applicant was arrested for violation of migration rules. On the same day the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk ("the district court") imposed an administrative fine on the applicant and ordered his administrative removal and detention until his removal. 10. On 5 April 2016 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya excluded the removal order from the administrative penalty imposed on him by the district court. 11. On 2 June 2016 the applicant was released. 12. On 3 June 2016 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya re‑opened the applicant's case at the request of the migration official and sent it for re-examination to the district court. 13. On 16 June 2016 the district court reviewed the administrative removal order of 23 March 2016 and confirmed its validity. The applicant was detained on the same day. On 12 September 2016 the judgment of 16 June 2016 was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya. On 7 February 2017 the applicant filed a cassation appeal against these three decisions at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 14. On 15 July, 7 November and 19 December 2016 and 27 January, 2 March and 10 April 2017 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk allowed an application lodged by the bailiff for the postponement of the enforcement of the order of administrative removal by one month owing to the application of an interim measure by the Court on 17 June 2016. The district court granted the bailiff's request having relied on Article 31.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (("the CAO"), see paragraph 21 below). In these proceedings the applicant's lawyer also argued that there was a lack of grounds for the applicant's detention and requested that the enforcement proceedings be terminated and that the applicant be released. However, the district court dismissed her arguments, having concluded that, "the grounds for the applicant's detention had already been established by the court in the removal proceedings and the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings in the circumstances of [the applicant's] case is not provided for by Article 31.7 of the CAO" (see paragraph 22 below). All these decisions, except the one of 15 July 2016 (no appeal was brought), were upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya. 15. On 17 May 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ("the Supreme Court") examined the cassation appeal complaint of the applicant and reviewed the judgments issued in respect of his removal (see paragraph 13 above). The Supreme Court confirmed the judgments but discontinued the enforcement of administrative penalty in the form of the removal imposed on the applicant on 23 March 2016. The Supreme Court found that the applicant might be exposed to a risk of torture or ill-treatment in Syria in the event of his return there. On 2 June 2017 the applicant was released (after the decision entered into force). 16. On 11 May 2016 the applicant's request for refugee status was dismissed. According to the applicant, he did not appeal against this decision because the migration authorities had convinced the applicant that "his application for temporary asylum would be granted". 17. On 4 July 2016 the applicant's request for temporary asylum was dismissed. 18. On 25 November 2016 a second request lodged by the applicant for temporary asylum was denied by the migration authorities and the applicant did not lodge a complaint against this refusal. 19. According to the information provided by the applicant's lawyer on 9 November 2017, while the proceedings before the Court were ongoing, the applicant left Russia of his own volition on 2 August 2017 and had settled in Sweden.

Ruled as violated by court

11. On 2 June 2016 the applicant was released. 13. On 16 June 2016 the district court reviewed the administrative removal order of 23 March 2016 and confirmed its validity. The applicant was detained on the same day. On 12 September 2016 the judgment of 16 June 2016 was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya. On 7 February 2017 the applicant filed a cassation appeal against these three decisions at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 14. On 15 July, 7 November and 19 December 2016 and 27 January, 2 March and 10 April 2017 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk allowed an application lodged by the bailiff for the postponement of the enforcement of the order of administrative removal by one month owing to the application of an interim measure by the Court on 17 June 2016. The district court granted the bailiff's request having relied on Article 31.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (("the CAO"), see paragraph 21 below). In these proceedings the applicant's lawyer also argued that there was a lack of grounds for the applicant's detention and requested that the enforcement proceedings be terminated and that the applicant be released. However, the district court dismissed her arguments, having concluded that, "the grounds for the applicant's detention had already been established by the court in the removal proceedings and the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings in the circumstances of [the applicant's] case is not provided for by Article 31.7 of the CAO" (see paragraph 22 below). All these decisions, except the one of 15 July 2016 (no appeal was brought), were upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya. 19. According to the information provided by the applicant's lawyer on 9 November 2017, while the proceedings before the Court were ongoing, the applicant left Russia of his own volition on 2 August 2017 and had settled in Sweden.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Romny. 5. In September 2009 criminal proceedings in respect of fraud and bribery were instituted against the applicant. 6. On 12 January 2010 the Romny Court convicted the applicant of both charges and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. By the same decision the court remanded him in custody pending the execution of its judgment. 7. On 23 March 2010, upon an appeal by the applicant, the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal ("the Regional Court") quashed the judgment of 12 January 2010 and remitted the case for retrial. By the same decision it also ordered his continued pre-trial detention, without providing any reasons or indicating a time-limit for it. 8. On 27 April 2010 the applicant asked the Romny Court to order his release from custody, subject to an undertaking not to abscond. He noted, in particular, that his conviction having been quashed, an undertaking not to abscond would constitute a sufficient measure for ensuring the proper conduct of proceedings. In that regard he submitted that he had no prior criminal record and that the crimes imputed to him were not serious. In addition, he had a permanent residence and had obtained positive character references. He also needed to support a family, including a child, and was suffering from several chronic illnesses which required regular medical supervision and which might deteriorate if he remained in detention. The applicant also submitted that, having been bound by an undertaking not to abscond throughout the first round of the proceedings, he had never attempted to abscond or to obstruct the investigation and had dutifully complied with all his procedural obligations. 9. On an unknown date in May 2010 the Romny Court refused the applicant's request for release, having found that the crimes imputed to him were sufficiently serious as to potentially warrant a prison sentence of three years or more. It also ruled, without providing any details, that there was sufficient evidence that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings if he were to be released. 10. On several further occasions (in particular, on 13 July, 29 September and 7 December 2010) the applicant lodged similar requests for release; the court rejected each such application on the date on which it was lodged, referring to the seriousness of the offences imputed to the applicant and to the lack of any valid reasons justifying his release. 11. On 10 February 2011 the applicant again asked to be released from custody pending the proceedings against him, reiterating his previous arguments and emphasising that it was very difficult while in detention to keep to his special diet and secure the necessary medical supervision for his chronic medical conditions. 12. On 23 February 2011 the Romny Court allowed that request and released the applicant, subject to an undertaking not to abscond. Referring to Article 5 of the Convention, the court noted that, regard being had to the applicant's character (in particular, his age, health, family and social status, the absence of a prior criminal record and his positive character references), there was no reason to consider that he would abscond, obstruct the investigation or engage in criminal activity if released pending trial. 13. Subsequently, the case was remitted to the prosecutor's office for further investigation. The charge of bribery was dropped by the prosecutor's office, and the applicant was committed to stand trial on the charge of fraud alone. 14. On 23 November 2012 the Romny Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine. However, it released him from any liability to pay the fine levied for the crime for which he had been tried as the time-limit for implementing that sanction had expired. Accordingly, the court also terminated the proceedings as time-barred. The applicant did not appeal against this ruling and it became final.

Ruled as violated by court

7. On 23 March 2010, upon an appeal by the applicant, the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal ("the Regional Court") quashed the judgment of 12 January 2010 and remitted the case for retrial. By the same decision it also ordered his continued pre-trial detention, without providing any reasons or indicating a time-limit for it. 8. On 27 April 2010 the applicant asked the Romny Court to order his release from custody, subject to an undertaking not to abscond. He noted, in particular, that his conviction having been quashed, an undertaking not to abscond would constitute a sufficient measure for ensuring the proper conduct of proceedings. In that regard he submitted that he had no prior criminal record and that the crimes imputed to him were not serious. In addition, he had a permanent residence and had obtained positive character references. He also needed to support a family, including a child, and was suffering from several chronic illnesses which required regular medical supervision and which might deteriorate if he remained in detention. The applicant also submitted that, having been bound by an undertaking not to abscond throughout the first round of the proceedings, he had never attempted to abscond or to obstruct the investigation and had dutifully complied with all his procedural obligations. 9. On an unknown date in May 2010 the Romny Court refused the applicant's request for release, having found that the crimes imputed to him were sufficiently serious as to potentially warrant a prison sentence of three years or more. It also ruled, without providing any details, that there was sufficient evidence that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings if he were to be released. 10. On several further occasions (in particular, on 13 July, 29 September and 7 December 2010) the applicant lodged similar requests for release; the court rejected each such application on the date on which it was lodged, referring to the seriousness of the offences imputed to the applicant and to the lack of any valid reasons justifying his release.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant was born in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in 1971 and came to Russia in 1993. He graduated from a vocational training college in the Arkhangelsk Region. He has no identity documents. 6. On 14 August 2014 the Directorate of the Federal Migration Service for the Arkhangelsk Region declared applicant's stay in the Russia undesirable ("the exclusion order"). This order was based on his multiple convictions in the administrative and criminal proceedings. The applicant was required to leave Russia voluntarily by 14 September 2014. He was informed of this decision on 27 August 2014. 7. Since the applicant failed to depart voluntarily, on 2 October 2014 the Plesetskiy District Court in the Arkhangelsk Region found him guilty of failing to leave Russia within the specified time-limit, which was an offence Article 18.8 § 1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, imposed a fine on him and ordered his administrative removal from Russia. Pending his removal, the applicant was to be detained in a special facility for the detention of aliens. The removal and detention order indicated that the applicant was an apatride. 8. The applicant was initially placed in one such facility in Arkhangelsk. A few days later the building was damaged by fire. On 7 October the applicant was transferred to the Krasnoye Selo facility in the Leningrad Region (СУВСИГ УФМС по СПб и ЛО). 9. Replying to an inquiry from the Federal Migration Service, on 12 November 2014 the Embassy of Tajikistan confirmed that the applicant was not a national of that State. Subsequently, a bailiff asked the District Court in St Petersburg to discontinue the enforcement proceedings because the applicant could not be issued with travel documents or removed from Russia. On 4 December 2014 the Oktyabrskiy District Court refused her application, finding that it had not been shown that the bailiff had taken sufficient measures to secure the applicant's removal. 10. On 8 May 2015 counsel for the applicant asked the Plesetskiy District Court to discontinue the enforcement of the removal and detention order. He submitted that the applicant was an apatride, that no State was willing to accept him, and that he had already spent seven months in custody in poor conditions. 11. On 4 June 2015 the District Court rejected the application. It considered that even an apatride could be removed from Russia and that the length of the applicant's detention had not been unreasonable. 12. On appeal from counsel, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court set aside the District Court's decision. Referring to the case-law of the Russian Constitutional Court prohibiting indefinite detention of individuals (judgment no. 6-P of 17 February 1998), it held that the removal and detention order should have set the maximum period of the applicant's detention. 13. On 31 July 2015 the District Court carried out a fresh determination of the application. It found that enforcement was no longer feasible because the applicant was not a national of Tajikistan and that he had already spent a long time in the detention centre. The District Court discontinued the execution of the removal and detention order and ordered the applicant's release. He was released on the same day. 14. In so far as the parties' descriptions of the conditions of the applicant's detention coincided or were undisputed, they may be summarised as follows. The applicant shared the cell with three other detainees. Its floor surface was given as fifteen square metres by the applicant and as twenty-seven square metres by the Government. Each detainee had his own bed and bed linen. A squat toilet and a sink were placed inside the cell and separated with a one-metre-high wall. Detainees were allowed to spend up to fifteen minutes outside per week, in the courtyard of the facility. Food was brought in pre-cooked, the ration did not include fish, dairy products or fresh fruit.

Ruled as violated by court

9. Replying to an inquiry from the Federal Migration Service, on 12 November 2014 the Embassy of Tajikistan confirmed that the applicant was not a national of that State. Subsequently, a bailiff asked the District Court in St Petersburg to discontinue the enforcement proceedings because the applicant could not be issued with travel documents or removed from Russia. On 4 December 2014 the Oktyabrskiy District Court refused her application, finding that it had not been shown that the bailiff had taken sufficient measures to secure the applicant's removal. 10. On 8 May 2015 counsel for the applicant asked the Plesetskiy District Court to discontinue the enforcement of the removal and detention order. He submitted that the applicant was an apatride, that no State was willing to accept him, and that he had already spent seven months in custody in poor conditions. 11. On 4 June 2015 the District Court rejected the application. It considered that even an apatride could be removed from Russia and that the length of the applicant's detention had not been unreasonable. 12. On appeal from counsel, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court set aside the District Court's decision. Referring to the case-law of the Russian Constitutional Court prohibiting indefinite detention of individuals (judgment no. 6-P of 17 February 1998), it held that the removal and detention order should have set the maximum period of the applicant's detention. 13. On 31 July 2015 the District Court carried out a fresh determination of the application. It found that enforcement was no longer feasible because the applicant was not a national of Tajikistan and that he had already spent a long time in the detention centre. The District Court discontinued the execution of the removal and detention order and ordered the applicant's release. He was released on the same day.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Tver. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 7 May 2009 the applicant and his classmate A. were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily injuries to a boy from their school. They confessed to their deeds. The applicant was initially released under parental supervision, whilst A. was remanded in custody. The following day they retracted their confessions. 8. On 16 November 2009, after the investigator had reclassified their actions as a more serious offence, the Zavolzhskiy District Court in Tver ordered the applicant's placement in custody, citing the gravity of the charges and the fact that he had recanted. The District Court interpreted the latter element as amounting to the risk of an obstruction of justice. On 11 December 2009 the Tver Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding as follows: "[The fact that the defendant] has a permanent place of residence, lives with his family, is studying in high school and does not have a criminal record does not provide a basis for rejecting unconditionally the investigator's application [for a detention order] in the light of the extreme gravity of the charges." 9. On 12 January 2010 the District Court extended the authorised detention period, pointing out that the applicant "had changed his attitude to the committed offence from an outright acknowledgement to a downright denial". In the court's opinion, that implied that the applicant might interfere with justice if released. The District Court also added that the custodial measure was necessary "to secure the enforcement of the conviction". On 3 February 2010 the Regional Court upheld the District Court's assessment on appeal, in particular its finding that a non-custodial measure would not be sufficient to secure the enforcement of the conviction. 10. On 20 January 2010 the investigator in charge of the applicant's case refused the parents' request for leave to visit their son, reasoning as follows: "The investigation appointed Mr V. Smirnov, the father of Mr A. Smirnov, as the legal representative of the underage defendant. However, the investigation considers that Mr V. Smirnov is using all means to interfere with the criminal proceedings because of his vested interests; he has not responded when summonsed by the investigator or court, and is causing all kinds of delays in the proceedings. The investigation considers that this kind of conduct on the part of Mr V. Smirnov may have a negative influence of the defendant Mr A. Smirnov, as well as interfering with the establishment of the truth in the criminal case." 11. On 25 January 2010 the supervising prosecutor rejected a complaint from the applicant's father about the investigator's decision, recalling that the granting of leave to visit a detainee was at the investigator's discretion rather than being a legal obligation and that the arguments for refusing leave were "persuasive and well-justified". 12. On 3 February 2010 the District Court issued a further extension order, holding that the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious offence and that the circumstances warranting the application of a custodial measure still obtained. On 19 February 2010 the Regional Court upheld the order on appeal. 13. The final extension order of 11 March 2010 referred to the gravity of the charges against both co-defendants, without distinguishing between their individual situations. 14. By a judgment of 25 March 2010, the Regional Court found the applicant and his co-defendant guilty of attempted murder and sentenced each of them to five years' imprisonment. On 9 June 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction. 15. Between November 2009 and July 2010 the applicant's parents visited him in prison a total of sixteen times. All visits were carried out under the supervision of a warden while the applicant was separated from his parents by a glass partition.

Ruled as violated by court

8. On 16 November 2009, after the investigator had reclassified their actions as a more serious offence, the Zavolzhskiy District Court in Tver ordered the applicant's placement in custody, citing the gravity of the charges and the fact that he had recanted. The District Court interpreted the latter element as amounting to the risk of an obstruction of justice. On 11 December 2009 the Tver Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding as follows: "[The fact that the defendant] has a permanent place of residence, lives with his family, is studying in high school and does not have a criminal record does not provide a basis for rejecting unconditionally the investigator's application [for a detention order] in the light of the extreme gravity of the charges." 9. On 12 January 2010 the District Court extended the authorised detention period, pointing out that the applicant "had changed his attitude to the committed offence from an outright acknowledgement to a downright denial". In the court's opinion, that implied that the applicant might interfere with justice if released. The District Court also added that the custodial measure was necessary "to secure the enforcement of the conviction". On 3 February 2010 the Regional Court upheld the District Court's assessment on appeal, in particular its finding that a non-custodial measure would not be sufficient to secure the enforcement of the conviction. 10. On 20 January 2010 the investigator in charge of the applicant's case refused the parents' request for leave to visit their son, reasoning as follows: "The investigation appointed Mr V. Smirnov, the father of Mr A. Smirnov, as the legal representative of the underage defendant. However, the investigation considers that Mr V. Smirnov is using all means to interfere with the criminal proceedings because of his vested interests; he has not responded when summonsed by the investigator or court, and is causing all kinds of delays in the proceedings. The investigation considers that this kind of conduct on the part of Mr V. Smirnov may have a negative influence of the defendant Mr A. Smirnov, as well as interfering with the establishment of the truth in the criminal case." 11. On 25 January 2010 the supervising prosecutor rejected a complaint from the applicant's father about the investigator's decision, recalling that the granting of leave to visit a detainee was at the investigator's discretion rather than being a legal obligation and that the arguments for refusing leave were "persuasive and well-justified". 12. On 3 February 2010 the District Court issued a further extension order, holding that the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious offence and that the circumstances warranting the application of a custodial measure still obtained. On 19 February 2010 the Regional Court upheld the order on appeal. 13. The final extension order of 11 March 2010 referred to the gravity of the charges against both co-defendants, without distinguishing between their individual situations.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sofia. 6. The applicant is a former police officer. Criminal proceedings were brought against him in 1996. 7. By a decision of the competent prosecutor of 6 March 1996, as provided under domestic law at the time, the applicant was placed under house arrest. The period of arrest continued until 3 April 1996, when the applicant was remanded in custody. He was once again placed under house arrest on 1 July 1996 and was released on 30 September 1997. 8. The applicant therefore was deprived of his liberty for one year, six months and twenty-five days. 9. In a final judgment of 27 January 1998 the Sofia Military Court found the applicant guilty of failing to perform his duties and he was given a one‑year suspended prison sentence. 10. In another set of proceedings, in a final judgment of 26 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment. 11. The court also held in the second set of proceedings that the applicant should serve a single sentence for all his offences, which was set at one year in prison. 12. On 1 July 2003 the applicant was once again detained and placed in prison to serve his sentence. He was released on 18 September 2003 by a decision of the competent prosecutor. The prosecutor noted that the period of pre-trial detention should have been deducted from the applicant's sentence, which meant he had already served it. 13. As he had worked in prison the applicant was also entitled to a reduction of his sentence by seventeen days. 14. In 2004 the applicant brought a tort action against the prosecution authorities under section 2(6) of the State and Municipalities' Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraph 21 below). He claimed 20,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) for non-pecuniary damage for his detention in 1996-97 to the extent it had exceeded the set term of imprisonment and BGN 40,000 for his imprisonment between 1 July and 18 September 2003. 15. The domestic courts examined witnesses and a court-appointed psychologist who said that the applicant had been traumatised by the experience and suffered from anxiety, that his personality had been "permanently altered", that he had difficulties communicating with others, and that his family ties had been "irreparably damaged". 16. In a judgment of 2 May 2006 the Sofia City Court (hereinafter "the City Court") allowed the claim in part, finding that the applicant had been detained for nine months and twenty-nine days in excess of his sentence and awarding him BGN 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It stated that his detention in 1996-97 had been "unjustified" and that his imprisonment in 2003 had amounted to "unlawful detention without any valid grounds". 17. In accordance with the applicable provisions of domestic law, the City Court ordered the applicant to pay BGN 2,040 (the equivalent of 1,040 euros – EUR) in court fees, calculated as a pro rata percentage of the part of his claim that had been dismissed. 18. The judgment was upheld on 18 June 2007 by the Sofia Court of Appeal (hereinafter "the Court of Appeal"), which specified that the prosecution authorities were also liable to pay default interest on the above amount, calculated from 18 September 2003. 19. In a final judgment of 24 April 2009 the Supreme Court of Cassation reduced the award to BGN 3,000 (approximately EUR 1,530), plus default interest. It justified the reduction by referring to the "nature of the offences" the applicant had been convicted for, the "regime under which the sentence had been served" and the "socially acceptable criteria for justice". It did not deal with the matter of court fees and took no separate decision in that regard. 20. The Court has not been informed whether and when the amount above was paid to the applicant. Calculations made with a calculator available on the Internet show that the default interest on BGN 3,000 for the period from 18 September 2003 to 24 April 2009 would be BGN 2,265 (the equivalent of EUR 1,155).

Ruled as violated by court

14. In 2004 the applicant brought a tort action against the prosecution authorities under section 2(6) of the State and Municipalities' Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraph 21 below). He claimed 20,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) for non-pecuniary damage for his detention in 1996-97 to the extent it had exceeded the set term of imprisonment and BGN 40,000 for his imprisonment between 1 July and 18 September 2003. 15. The domestic courts examined witnesses and a court-appointed psychologist who said that the applicant had been traumatised by the experience and suffered from anxiety, that his personality had been "permanently altered", that he had difficulties communicating with others, and that his family ties had been "irreparably damaged". 16. In a judgment of 2 May 2006 the Sofia City Court (hereinafter "the City Court") allowed the claim in part, finding that the applicant had been detained for nine months and twenty-nine days in excess of his sentence and awarding him BGN 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It stated that his detention in 1996-97 had been "unjustified" and that his imprisonment in 2003 had amounted to "unlawful detention without any valid grounds". 17. In accordance with the applicable provisions of domestic law, the City Court ordered the applicant to pay BGN 2,040 (the equivalent of 1,040 euros – EUR) in court fees, calculated as a pro rata percentage of the part of his claim that had been dismissed. 18. The judgment was upheld on 18 June 2007 by the Sofia Court of Appeal (hereinafter "the Court of Appeal"), which specified that the prosecution authorities were also liable to pay default interest on the above amount, calculated from 18 September 2003. 19. In a final judgment of 24 April 2009 the Supreme Court of Cassation reduced the award to BGN 3,000 (approximately EUR 1,530), plus default interest. It justified the reduction by referring to the "nature of the offences" the applicant had been convicted for, the "regime under which the sentence had been served" and the "socially acceptable criteria for justice". It did not deal with the matter of court fees and took no separate decision in that regard. 20. The Court has not been informed whether and when the amount above was paid to the applicant. Calculations made with a calculator available on the Internet show that the default interest on BGN 3,000 for the period from 18 September 2003 to 24 April 2009 would be BGN 2,265 (the equivalent of EUR 1,155).

The applicant was a victim of earlier unlawful detention and received compensation, although he claims not enough. It is unclear from the statute text whether compensation amount is within the purview of the statute.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Weinheim. He is a campaigner against abortion and operates an anti-abortion website (babycaust.de). At the time of the proceedings outlined below, the website included, among other things, the following content. 6. On the starting page a picture of graves was shown and the text underneath read "then: Holocaust". Upon clicking on the picture, the user was directed to a page titled: "Abortion – the new Holocaust?" on which the Holocaust was compared to abortions. On the left margin of the starting page, there were several links, of which one was called "Life or death?". Upon clicking on it, the user was directed to a page with the headline "Prayer requests for Germany". From that page, the reader was directed to a location-based alphabetical list mentioning the names and practice addresses of doctors who performed abortions in Germany, and to a request for prayers for those doctors. At the very bottom of the same page, under the highlighted text "German contemporary history in brief", a sentence read: "Perverted doctors murder unborn children at the request of the mothers" (Pervertierte Ärzte ermorden im Auftrag der Mütter die ungeborenen Kinder) On the same page, clicking on the button "close page" forwarded the user to a page where it was stated: "Pray, if possible regularly, for the doctors ... who personally undertake the AGGRAVATED MURDER of abortion killing" (Beten Sie – wenn möglich regelmäßig – für die Mediziner ..., welche den MORD der Abtreibungstötung selbst vornehmen ...) (Emphasis in original). Somewhat farther down on the same page, it was stated that counselling centres that issued certifications: "... are enabling and facilitating the unpunished aggravated murder of children in their mother's womb." (... ermöglichen und begünstigen einen straffreien Kindermord im Mutterschoβ.) 7. One of the doctors listed on the applicant's website, Dr Q., sought a civil injunction ordering the applicant to remove his name and address from the website. 8. On 23 May 2006 the Mannheim Regional Court rejected Dr Q.'s application on the grounds that it was a fact that Dr Q. performed abortions and that the remainder of the website's content was covered by the applicant's freedom of expression. It observed, in particular, that the present case was not comparable to similar cases which had concerned an interference with personality rights by the distribution of personalised leaflets. The publishing of a doctor's name on a list of abortion performing doctors had no comparable "pillory effect". 9. Subsequently Dr Q. appealed and – during the appeal proceedings – modified his application, seeking a civil injunction ordering the applicant to desist from labelling abortions, such as those performed by Dr Q., "aggravated murder". 10. On 28 February 2007 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal granted the sought injunction. The court held that the applicant's website led it to be understood that abortions performed by Dr Q. constituted "aggravated murder". While the term "aggravated murder" did not have to be understood in a merely legal sense but could also be understood as a moral judgment, the overall presentation of the website at the very least did not exclude a reading that Dr Q. had perpetrated the criminal offence of aggravated murder. Even though the applicant had pointed out that abortions were exempt from punishment, he had not referred to section 218a of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 14 below), which exempted abortions as performed by Dr Q., from criminal liability. In addition, the applicant had emphasised the term "aggravated murder" in the relevant parts of the website and had compared abortions with the Holocaust. In sum, the statements of the website could be understood as a personalised accusation against Dr Q. of perpetrating aggravated murder. 11. On 29 May 2007 the Federal Court of Justice refused a request by the applicant for legal aid on the grounds that the applicant's intended appeal on points of law lacked sufficient prospect of success. 12. On 2 July 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit a complaint by the applicant for adjudication for being inadmissible, without providing reasons (no. 1 BvR 1663/07).

NOT ruled as violated by court

8. On 23 May 2006 the Mannheim Regional Court rejected Dr Q.'s application on the grounds that it was a fact that Dr Q. performed abortions and that the remainder of the website's content was covered by the applicant's freedom of expression. It observed, in particular, that the present case was not comparable to similar cases which had concerned an interference with personality rights by the distribution of personalised leaflets. The publishing of a doctor's name on a list of abortion performing doctors had no comparable "pillory effect". 12. On 2 July 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit a complaint by the applicant for adjudication for being inadmissible, without providing reasons (no. 1 BvR 1663/07).

The fact pattern contains no mention of arrest or detention.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

6. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Toronto, Canada. 7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8. The applicant was the director of a company (D.) registered in Ukraine. In 1996, in the name of D., he concluded a contract with a collective farm (N.), situated in the self-proclaimed "Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria" (the "MRT" – for further details about the "MRT", see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004‑VII, and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). Under the contract, N. undertook to send D. 15 tonnes of paprika and 5 tonnes of butter, while D. undertook to send N. 275 tonnes of diesel fuel as payment. 9. Subsequently, N. sent the paprika, but according to the applicant some of it was of poor quality and D. suffered financial losses as a result. Consequently, D. refused to send the diesel fuel. 10. On 22 December 1996 the applicant was summoned to the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime in Crivoi Rog, Ukraine, and asked to give an explanation for his refusal to send the diesel fuel. On 24 January 1997 he was summoned again. After the second interview he was taken, allegedly against his will and without his passport, to the "MRT". 11. The applicant was accused of fraud by the "MRT" authorities. On 30 December 1999 he was convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment by the Ribnita People's Court, which was under the jurisdiction of the "MRT". He did not appeal against that judgment, which then became final. 12. On 2 March 2002 the applicant was released from prison on the basis of an amnesty act. 13. While in detention pending trial and after his conviction, the applicant was initially held in solitary confinement for more than two years. The cell was a concrete box with no windows or ventilation, and no natural light, toilet or tap water. 14. According to the applicant, after his transfer to an ordinary cell and until his release, he was detained in cells with persons who were ill with tuberculosis. During his detention several detainees died from tuberculosis. He was given food once a day – some 250 grams of soup (containing no protein or vitamins), 100 grams of porridge of the same quality, and 250 grams of bread. As a result of the lack of food the applicant developed constant hunger pains, which he viewed as tantamount to torture. The cell was infested with blood-sucking parasites. Their bites caused him discomfort and itching, which in turn created wounds that bled after being scratched. As a result, he caught the skin disease streptodermia. The lack of medical treatment left him suffering and he was only able to cure himself by taking medication borrowed from another detainee. The lack of medication caused him to constantly fear that he might fall ill with no possibility of being treated. 15. On an unknown date in 1997 the applicant's lawyer complained to the Moldovan Prosecutor General's Office of the unlawful detention of his client ordered by the "MRT" authorities. In a letter dated 21 January 1998 the Office replied that the complaint had been accepted and that an action had been brought in the Supreme Court of Justice for the annulment of any "MRT" court sentence that might be imposed in respect of the applicant. 16. On 14 November 2000, in reply to a complaint by the applicant's lawyer, the Moldovan Prosecutor General's Office informed him that it had initiated a criminal investigation into his client's abduction. It noted that the investigation was aimed at establishing whether the applicant had indeed been abducted, and if so by whom and precisely from where. 17. On 19 February 2001, the Moldovan Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant's lawyer that on 17 January 2001 a previously adopted decision to discontinue the investigation had been annulled; the documents relevant to the investigation of the complaint of kidnapping from Ukrainian territory had been sent to Ukrainian prosecutors. 18. In reply to a complaint concerning his client lodged on an unknown date with the Russian President, on 25 September 2002 the applicant's lawyer was informed that the complaint had been forwarded to the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice.

Ruled as violated by court

13. While in detention pending trial and after his conviction, the applicant was initially held in solitary confinement for more than two years. The cell was a concrete box with no windows or ventilation, and no natural light, toilet or tap water. 14. According to the applicant, after his transfer to an ordinary cell and until his release, he was detained in cells with persons who were ill with tuberculosis. During his detention several detainees died from tuberculosis. He was given food once a day – some 250 grams of soup (containing no protein or vitamins), 100 grams of porridge of the same quality, and 250 grams of bread. As a result of the lack of food the applicant developed constant hunger pains, which he viewed as tantamount to torture. The cell was infested with blood-sucking parasites. Their bites caused him discomfort and itching, which in turn created wounds that bled after being scratched. As a result, he caught the skin disease streptodermia. The lack of medical treatment left him suffering and he was only able to cure himself by taking medication borrowed from another detainee. The lack of medication caused him to constantly fear that he might fall ill with no possibility of being treated. 15. On an unknown date in 1997 the applicant's lawyer complained to the Moldovan Prosecutor General's Office of the unlawful detention of his client ordered by the "MRT" authorities. In a letter dated 21 January 1998 the Office replied that the complaint had been accepted and that an action had been brought in the Supreme Court of Justice for the annulment of any "MRT" court sentence that might be imposed in respect of the applicant. 16. On 14 November 2000, in reply to a complaint by the applicant's lawyer, the Moldovan Prosecutor General's Office informed him that it had initiated a criminal investigation into his client's abduction. It noted that the investigation was aimed at establishing whether the applicant had indeed been abducted, and if so by whom and precisely from where. 17. On 19 February 2001, the Moldovan Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant's lawyer that on 17 January 2001 a previously adopted decision to discontinue the investigation had been annulled; the documents relevant to the investigation of the complaint of kidnapping from Ukrainian territory had been sent to Ukrainian prosecutors.

While it depends on the definition of "prompt," it appears that after being held on reasonable suspicion, the applicant was not brought promptly to trial, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicants, who were born in 1984, 1987 and 1988 respectively, live in İstanbul. 5. On 23 August 2007 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation. 6. On the same day, the judge at the İstanbul Assize Court decided to restrict access to the investigation file, under Article 153 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the "CCP"), Law no. 5271. The judge also decided to delay the second and third applicants' right of access to their lawyer for twenty-four hours pursuant to section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), which was in force at the material time. 7. On 26 August 2007 the applicants were questioned by police officers from the Anti-Terror Branch of the İstanbul Security Directorate, in the presence of their lawyer. They used their right to remain silent. 8. On the same day, the applicants were also interrogated by the public prosecutor, in the presence of their lawyer. They were mainly questioned about certain records of telephone conversations and the incident of the arson of vehicles during an illegal demonstration. The prosecutor read out the transcripts of the intercepted conversations to the applicants. The applicants did not remember that they had had these conversations but claimed that these conversations did not prove that they had committed the offences with which they were charged with, or that they attended the illegal demonstration on behalf of a terrorist organisation. 9. On 26 August 2007, after having taken the applicants' statements, the judge at the 10th Chamber of the İstanbul Assize Court ordered their pre‑trial detention. 10. On 31 August 2008 the applicants' lawyer filed an objection against the decision of 26 August 2007 ordering the applicants' detention, and requested their release. On the same day, the 10th Chamber of the İstanbul Assize Court, relying on the public prosecutor's written opinion, which had not been communicated to the applicants or their representative, dismissed the objection without holding a hearing. 11. On 3 December 2007 the İstanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of a terrorist organisation, illegal possession of explosives and causing damage to public property. 12. On 17 December 2007 the İstanbul Assize Court accepted the indictment. 13. On 27 December 2007 the İstanbul Assize Court held a preparatory hearing and dismissed the applicants' requests for release. 14. On 18 April 2008 and 22 July 2008 the court held further hearings, in which the applicants and their lawyer were present. At the end of those hearings, the court ordered the continuation of the applicants' detention. 15. At the end of the third hearing, held on 20 November 2008, the court prolonged the applicants' detentions. The applicants were present at this hearing. Subsequently, they filed an objection against this decision. On 28 November 2008 the 11th Chamber of the İstanbul Assize Court dismissed the objection, without holding an oral hearing and based on the written opinions of the public prosecutor, which had not been communicated to the applicants or their representative. 16. On 19 December 2008 the court ex officio examined the applicants' detention on remand on the basis of the case-file and decided to extend it. 17. At the hearings held on 19 March 2009 and 16 July 2009, in which the applicants were present, the trial court ordered the continuation of the applicants' detention on remand. 18. On 24 November 2009, 30 March 2010 and 24 May 2012, respectively, the applicants were released from detention on remand. 19. On 1 October 2013 the İstanbul Assize Court acquitted the second applicant of the charges against him. The court convicted the first and the third applicants and sentenced them to imprisonment. The judgment in concerning the acquittal of the second applicant became final, as there was no appeal against it. 20. On 1 July 2016 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court in so far as it concerned the convictions of the first and third applicants. Accordingly, the case file was remitted to the first instance court. 21. According to the latest information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the first and third applicants are still pending before the İstanbul Assize Court.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicants were born in 1984 and 1979 respectively and live in Moscow. 5. On 14 December 2012 the State Duma adopted at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited adoption of children of Russian nationality by US citizens. 6. On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading was scheduled for 19 December 2012. 7. According to the applicants, they read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo "pickets" (одиночные пикеты) on 19 December 2012 in front of the State Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo "pickets" was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory three‑day notification period for other types of (group) events. 8. The applicants decided to hold their own solo "pickets" and at around 9 a.m. positioned themselves, holding banners, in the vicinity of the State Duma at some distance from other protesters (see also Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 206-15, 7 February 2017). 9. According to the applicants, they were arrested by the police several minutes later and brought to a police station. At 10.30 a.m. the police drew up a record of the administrative escorting (протокол административного доставления) in respect of each applicant. A record of administrative arrest (протокол административного задержания), drawn up at the same time, stated that the applicants had arrived at the police station at 10.30 a.m. The first applicant, Mr Tsukanov, made a handwritten note on his arrest record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.20 a.m. The second applicant, Mr Torchinskiy, made a handwritten note on his escorting record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.30 a.m. 10. At the police station both applicants were accused of organising and holding a group public event without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter, "CAO"). The administrative offence records indicate that the offences were committed at 10 a.m. The first applicant made a handwritten note that he came to the event venue at 9 a.m. and was arrested at 9.20 a.m. 11. The first applicant was released at 1.20 p.m. The second applicant was released at 1.10 p.m. 12. On 15 January 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the second applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB), (about 495 euros (EUR) at the time). The justice of the peace found it established, on the basis of the records and testimony of police officers, that the applicant had taken part in a "picket" involving fifty people. That "picket" was unlawful because no notification had been submitted by the organisers as required by the Public Events Act (hereinafter "PEA"). The applicant had waved a banner, thereby attracting the attention of passers-by and journalists assembled for the occasion. He had not complied with the police order to stop picketing. 13. On 6 February 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the first applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000 (about EUR 495 at the time), with the reasoning identical to that in the judgment of 15 January 2013. The justice of the peace also relied on police reports and testimony of a police officer who had apprehended the first applicant at the venue of the public event. 14. Both applicants appealed, insisting that each of them had held a solo demonstration which did not require prior notification of the authorities. The first applicant also pointed out that he had been arrested earlier than indicated in the arrest record. 15. On 13 February and 11 March 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgments concerning the second and the first applicant respectively. 16. The second applicant applied for review of the court decisions under Article 30.12 of the CAO. On 28 June 2013 the Deputy President of the Moscow City Court partly allowed his complaint and changed the classification of the administrative charge against him. The second applicant was found guilty of the breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events committed by a participant, an offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. His fine was reduced to RUB 10,000 (about EUR 233 at the time).

Ruled as violated by court

5. On 14 December 2012 the State Duma adopted at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited adoption of children of Russian nationality by US citizens. 6. On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading was scheduled for 19 December 2012. 7. According to the applicants, they read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo "pickets" (одиночные пикеты) on 19 December 2012 in front of the State Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo "pickets" was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory three‑day notification period for other types of (group) events. 9. According to the applicants, they were arrested by the police several minutes later and brought to a police station. At 10.30 a.m. the police drew up a record of the administrative escorting (протокол административного доставления) in respect of each applicant. A record of administrative arrest (протокол административного задержания), drawn up at the same time, stated that the applicants had arrived at the police station at 10.30 a.m. The first applicant, Mr Tsukanov, made a handwritten note on his arrest record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.20 a.m. The second applicant, Mr Torchinskiy, made a handwritten note on his escorting record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.30 a.m. 10. At the police station both applicants were accused of organising and holding a group public event without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter, "CAO"). The administrative offence records indicate that the offences were committed at 10 a.m. The first applicant made a handwritten note that he came to the event venue at 9 a.m. and was arrested at 9.20 a.m. 12. On 15 January 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the second applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB), (about 495 euros (EUR) at the time). The justice of the peace found it established, on the basis of the records and testimony of police officers, that the applicant had taken part in a "picket" involving fifty people. That "picket" was unlawful because no notification had been submitted by the organisers as required by the Public Events Act (hereinafter "PEA"). The applicant had waved a banner, thereby attracting the attention of passers-by and journalists assembled for the occasion. He had not complied with the police order to stop picketing. 13. On 6 February 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the first applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000 (about EUR 495 at the time), with the reasoning identical to that in the judgment of 15 January 2013. The justice of the peace also relied on police reports and testimony of a police officer who had apprehended the first applicant at the venue of the public event. 16. The second applicant applied for review of the court decisions under Article 30.12 of the CAO. On 28 June 2013 the Deputy President of the Moscow City Court partly allowed his complaint and changed the classification of the administrative charge against him. The second applicant was found guilty of the breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events committed by a participant, an offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. His fine was reduced to RUB 10,000 (about EUR 233 at the time).

It is arguable whether or not these detentions count as in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Toksovo. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 2 October 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of raping K., who was employed at the Vasileostrovskiy District Court in St Petersburg as an assistant to Judge N., and who also was the daughter of that court's former president, Judge K., who carried on working as a judge at that time. 8. On 4 October 2009 Judge R. of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody. He rejected a challenge for bias which the applicant's lawyer raised in respect of the entire composition of the District Court because of a link between the alleged victim and the judges of that court. On 26 October 2009 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the detention order on appeal, rejecting a challenge by the applicant as unsubstantiated. 9. On 30 November 2009 a deputy president of the City Court referred an application by an investigator for an extension order to the Oktyabrskiy District Court for consideration. The District Court granted the application on the following day. On 11 December 2009 the City Court upheld that decision on appeal. However, on 31 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia determined that the decision to refer the application to another district court had been invalid, because the City Court's deputy president had decided on the change of venue of his own initiative without hearing what the defendant's opinion on that issue was. 10. On 30 December 2009 a further extension was granted by the President of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court, Judge Sh., who again rejected a challenge for bias by the applicant. On 26 January 2010 the City Court upheld the extension order on appeal. By a separate decision of the same date, it upheld the rejection of the challenge in respect of Judge Sh.: "The available material indicates that the court considered the challenge for bias in accordance with the established procedure, and upon review of the parties' arguments found no grounds for the challenge; the stated grounds fall outside of the scope of Article 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as they do not indicate the presiding judge's interest in any predetermined outcome of the case ... In addition, when considering the challenge in respect of the presiding judge, the court had regard to the opinion of the prosecutor, who declared at the hearing on 30 December 2009 that there were no legal grounds for allowing the challenge ... in particular because the hearing did not touch upon the defendant's guilt; it was not an examination of the merits of the case, but a hearing [on the remand matter]." 11. On 27 January and 27 February 2010 extension orders were issued by judges of the Kalininskiy District Court, which had territorial jurisdiction over the area where the applicant was detained. Those orders were upheld on appeal on 25 March and 8 April 2010. 12. On 11 March 2010 the case against the applicant was referred to the Vasileostrovskiy District Court for trial and allocated to its President, Judge Sh. On 23 March 2010 Judge Sh. allowed the applicant's challenge for bias in respect of the entire composition of that court, holding as follows: "It has been established that the injured party in the criminal proceedings [K.] works as an assistant to the Vasileostrovskiy District Court's Judge [N.], and that her father [Judge K.] is a judge of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court. It follows that circumstances exist leading the defendant and his counsel to believe that [Judge Sh.] and all the judges of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court are, either directly or indirectly, interested in the outcome of the criminal case. In order to ensure an impartial examination of the criminal case, the challenge ... must be allowed and the case referred to the President of the St Petersburg City Court for determination of the territorial jurisdiction." 13. Continuing the same decision, Judge Sh. extended the applicant's detention until 12 May 2010. On the last day of the extended period the Presidium of the City Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed the decision of 23 March in part in relation to the detention matter, on the grounds that an extension could not have been granted by a judge who had recused himself. The Presidium extended the applicant's detention until 12 August 2010. 14. On 15 April 2010 a deputy president of the City Court determined that the trial would be held in the Petrogradskiy District Court. On 31 March 2011 the Petrogradskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of rape and sentenced him to five years and six months' imprisonment.

Ruled as violated by court

8. On 4 October 2009 Judge R. of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody. He rejected a challenge for bias which the applicant's lawyer raised in respect of the entire composition of the District Court because of a link between the alleged victim and the judges of that court. On 26 October 2009 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the detention order on appeal, rejecting a challenge by the applicant as unsubstantiated. 10. On 30 December 2009 a further extension was granted by the President of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court, Judge Sh., who again rejected a challenge for bias by the applicant. On 26 January 2010 the City Court upheld the extension order on appeal. By a separate decision of the same date, it upheld the rejection of the challenge in respect of Judge Sh.: "The available material indicates that the court considered the challenge for bias in accordance with the established procedure, and upon review of the parties' arguments found no grounds for the challenge; the stated grounds fall outside of the scope of Article 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as they do not indicate the presiding judge's interest in any predetermined outcome of the case ... In addition, when considering the challenge in respect of the presiding judge, the court had regard to the opinion of the prosecutor, who declared at the hearing on 30 December 2009 that there were no legal grounds for allowing the challenge ... in particular because the hearing did not touch upon the defendant's guilt; it was not an examination of the merits of the case, but a hearing [on the remand matter]." 12. On 11 March 2010 the case against the applicant was referred to the Vasileostrovskiy District Court for trial and allocated to its President, Judge Sh. On 23 March 2010 Judge Sh. allowed the applicant's challenge for bias in respect of the entire composition of that court, holding as follows: "It has been established that the injured party in the criminal proceedings [K.] works as an assistant to the Vasileostrovskiy District Court's Judge [N.], and that her father [Judge K.] is a judge of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court. It follows that circumstances exist leading the defendant and his counsel to believe that [Judge Sh.] and all the judges of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court are, either directly or indirectly, interested in the outcome of the criminal case. In order to ensure an impartial examination of the criminal case, the challenge ... must be allowed and the case referred to the President of the St Petersburg City Court for determination of the territorial jurisdiction."

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicants were born in 1965 and 1966 respectively and live in Moscow. 6. The applicant, who was one of the indirect beneficial owners of a company, arranged for it to be sold to another company. On 1 October 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud through the execution of a sham sales contract. It was alleged, in particular, that the company purchasing the applicant's company also belonged to the applicant and the price it paid had been unrealistically low. On 3 October 2013 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow ("the Taganskiy District Court") held a hearing to determine a preventive measure in respect of the applicant. The latter argued that he should not be detained by reliance on Article 108 § 1.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the CCrP"), which prohibits the remanding in custody of people suspected or accused of offences committed within the sphere of their business activities. The Taganskiy District Court dismissed that argument in the following terms: "... [the applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence aimed at making a profit which was unconnected to any business activity and had been organised by a group of people; [the offence being] punishable with up to ten years' imprisonment, some of the accomplices have not yet been identified and arrested." 7. On 21 October 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order. 8. On 28 November 2013 and 27 January 2014 the Taganskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention, repeating its previous findings. On 27 December 2013 and 18 April 2014 respectively the Moscow City Court upheld the above detention extensions on appeal. 9. On 28 March 2014 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow ("the Ostankinskiy District Court") further extended the applicant's detention. As regards Article 108 § 1.1 of the CCrP, the District Court stated as follows: "The court dismisses the arguments of the defence and of [the applicant] himself that the offence of which he is accused was committed within the sphere of his business activity because, according to the current bill of indictment, he is accused of having committed an offence motivated by profit with the aim of misappropriating another's property by way of deception or abuse of trust, using an organised group, and on a particularly large scale. The court therefore concludes that the offence imputed to [the applicant] was not connected to the carrying out of a business activity, which is an independent activity undertaken at one's own risk with the aim of obtaining regular revenues from the use of possessions, the sale of goods, or the performance of works or services by people registered in such a capacity in accordance with the law." 10. On 14 May 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld on appeal the detention extension order of 28 March 2014. It held that the first-instance court had examined and dismissed with proper substantiation the applicant's argument that his alleged offence had been committed within the sphere of his business activity. 11. On 10 April 2015 the Moscow City Court granted bail to the applicant. Upon deposit of the bail sum on 17 April 2015 the applicant was released. 12. On 15 September 2014 a criminal investigation was opened into the misappropriation of the funds of an insolvent bank. On 23 September 2014 the applicant, who owned the bank, was arrested on suspicion of having transferred money out of the bank's account by acquiring unsecured promissory notes. 13. On 25 September 2014 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow ("the Tverskoy District Court") authorised the applicant's detention. The applicant argued that he should not be detained, inter alia, because he was suspected of an offence committed within the sphere of his business activity. The Tverskoy District Court rejected the argument as follows: "... the court takes the view that, as can be seen from the evidence in the case, the method and circumstances described in the decision to initiate the criminal investigation, and the actions of [the applicant] in misappropriating the funds in this case are not related to [a business] activity as defined in Article 2 § 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation". 14. On 10 November 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal. The Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant's argument that his alleged offences had been committed within the sphere of his business activity. In particular, the Moscow City Court held as follows: "... the action of committing an offence by using another's funds and taking on obligations to the Bank's clients without any intention to comply with them, cannot be considered to be a business activity."

Ruled as violated by court

13. On 25 September 2014 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow ("the Tverskoy District Court") authorised the applicant's detention. The applicant argued that he should not be detained, inter alia, because he was suspected of an offence committed within the sphere of his business activity. The Tverskoy District Court rejected the argument as follows: "... the court takes the view that, as can be seen from the evidence in the case, the method and circumstances described in the decision to initiate the criminal investigation, and the actions of [the applicant] in misappropriating the funds in this case are not related to [a business] activity as defined in Article 2 § 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation". 14. On 10 November 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal. The Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant's argument that his alleged offences had been committed within the sphere of his business activity. In particular, the Moscow City Court held as follows: "... the action of committing an offence by using another's funds and taking on obligations to the Bank's clients without any intention to comply with them, cannot be considered to be a business activity."

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant, Mr Sergey Marksovich Dudin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Parfino, Novgorod Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. V. Pakin, a lawyer practising in Velikiy Novgorod. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 6. On 23 July 2007 the applicant was apprehended by police at the cargo terminal "Shushary" in Saint Petersburg under suspicion of robbery. Later that day he was transferred to Krestsy, Novgorod Region. 7. On 25 July 2007 the Krestetskiy District Court of Novgorod Region (the District Court) ordered pre-trial detention of the applicant. Subsequently the period of the applicant's detention was extended on 20 September and 2 November 2007. 8. In the order of 2 November 2007 the District Court authorised extension of the applicant's detention "until and including 24 December 2007". 9. On 11 December 2007 the District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for the applicant's trial in order to decide on his further detention. The relevant section of the operative part of the decision read as follows: "[The court] ORDERED To schedule a preliminary hearing in the criminal case of Mr Dudin ... on 25 December 2007 at 10.00 a.m. ... To transfer [from the detention facility] the accused Mr Dudin for the hearing at the set date and time. To keep the measure of Mr Dudin's restraint – pre-trial detention – unchanged." 10. On 25 December 2007 between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. the District Court held a preliminary hearing ordering the criminal case to be send to trial and the applicant's further detention. During the hearing the applicant and his representative raised the objection regarding unlawfulness of the applicant's detention between 24 December 2007 and the time of the hearing, but the District Court dismissed it without advancing any specific reasons in this regard. The applicant appealed. 11. On 21 February 2008 the Novgorod Regional Court upheld the lower court's decision. In the relevant part the Regional Court's decision read as follows: "Mr Dudin's and his representative's arguments regarding unlawfulness of the detention ... at the moment of the adoption of the decision [are unfounded] ... [T]he present criminal case was transferred to court on 11 December 2007, i.e. within the period of [the accused's detention ordered during investigation] and according to section 2, Article 255 of the Criminal Procedure Code the period of the defendant's detention is calculated from the date when the case was transferred to court and until the judgment is pronounced and may not exceed six months." 12. On 27 May 2008 the District Court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. On 10 July 2008 the conviction was upheld on appeal by the Novgorod Regional Court and the period of the applicant's pre-trial detention between 23 June 2007 and the day of conviction was fully counted towards execution of his sentence. 13. On 2 March 2011 the applicant was released before serving his full sentence on probation. 14. The applicant lodged a civil action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation seeking non-pecuniary damages for his allegedly unlawful detention without a court order between 24 and 25 December 2007. 15. On 24 April 2008 the Novgorodskiy Town Court of Novgorod Region found that between midnight 24 December 2007 and 11.00 a.m. on 25 December 2007 the applicant's detention was unlawful and violated his rights under Article 22 of the Russian Constitution and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant was awarded non-pecuniary damages of 2000 Russian roubles (50 euros). During the hearings the representative of the Ministry of Finance acknowledged that the applicant's detention during the abovementioned period was not secured by a court order. The representative of the Ministry of the Interior (intervening in the proceedings) admitted that the authorisation for the detention expired on 24 December 2007. The representative of the regional Prosecutor's Office (also intervening in the proceedings) maintained that the applicant's detention was lawful, but stated that any detention without a court order would be unlawful. 16. On 11 June 2008 the Novgorod Regional Court annulled the lower court's judgment on appeal and adopted a new judgment dismissing the applicant's claims. The Regional Court argued that while the order of 2 November 2007 set the period of detention "until and including 24 December 2007", the decision of 11 December 2007 to schedule a preliminary hearing to 25 December 2007 essentially ordered the detention until that date, because it left it "unchanged" (see paragraph 6 above).

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1979 and is detained in Diyarbakır. 6. On 23 December 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation. During his detention in police custody, the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment by police officers. In particular, electric shocks were administered to his testicles. 7. On 25 December 2001 the applicant was interrogated by the police in the absence of a lawyer. During his interrogation, he confessed in detail to his involvement in the activities of the illegal organisation and gave detailed information about the organisation and its members. 8. On 26 December 2001 the applicant gave a statement to the public prosecutor in the absence of a lawyer in which he denied the statements he had given to the police. 9. On the same day the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who questioned him in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant again denied his statements to the police. During his questioning, the applicant alleged to the investigating judge that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that his statements had been taken under duress. However, a medical report issued by Bağlar Health Clinic dated the same day stated that there was no sign that he had been subjected to violence. At the end of the hearing, the court ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention. 10. On 9 January 2002 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant under Article 146 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State. 11. On 19 March 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case. During the hearing, the applicant repeated his allegations of having been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and denied his statements to the police. 12. On 27 January 2004 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him. He stated that electric shocks had been administered to his body through his testicles and that his testicles had been squeezed, which had caused serious harm. He attached a medical report dated 20 September 2002 from Fırat University on the state of his testicles. The report stated that the applicant had a dilation of the veins in his left testicle of up to 2.6 mm, which had resulted in a varicocele. 13. State Security Courts were abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 14. On 25 June 2004 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the police officers on account of a lack of evidence. 15. During the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the first-instance courts examined the applicant's continued detention at the end of the hearings, either on their own motion or at the applicant's request. The courts ordered that he be kept in detention owing to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the contents of the file. 16. On 12 June 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The sentence, however, was reduced to twenty years of imprisonment as the applicant was a minor at the time of the offence. 17. On 18 January 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision for procedural reasons. 18. On 2 April 2010 the applicant asked the Diyarbakır Assize Court for his release pending trial. On 9 April 2010 the court dismissed his application for release on the grounds of the nature of the offence. 19. On 30 September 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı), pursuant to section 8 of Law no. 6008, which provided that juveniles could not be tried before assize courts, which had special jurisdiction to try a number of aggravated crimes enumerated under Article 250 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the material time. The case was thus referred to the Diyarbakır Juvenile Court. 20. On 2 November 2010 the applicant was released pending trial. 21. On 5 June 2012 the Diyarbakır Juvenile Court found that, inter alia, on the basis of the applicant's statements to the police, the applicant had committed the offence under Article 146 of the former Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to sixteen years and eight months' imprisonment. 22. On 17 June 2014 the Court of Cassation upheld the Diyarbakır Juvenile Court's judgment.

NOT ruled as violated by court

For the first detention, while it depends on the definition of "prompt," it appears that after being held on reasonable suspicion, the applicant was not brought promptly to trial, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Warsaw. 5. On 29 November 2012 the Warsaw-Wola District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant's detention on remand on suspicion of drug dealing, as well as facilitating and benefiting from prostitution, committed in an organised criminal group. The domestic court relied on a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question, on the fact that he faced a severe penalty and that he was suspected of acting with accomplices. The likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question was established, in particular, on the basis of the testimony of a key prosecution witness (the so-called "crown witness"). 6. On 8 January 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant's appeal against this decision. It stressed that the sole fact that the applicant faced a severe penalty and had been suspected of committing offences in an organised criminal group justified a suspicion that, if released, the applicant would try to obstruct the proceedings by influencing witnesses or his accomplices. 7. The applicant's detention on remand was extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 21 February, 27 May and 8 August 2013. In these decisions, the court repeated the reasons originally relied on. In its decision of 21 February 2013, the Warsaw Regional Court further noted that the case against the applicant was complex, and indicated a number of steps that still had to be taken in order to terminate the investigation. The court noted that not all of those steps required the applicant's detention and urged the prosecutor to accelerate the proceedings. 8. The applicant appealed against all these decisions, without success. 9. On 21 November 2013 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) ordered a further extension of the applicant's detention on remand. It relied on the same grounds as previously given for his detention. The applicant appealed. The decision was upheld on appeal on 12 December 2013. 10. The bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court on 30 December 2013. The applicant was charged with ten offences committed in an organised criminal group and – in the case of some of the offences – as a re-offender. The charges included facilitating prostitution by renting an apartment to prostitutes and collecting money from them, and a number of counts of drug possession and distribution. The bill of indictment concerned altogether seventeen accused, charged with 150 offences. Later, the number of accused in the proceedings dropped to fourteen. The prosecutor requested that the court hear over 90 witnesses, including five "crown witnesses". 11. Subsequently, the applicant's detention pending trial was extended by the Warsaw Regional Court's decisions of 10 January and 7 May 2014 and by the Warsaw Court of Appeal's decisions of 30 December 2014, 28 April, 27 August and 26 November 2015, and of 25 February and 25 May 2016. The domestic courts continued to rely on the same grounds for detention as in their previous decisions. They also stressed the complexity of the case and the links between the co-accused within an organised criminal group which, according to the domestic courts, justified a suspicion that, if released, they would attempt to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. 12. The appeals by the applicant against decisions extending his detention and all his applications for release were unsuccessful. 13. On 9 May 2016 the trial court ordered the applicant's release on bail for 80,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 20,000 euros (EUR)). The applicant appealed against this decision, contesting the amount of bail as excessive. On 25 May 2016 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the decision. It underlined that the amount of bail had to take into consideration not only the financial situation of the applicant, but also the gravity of the charges against him. The court also stated that it had taken into consideration the fact that the applicant had abused his procedural rights in order to obstruct and delay the proceedings. It indicated that the amount in question had to be such that the prospect of its loss would constitute a genuine deterrent against any illegal activities which, until that moment, had been prevented by the applicant's detention. 14. On 30 May 2016 the Warsaw Regional Court again ordered the applicant's release on bail of PLN 80,000. It also imposed a prohibition on leaving the country. The applicant paid the security required by the court and was released on 31 May 2016. 15. The case against the applicant and his co-accused appears to be pending before the Warsaw Regional Court (no. XII K 1/14). The material includes 188 volumes.

Ruled as violated by court

5. On 29 November 2012 the Warsaw-Wola District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant's detention on remand on suspicion of drug dealing, as well as facilitating and benefiting from prostitution, committed in an organised criminal group. The domestic court relied on a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question, on the fact that he faced a severe penalty and that he was suspected of acting with accomplices. The likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question was established, in particular, on the basis of the testimony of a key prosecution witness (the so-called "crown witness"). 6. On 8 January 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant's appeal against this decision. It stressed that the sole fact that the applicant faced a severe penalty and had been suspected of committing offences in an organised criminal group justified a suspicion that, if released, the applicant would try to obstruct the proceedings by influencing witnesses or his accomplices. 7. The applicant's detention on remand was extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 21 February, 27 May and 8 August 2013. In these decisions, the court repeated the reasons originally relied on. In its decision of 21 February 2013, the Warsaw Regional Court further noted that the case against the applicant was complex, and indicated a number of steps that still had to be taken in order to terminate the investigation. The court noted that not all of those steps required the applicant's detention and urged the prosecutor to accelerate the proceedings. 8. The applicant appealed against all these decisions, without success. 9. On 21 November 2013 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) ordered a further extension of the applicant's detention on remand. It relied on the same grounds as previously given for his detention. The applicant appealed. The decision was upheld on appeal on 12 December 2013. 10. The bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court on 30 December 2013. The applicant was charged with ten offences committed in an organised criminal group and – in the case of some of the offences – as a re-offender. The charges included facilitating prostitution by renting an apartment to prostitutes and collecting money from them, and a number of counts of drug possession and distribution. The bill of indictment concerned altogether seventeen accused, charged with 150 offences. Later, the number of accused in the proceedings dropped to fourteen. The prosecutor requested that the court hear over 90 witnesses, including five "crown witnesses". 11. Subsequently, the applicant's detention pending trial was extended by the Warsaw Regional Court's decisions of 10 January and 7 May 2014 and by the Warsaw Court of Appeal's decisions of 30 December 2014, 28 April, 27 August and 26 November 2015, and of 25 February and 25 May 2016. The domestic courts continued to rely on the same grounds for detention as in their previous decisions. They also stressed the complexity of the case and the links between the co-accused within an organised criminal group which, according to the domestic courts, justified a suspicion that, if released, they would attempt to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

6. The applicant was born in 1988 and is currently detained in Warsaw Służewiec Remand Centre. 7. On 26 November 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police. 8. On 27 November 2010 the Warsaw Wola District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with possession of a significant amount of drugs and requested that the Warsaw Wola District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) detain him on remand. 9. On 28 November 2010 the court decided to detain the applicant on remand for a period of three months, in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been in possession of a significant amount of drugs (III Kp 2159/10). The court applied this measure due to the high probability that the applicant had committed the offence with which he was charged, the severity of the maximum sentence provided by law for such offence (up to at least eight years' imprisonment) and the fact that the likelihood of such a penalty might induce the applicant to obstruct the proceedings, as well as the fear that the applicant might influence other persons to present a version of events favourable to him. 10. On 21 February 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court noted that the applicant had also been charged with being a member of an organised, armed criminal gang and pointed out the actions that needed to be taken to conclude the investigation. 11. Between 18 March and 12 April 2011 the applicant partially served a prison sentence ordered in another set of criminal proceedings against him (III K 203/09). 12. On 23 May the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant's detention on remand. The court again relied on the severity of the anticipated sentence and possibly adverse consequences that the applicant's release could have for the ongoing investigation. 13. On 22 August 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court again extended the applicant's detention on remand. It listed the charges against the applicant, which included, apart from those mentioned above, battery, making a profit from prostitution of others and destroying property. The court expressly stated that it was not obliged to specify actions aiming to obstruct the investigation, because the sole gravity of charges allowed for the presumption that such actions might be undertaken. It also pointed out that, while at large, the applicant might hinder the investigation concerning other members of the same gang. 14. On 16 September 2011 a bill of indictment against the applicant and fourteen other persons was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (XVIII K 297/11). 15. The applicant's detention on remand was extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 26 September 2011 until 30 March 2012. 16. Between 24 October 2011 and 24 October 2012 the applicant served the remaining part of the prison sentence ordered in case III K 203/09, and from 24 October 2012 to 23 October 2013 he served a prison sentence ordered in another set of criminal proceedings against him (III K 1027/07). 17. In the meantime, the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant's detention on remand on 13 March, 4 July and 20 September 2012. The two latter decisions were upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 31 July and 4 October 2012 respectively. 18. The Warsaw Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention on 4 October 2012, 15 January, 13 June and 28 October 2013, 13 March, 29 July and 30 December 2014, 25 June and 22 October 2015 and on 26 January 2016. The court relied on a high probability that the applicant and other accused had committed the offences with which they had been charged and on the complexity of the case. The court also considered that the persons accused might take actions aiming at obstructing the proper course of the proceedings, because they had known other accused, and the charges against them included being members of an armed and organised criminal gang. The Court of Appeal also considered that there was a high likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed. The relevant decisions were often phrased in general terms and no particular instances of the applicant's conduct during the investigation or at the judicial stage was provided to substantiate the extension of detention on remand. 19. The applicant's appeals against those decisions were unsuccessful. His numerous requests for release, including on bail, were dismissed. 20. On 4 March 2016 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted of multiple offences and sentenced to six years' imprisonment and to a fine of 8,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 1,850 euros (EUR)). On the same date the applicant's detention on remand was lifted. 21. On 12 May 2017 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in respect of the applicant.

Ruled as violated by court

18. The Warsaw Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention on 4 October 2012, 15 January, 13 June and 28 October 2013, 13 March, 29 July and 30 December 2014, 25 June and 22 October 2015 and on 26 January 2016. The court relied on a high probability that the applicant and other accused had committed the offences with which they had been charged and on the complexity of the case. The court also considered that the persons accused might take actions aiming at obstructing the proper course of the proceedings, because they had known other accused, and the charges against them included being members of an armed and organised criminal gang. The Court of Appeal also considered that there was a high likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed. The relevant decisions were often phrased in general terms and no particular instances of the applicant's conduct during the investigation or at the judicial stage was provided to substantiate the extension of detention on remand.

While it depends on the definition of "prompt," it appears that after being held on reasonable suspicion, the applicant was not brought promptly to trial, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The first applicant (Mr Grigoryev) was born in 1984 and lives in Svetlogorsk. The second applicant (Ms Igamberdiyeva) was born in 1989 and lives in Kaliningrad. 6. On an unknown date the second applicant notified the Kaliningrad authorities of her intention to hold a group public event on 12 December 2010 in Pobeda Square. The authorities replied that preparations for the New Year celebrations were planned on that day; they did not suggest an alternative venue. The second applicant did not challenge the authority's reply before the domestic courts. Both applicants decided to stage solo demonstrations near the monument to "Mother Russia" instead; this did not require prior notification. 7. According to the applicants, on 12 December 2010 the first applicant staged a solo demonstration holding a banner saying "Freedom for Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev! We plead for a lawful judgment". After he had completed his demonstration and placed himself at a distance of some twenty metres, the second applicant held her own solo demonstration. She was wearing a T-shirt saying "Freedom for Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev!" She completed her demonstration in five minutes. Then the first applicant returned to the venue with his banner and remained there for about two minutes, until police officers took him to a police van. He was then taken to a police station and held there for over three hours. 8. According to the Government, at 4 p.m. on 12 December 2010 the applicants participated in a group public event in the form of a "picket" (пикетирование) using visual props, namely a banner and a T-shirt. At 4 p.m. the first applicant was taken to the Leninskiy district police station. Between 5.15 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. a duty officer drew up an administrative offence record in respect of the first applicant. He was accused of taking part in a group public event held without authorisation, an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter "the CAO"). On 14 December 2012 the second applicant was called to the Leninskiy district police station, where she was accused of a similar offence, although it was classified under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. 9. The cases against the applicants were submitted to a justice of the peace of court circuit no. 2 of the Leninskiy District of Kaliningrad. The court ordered the police to submit a video recording showing the events of 12 December 2010. By two judgments of 3 March 2011 the justice of the peace found that the applicants had held solo demonstrations and had not breached the Public Events Act (hereinafter "the PEA"), including its prior notification requirement applicable to group events. The court relied, inter alia, on the video recording submitted by the police. The administrative cases against the applicants were discontinued for lack of the elements of the offences under Article 20.2 §§ 1 and 2 of the CAO. 10. The police lodged an appeal. On 16 May 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Kaliningrad upheld the judgments. The appellate court also considered that it had not been confirmed that the applicants had in fact taken part in a group "picket". 11. The applicants sought compensation of 100,000 roubles (RUB)[1] each for unlawful deprivation of liberty and violation of their right to freedom of expression by way of solo demonstration. By a judgment of 15 July 2011 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad found that taking the first applicant to the police station had been unlawful, and awarded him RUB 10,000 (equivalent to 250 euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 25 July 2011 the same court also granted the claims by the second applicant, having found that preventing her from staging a solo demonstration and consequently prosecuting her had been unlawful. The court also awarded the second applicant RUB 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. 12. The first applicant appealed against the judgment of 15 July 2011, complaining, inter alia, about the amount of the compensation and the first‑instance court's failure to make specific findings in relation to the violation of his freedom of expression on account of the police intervention in his solo demonstration. On 7 September 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment. Relying on Article 27.1 § 2 of the CAO and Article 1070 § 2 of the Civil Code, it ruled that it followed from the discontinuation of the CAO case that placing the first applicant under administrative escort and arrest had been unlawful under Russian law as well as "unjustified" (необоснованные). The appellate court also considered that the interference with freedom of expression had been acknowledged by the declaration that taking the first applicant to the police station had been unlawful. 13. The second applicant also appealed. On 21 September 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment of 25 July 2011.

Ruled as violated by court

It is arguable whether or not these detentions count as in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Dubno. 6. The applicant was the principal of a private school in the town of Dubno, in the Rivne Region. 7. On 30 March 2000 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for failure to comply with a court decision ordering the reinstatement of a teacher at the private school. 8. According to the applicant, at about 9.00 a.m. on 29 May 2000 officers from Dubno police broke down the front door of the applicant's house. Inside the house, an investigator from the Dubno inter-district prosecutor's office ordered the applicant to go to his office for questioning. When the applicant refused, the investigator asked the police officers to ensure her compulsory appearance for questioning. The police officers allegedly beat the applicant, twisted her arms behind her back and forced her out of the house barefoot. They placed her in a police car and took her to the office of the investigator. At about 1 p.m. on 29 May 2000 the applicant was released. 9. On the next day, 30 May 2000, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted that there were injuries on her shoulders. 10. On 9 April 2001 the Dubno inter-district prosecutor's office discontinued the investigation into the applicant's criminal case, having regard to the insignificance of her offence. 11. On 2 August 2001 the Dubno Town Court quashed the decision of 9 April 2001 as unfounded and ordered that there be further investigation. 12. On 14 August 2001 the investigation was completed and the case file was referred to the Dubno Town Court for trial. 13. On 30 January 2004 and 13 March 2006 the Dubno Town Court issued judgments in the applicant's case, which were quashed as unfounded by the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal. 14. On 30 January 2007 the Dubno Town Court convicted the applicant of failure to comply with a court decision, and decided that it was appropriate to punish her with a fine. However, ultimately it released the applicant from the punishment, as the statute of limitation had expired. 15. On 17 April 2007 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the judgment of 30 January 2007. 16. On 13 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to examine an appeal by the applicant on points of law, on the grounds that she had failed to comply with procedural rules when submitting it. 17. On 2 June 2000 the applicant complained to the Rivne regional prosecutor's office regarding the events of 29 May 2000 (see paragraph 8 above). She was examined by a medical expert, who found that she had sustained five bruises to her shoulders and had injured her left shoulder ligaments. The expert stated that the injuries had been caused by blunt solid objects; they could have been sustained in the circumstances described by the applicant. 18. On 30 June 2000 the Rivne regional prosecutor's office, having conducted a pre-investigation inquiry, refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence. 19. On 20 March 2001, following a complaint by the applicant, the Prosecutor General's Office reversed the decision of 30 June 2000 as unsubstantiated, and ordered an additional inquiry. The applicant was not informed of the decision taken within the additional inquiry. In 2016 the Office of the Government Agent was informed that the file on those inquiries had been destroyed, along with other files relating to the same period, after the expiry of the statutory period for keeping such records. 20. On 29 May 2003 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Dubno Town Court, seeking damages for the violation of the inviolability of her home and her unlawful arrest and ill-treatment on 29 May 2000. 21. On 9 July 2007 the Dubno Town Court found that on 29 May 2000 the applicant had been ill-treated and unlawfully taken from her home to the investigator's office. The court found that the authorities had acted unlawfully and that they had violated her right to the inviolability of her home, right to liberty and right to respect for human dignity. The court awarded the applicant 500 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH – approximately 73 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. 22. On 26 May 2008 the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 9 July 2007. 23. The applicant appealed on points of law, contesting the amount of the award. 24. On 8 May 2009 the Higher Administrative Court found that the appeal had not been prepared in a proper way. That court set a time-limit within which the applicant could rectify shortcomings in her appeal on points of law. 25. On 13 July 2009 the Higher Administrative Court returned the applicant's appeal without examining it on the merits, after finding that she had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for submitting appeals.

Ruled as violated by court

7. On 30 March 2000 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for failure to comply with a court decision ordering the reinstatement of a teacher at the private school. 16. On 13 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to examine an appeal by the applicant on points of law, on the grounds that she had failed to comply with procedural rules when submitting it. 18. On 30 June 2000 the Rivne regional prosecutor's office, having conducted a pre-investigation inquiry, refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence. 19. On 20 March 2001, following a complaint by the applicant, the Prosecutor General's Office reversed the decision of 30 June 2000 as unsubstantiated, and ordered an additional inquiry. The applicant was not informed of the decision taken within the additional inquiry. In 2016 the Office of the Government Agent was informed that the file on those inquiries had been destroyed, along with other files relating to the same period, after the expiry of the statutory period for keeping such records. 20. On 29 May 2003 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Dubno Town Court, seeking damages for the violation of the inviolability of her home and her unlawful arrest and ill-treatment on 29 May 2000. 21. On 9 July 2007 the Dubno Town Court found that on 29 May 2000 the applicant had been ill-treated and unlawfully taken from her home to the investigator's office. The court found that the authorities had acted unlawfully and that they had violated her right to the inviolability of her home, right to liberty and right to respect for human dignity. The court awarded the applicant 500 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH – approximately 73 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. 22. On 26 May 2008 the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 9 July 2007. 23. The applicant appealed on points of law, contesting the amount of the award. 24. On 8 May 2009 the Higher Administrative Court found that the appeal had not been prepared in a proper way. That court set a time-limit within which the applicant could rectify shortcomings in her appeal on points of law. 25. On 13 July 2009 the Higher Administrative Court returned the applicant's appeal without examining it on the merits, after finding that she had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for submitting appeals.

The applicant was a victim of unlawful detention and received compensation, although she claims not enough. It is unclear from the statute text whether compensation amount is within the purview of the statute.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Chișinău. 5. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the applicant worked as a cashier in the main office of a bank. Her duty was to count cash money brought in bags from the bank's branches. 6. On 18 September 2015 the applicant came to work at around 7.40 a.m. and started counting money in bags of cash. After having counted the money from four bags she went to the toilet and, upon her return, she heard one of her colleagues saying that one of the uncounted bags lacked its seal. She did not pay much attention to that, since that was not the first time when a seal was missing. The colleague who found the bag without a seal was instructed by her superior to count the money in the bag. It appeared that forty-seven thousand euros (EUR) was missing from that bag. 7. Another superior was called in and a search of the premises was carried out. The branch from which the bag of money came was contacted; however, its employees stressed that the bag had been sealed upon its dispatch. Later, the applicant went again to the toilet and then left for lunch. 8. On 2 October 2015 a search was carried out at the applicant's home but nothing of interest for the investigation was found. 9. On the same day, the applicant was arrested and placed in detention. 10. On 5 October 2015 the applicant was charged with the offence of theft in the amount of EUR 47,000. It was alleged that, together with other employees of the bank, she had stolen the aforementioned amount of money from the bag in question. The indictment order did not point to any evidence capable of proving the applicant's involvement in the offence. It appears that one of the applicant's colleagues was also accused of the same offence. 11. On the same date, namely on 5 October 2015, the prosecutor in charge of the case applied to the Buiucani District Court for the applicant's remand in custody for a period of thirty days. The prosecutor alleged that there was a risk that the applicant could tamper with evidence, influence witnesses and reoffend, which therefore warrant her detention on remand. 12. On 5 October 2015 the Buiucani District Court found that the prosecutor in charge of the case did not specify in his application the reasons giving rise to the suspicion that the applicant might have committed an offence. Nevertheless, the court noted that during the hearing the prosecutor had indicated that the other co-accused had stated that the money could have been stolen by the applicant because she had taken bags from the stack of bags in which the unsealed bag had been found and she had had a suspicious behaviour. Moreover, the security camera in the room was turned away from the place where the applicant was sit. The court concluded that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence. The court noted that some thirteen days had elapsed since the day of the theft. The applicant had a permanent abode, a job, family and no criminal record. There were no reasons to believe that she would hinder the investigation in circumstances in which her involvement in the offence was unclear. The court considered that the risk of reoffending had also not been proven by the prosecutor which would warrant placing the applicant in detention. Therefore, the court ordered the applicant's house arrest for a period of twenty days. 13. The applicant appealed against the above decision and argued that the measure of house arrest was unnecessary because even the court of first instance had found that the reasons adduced by the prosecutor had not been convincing. The prosecutor also appealed. 14. On 15 October 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal lodged by the prosecutor. It quashed the decision of 5 October 2018 and ordered the applicant's remand in custody for a period of thirty days. The court considered that there was a risk of absconding, interference with the investigation and collusion with the other co-accused persons. The court observed that unjustified manifestations of clemency would encourage anti‑social behaviour of the sort and would affect the peoples' trust in the law enforcement organs and that the measure of pre-trial detention was called to punish and discourage anti-social behaviour. As to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence imputed to her, the court noted that the applicant had not contested its presence. 15. The next day the applicant was arrested and placed in detention. 16. On 26 October 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal examined the appeal lodged by the applicant, upheld it and ordered her release under judicial control. The court found that there were no reasons to believe that the applicant would abscond, hinder the investigation or reoffend. 17. It appears that the criminal investigation into the circumstances of the alleged theft of 18 September 2015 is pending to date.

Ruled as violated by court

14. On 15 October 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal lodged by the prosecutor. It quashed the decision of 5 October 2018 and ordered the applicant's remand in custody for a period of thirty days. The court considered that there was a risk of absconding, interference with the investigation and collusion with the other co-accused persons. The court observed that unjustified manifestations of clemency would encourage anti‑social behaviour of the sort and would affect the peoples' trust in the law enforcement organs and that the measure of pre-trial detention was called to punish and discourage anti-social behaviour. As to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence imputed to her, the court noted that the applicant had not contested its presence.

The applicants was detained unlawfully; the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was decided speedily.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Split. 6. On 19 May 2011 the applicant and several other individuals (see, for further information, Šoš v. Croatia, no. 26211/13, § 17, 1 December 2015) were arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and detained under Article 123 § 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending, and seriousness of charges). 7. During the investigation, an investigating judge of the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) several times extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects under Article 123 § 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending, and seriousness of charges). The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the case of Šoš (cited above, §§ 20 and 23). 8. On 18 August 2011 the investigating judge extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects under Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). He found that all the relevant witnesses had been questioned and that there was no further possibility of remanding the suspects in detention on the grounds of the risk of collusion. As to the other grounds relied upon for the pre-trial detention, the investigating judge reiterated his previous findings. 9. The investigating judge relied on the same reasons extending the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects in the further course of the investigation. The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the Šoš case (cited above, §§ 28, 31, 36 and 41). 10. On 16 May 2012 the applicant and nine other individuals were indicted on charges of drug trafficking in the Split County Court. 11. Following the submission of the indictment, on 18 May 2012 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other accused relying on Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). His pre-trial detention was extended several times on the same grounds. The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the Šoš case (cited above, §§ 44, 47 and 52). 12. On 20 February 2013 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), acting as a court of appeal, found that the applicant's detention should be extended only under Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). It explained that the 2013 amendments to the Criminal Code provided that the offence at issue was punishable by a prison sentence of between three and fifteen years and no longer by long-term imprisonment. It was therefore not possible to remand the applicant on the grounds of the seriousness of the charges since the possibility of imposing a sentence of long-term imprisonment was one of the conditions for extending pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (seriousness of charges). 13. On 20 April 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other accused under Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending), without changing its previous reasoning. 14. On 17 May 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the maximum two-year statutory time-limit for the applicant's pre-trial detention under Article 133 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a further six months (until 19 November 2013) relying on section 35(2) of the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime Act (hereinafter "the OSCOCA"). 15. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that section 35(2) of the OSCOCA was inapplicable to his case since he was not detained during the investigation. 16. On 7 June 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on the grounds that the said provision of the OSCOCA made a mistaken reference to Article 130 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also considered that the cited provision was incomprehensible since, if understood as provided in that Act, it merely repeated paragraph 1 of section 35 of the OSCOCA, which would be obsolete. Instead it should be interpreted in line with the previous abrogated version of the OSCOCA, which in its section 28(3) had provided for a possibility of extension of the overall maximum period of detention for a further six months, which was in the applicant's case until 19 November 2013. 17. On 18 June 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) reiterating his previous arguments. 18. On 11 July 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint as unfounded, endorsing the reasoning of the Supreme Court. 19. The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended, under Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending), until the maximum period expired on 19 November 2013, when he was released.

Ruled as violated by court

6. On 19 May 2011 the applicant and several other individuals (see, for further information, Šoš v. Croatia, no. 26211/13, § 17, 1 December 2015) were arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and detained under Article 123 § 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending, and seriousness of charges). 7. During the investigation, an investigating judge of the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) several times extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects under Article 123 § 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending, and seriousness of charges). The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the case of Šoš (cited above, §§ 20 and 23). 8. On 18 August 2011 the investigating judge extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects under Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). He found that all the relevant witnesses had been questioned and that there was no further possibility of remanding the suspects in detention on the grounds of the risk of collusion. As to the other grounds relied upon for the pre-trial detention, the investigating judge reiterated his previous findings. 9. The investigating judge relied on the same reasons extending the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects in the further course of the investigation. The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the Šoš case (cited above, §§ 28, 31, 36 and 41). 11. Following the submission of the indictment, on 18 May 2012 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other accused relying on Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). His pre-trial detention was extended several times on the same grounds. The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the Šoš case (cited above, §§ 44, 47 and 52). 12. On 20 February 2013 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), acting as a court of appeal, found that the applicant's detention should be extended only under Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). It explained that the 2013 amendments to the Criminal Code provided that the offence at issue was punishable by a prison sentence of between three and fifteen years and no longer by long-term imprisonment. It was therefore not possible to remand the applicant on the grounds of the seriousness of the charges since the possibility of imposing a sentence of long-term imprisonment was one of the conditions for extending pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (seriousness of charges). 13. On 20 April 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other accused under Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending), without changing its previous reasoning. 14. On 17 May 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the maximum two-year statutory time-limit for the applicant's pre-trial detention under Article 133 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a further six months (until 19 November 2013) relying on section 35(2) of the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime Act (hereinafter "the OSCOCA"). 16. On 7 June 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on the grounds that the said provision of the OSCOCA made a mistaken reference to Article 130 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also considered that the cited provision was incomprehensible since, if understood as provided in that Act, it merely repeated paragraph 1 of section 35 of the OSCOCA, which would be obsolete. Instead it should be interpreted in line with the previous abrogated version of the OSCOCA, which in its section 28(3) had provided for a possibility of extension of the overall maximum period of detention for a further six months, which was in the applicant's case until 19 November 2013. 19. The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended, under Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending), until the maximum period expired on 19 November 2013, when he was released.

6. On 19 May 2011 the applicant and several other individuals (see, for further information, Šoš v. Croatia, no. 26211/13, § 17, 1 December 2015) were arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and detained under Article 123 § 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending, and seriousness of charges). 7. During the investigation, an investigating judge of the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) several times extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects under Article 123 § 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending, and seriousness of charges). The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the case of Šoš (cited above, §§ 20 and 23). 8. On 18 August 2011 the investigating judge extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects under Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). He found that all the relevant witnesses had been questioned and that there was no further possibility of remanding the suspects in detention on the grounds of the risk of collusion. As to the other grounds relied upon for the pre-trial detention, the investigating judge reiterated his previous findings. 9. The investigating judge relied on the same reasons extending the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other suspects in the further course of the investigation. The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the Šoš case (cited above, §§ 28, 31, 36 and 41). 10. On 16 May 2012 the applicant and nine other individuals were indicted on charges of drug trafficking in the Split County Court. 11. Following the submission of the indictment, on 18 May 2012 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other accused relying on Article 123 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). His pre-trial detention was extended several times on the same grounds. The reasoning of the relevant decisions is outlined in the Šoš case (cited above, §§ 44, 47 and 52). 12. On 20 February 2013 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), acting as a court of appeal, found that the applicant's detention should be extended only under Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). It explained that the 2013 amendments to the Criminal Code provided that the offence at issue was punishable by a prison sentence of between three and fifteen years and no longer by long-term imprisonment. It was therefore not possible to remand the applicant on the grounds of the seriousness of the charges since the possibility of imposing a sentence of long-term imprisonment was one of the conditions for extending pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (seriousness of charges). 13. On 20 April 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other accused under Article 123 § 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending), without changing its previous reasoning.

While it depends on the definition of "prompt," it appears that after being held on reasonable suspicion, the applicant was not brought promptly to trial, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Nalchik, the Ingushetiya Republic. He is a practising lawyer. 5. On 10 October 2006 the applicant was travelling by a collective taxi from Nalchik to Grozny in Chechnya. At about 1 p.m. a police officer stopped the vehicle at the Ingush-Chechen administrative border and proceeded to check the passengers' identity documents. He discovered that the applicant's signature in his passport had been made in red ink and told him that he would be charged with an administrative offence under Article 19.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences for using an invalid identity document. The applicant raised his objections, claiming that the wrong kind of ink did not render his passport invalid. 6. The police first took the applicant by car to the Goragorsk police station (ТОМ пос. Горагорск) where an inspector told him that he was "temporarily detained for the purpose of drawing up a report". Once the report had been completed at 3.15 p.m., another police officer took the applicant, again by police car, from Goragorsk the Nadterechnyi district police station (ОДЧ Надтереченского района). An operative established his identity, verified his documents and let him go at 5.10 p.m. The station chief later stated that the applicant had "thanked him for a prompt release". 7. The applicant asked the supervising prosecutor to investigate whether the police had abused their powers by detaining him. The Nadterechnyi district prosecutor's office issued several decisions refusing institution of criminal proceedings. One of them was set aside by the Nadterechnyi District Court on 13 July 2007 for the following reasons: "The issue whether the administrative detention of Mr Timishev was necessary has not been clarified. Pursuant to Article 27.3(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, administrative detention may be applied in exceptional circumstances if this is necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative offence. The decision ... refusing institution of criminal proceedings indicates that a report on the administrative offence ... was compiled and forwarded to [Mr Timishev's] place of residence. In these circumstances, the court sees no grounds for the administrative detention of Mr Timishev." 8. Subsequent decisions refusing institution of criminal proceedings stated alternatively that it was impossible to establish the time of the applicant's detention because it had not been recorded in any documents, that the applicant had been detained for disobeying police orders, that he had been actually free to go after 3.15 p.m. but had asked to be taken to the Nadterechnyi office to file a complaint there and the police had ensured his safe passage. Each time the prosecutor concluded that the police had not committed any prosecutable offence. 9. On 27 January 2009 the Nadterechnyi District Court identified a number of serious shortcomings in the investigation. The court pointed out that it had not been established why the report on the administrative office could not have been drafted at the checkpoint and why it was considered necessary to escort the applicant to Goragorsk. It remained unclear what had happened to the report: the investigator had not obtained the forwarding letter or any information about the outcome of the proceedings. The investigator had not inquired why an escorting report required under Article 27.2(3) of the Code or the detention report required under Article 27.4 of the Code had not been prepared. Nor had he determined what "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Article 27.3(1) had called for the applicant's detention and at what time the applicant had actually left the Nadterechnyi police station. 10. The court was not convinced that the applicant had asked the police to take him to the Nadterechnyi office to file a complaint. It considered implausible that the police had provided a car and an escort to help him complain about their conduct. Even assuming that he had indeed wished to make a complaint, the investigator did not establish what had happened to it or, alternatively, why he had not written it, or why he had gone there in person instead of sending it by post from Goragorsk. Statements by the police officers who stated that the applicant had been "released" were also indicative of the fact that he had been taken to the Nadterechnyi office against his will. 11. Finally, the court criticised the investigator's assumption that the applicant had committed an administrative offence. It noted that, according to the Guidance on Issuing Passports (order no. 605 of 15 September 1997), the head of the passports department should have asked the passport holder to sign the passport with special ink. Responsibility for the wrong kind of ink should lie with the official who departed from the Guidance rather than with the applicant. 12. On 9 April 2009 the investigator issued a further decision refusing institution of criminal proceedings. It was similar in its wording to the previous ones and did not touch upon the areas of concern identified in the District Court's judgment.

Ruled as violated by court

6. The police first took the applicant by car to the Goragorsk police station (ТОМ пос. Горагорск) where an inspector told him that he was "temporarily detained for the purpose of drawing up a report". Once the report had been completed at 3.15 p.m., another police officer took the applicant, again by police car, from Goragorsk the Nadterechnyi district police station (ОДЧ Надтереченского района). An operative established his identity, verified his documents and let him go at 5.10 p.m. The station chief later stated that the applicant had "thanked him for a prompt release". 7. The applicant asked the supervising prosecutor to investigate whether the police had abused their powers by detaining him. The Nadterechnyi district prosecutor's office issued several decisions refusing institution of criminal proceedings. One of them was set aside by the Nadterechnyi District Court on 13 July 2007 for the following reasons: "The issue whether the administrative detention of Mr Timishev was necessary has not been clarified. Pursuant to Article 27.3(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, administrative detention may be applied in exceptional circumstances if this is necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative offence. The decision ... refusing institution of criminal proceedings indicates that a report on the administrative offence ... was compiled and forwarded to [Mr Timishev's] place of residence. In these circumstances, the court sees no grounds for the administrative detention of Mr Timishev." 9. On 27 January 2009 the Nadterechnyi District Court identified a number of serious shortcomings in the investigation. The court pointed out that it had not been established why the report on the administrative office could not have been drafted at the checkpoint and why it was considered necessary to escort the applicant to Goragorsk. It remained unclear what had happened to the report: the investigator had not obtained the forwarding letter or any information about the outcome of the proceedings. The investigator had not inquired why an escorting report required under Article 27.2(3) of the Code or the detention report required under Article 27.4 of the Code had not been prepared. Nor had he determined what "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Article 27.3(1) had called for the applicant's detention and at what time the applicant had actually left the Nadterechnyi police station. 10. The court was not convinced that the applicant had asked the police to take him to the Nadterechnyi office to file a complaint. It considered implausible that the police had provided a car and an escort to help him complain about their conduct. Even assuming that he had indeed wished to make a complaint, the investigator did not establish what had happened to it or, alternatively, why he had not written it, or why he had gone there in person instead of sending it by post from Goragorsk. Statements by the police officers who stated that the applicant had been "released" were also indicative of the fact that he had been taken to the Nadterechnyi office against his will. 11. Finally, the court criticised the investigator's assumption that the applicant had committed an administrative offence. It noted that, according to the Guidance on Issuing Passports (order no. 605 of 15 September 1997), the head of the passports department should have asked the passport holder to sign the passport with special ink. Responsibility for the wrong kind of ink should lie with the official who departed from the Guidance rather than with the applicant.

While it depends on the definition of "prompt," it appears that after being held on reasonable suspicion, the applicant was not brought promptly to trial, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant was born in 1961 and lived until his arrest in the town of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, the Sakhalin Region. 5. On 3 April 2003 the applicant was apprehended in a flat with unregistered firearms in his possession. Four tied persons with traces of beatings, including Mr P., were discovered in a cloakroom of the flat. An investigator of the Sakhalin Regional police department drew up an arrest record. 6. On the following day the applicant's detention on remand was authorised. A week later the applicant was charged with a number of crimes, including organisation and leadership of an armed gang, several counts of aggravated kidnapping, extortion, robbery and fraud, as well as illegal possession of firearms. 7. The applicant's detention was further extended by the Yuzhno‑Sakhalinsk Town Court and the Sakhalin Regional Court on thirteen occasions up until his conviction. When extending the applicant's detention, the domestic courts referred to the particular gravity and quantity of the charges against him; complexity of the criminal investigation and difficulties of jury trial; the applicant's liability to abscond, re-offend and interfere with the course of justice, given his personality and criminal record; significant volume of evidence presented by the defence during the trial. The courts also kept track of the course of the investigation and assessed investigative and operative measures planned by the prosecution, including arrests of the applicant's accomplices (which were still at liberty or had absconded in breach of the measure of restraint imposed on them and had been put on the wanted persons' list), complex expert examinations requiring participation of the applicant and the victims and examination of the case-file by the applicant and his accomplices. The applicant's requests for release on bail, as well as his appeal complaints against the detention orders, were to no avail. 8. On 21 April 2004 the applicant and his lawyers started studying the case file materials comprising nineteen volumes, 200-300 pages long each. On 7 September 2004 the Town Court set a time-limit for studying, affording the applicant additional twenty working days to complete it. On 29 December 2004 the case was referred to the Regional Court for trial. 9. On 6 April 2006 the Regional Court, by a jury verdict, found the applicant and six of his accomplices guilty as charged. On 12 May 2006 the Regional Court, relying on the jury verdict, sentenced the applicant to twenty-one years' imprisonment. 10. The applicant was found guilty, in particular, of an aggravated fraud, robbery, kidnapping and extortion in respect of Mr L., a businessman from the Moscow Region. The jury found that in May 2001 the applicant had approached Mr L. under the pretence of being a car salesman. The applicant had promised Mr L. to sell him a car for approximately 600,000 Russian roubles (RUB). However, after Mr L. had transferred the money to an account indicated by the applicant, the latter had disappeared. In October 2002 the applicant contacted Mr L., told him that he had just returned from Japan with his car and invited him to come to Sakhalin for it. On his arrival at the airport of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk on 13 October 2002 Mr L. was met by Mr K., one of the applicant's accomplices, and taken to the applicant's country house where he was held until 6 November 2002, being subjected to beatings and extortion by the applicant and his gang. 11. Neither Mr K., nor Mr L. were heard in open court. Mr K. had been found dead in a remand prison cell before the trial commenced. As for Mr L., residing in the Moscow Region, the trial court attempted to secure his presence on several occasions by summoning him and ordering his escort to the court. In reply he informed the trial court about being unable to travel to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk in view of his spinal disease and a medical contraindication to air travel. He submitted a number of documents in support, as well as a written notice in which he confirmed his pre-trial statements. Having regard to these circumstances, the trial court allowed the prosecution's request to read out Mr L. and Mr K.'s statements incriminating the applicant, despite the latter's objections. 12. The jury further established that in September and December 2002 and in March 2003 the applicant had organised an armed robbery and kidnapping of eight other victims, including Mr P. and had extorted a large sum of money in exchange for their freedom. Mr P. also was not heard in court as he was allegedly on vacation in Ukraine. Disregarding the applicant's objections, the Regional Court read out Mr P.'s pre-trial statements against the applicant. 13. The applicant's lawyer appealed against the judgment of the Regional Court, complaining, among other matters, about the decision to read out pre-trial statements by Mr L., Mr P. and Mr K. On 14 November 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of the Regional Court, noting that it had correctly considered that reasons for the witnesses' absence had been extraordinary and that it had lawfully read out their pre-trial statements.

NOT ruled as violated by court

7. The applicant's detention was further extended by the Yuzhno‑Sakhalinsk Town Court and the Sakhalin Regional Court on thirteen occasions up until his conviction. When extending the applicant's detention, the domestic courts referred to the particular gravity and quantity of the charges against him; complexity of the criminal investigation and difficulties of jury trial; the applicant's liability to abscond, re-offend and interfere with the course of justice, given his personality and criminal record; significant volume of evidence presented by the defence during the trial. The courts also kept track of the course of the investigation and assessed investigative and operative measures planned by the prosecution, including arrests of the applicant's accomplices (which were still at liberty or had absconded in breach of the measure of restraint imposed on them and had been put on the wanted persons' list), complex expert examinations requiring participation of the applicant and the victims and examination of the case-file by the applicant and his accomplices. The applicant's requests for release on bail, as well as his appeal complaints against the detention orders, were to no avail. 10. The applicant was found guilty, in particular, of an aggravated fraud, robbery, kidnapping and extortion in respect of Mr L., a businessman from the Moscow Region. The jury found that in May 2001 the applicant had approached Mr L. under the pretence of being a car salesman. The applicant had promised Mr L. to sell him a car for approximately 600,000 Russian roubles (RUB). However, after Mr L. had transferred the money to an account indicated by the applicant, the latter had disappeared. In October 2002 the applicant contacted Mr L., told him that he had just returned from Japan with his car and invited him to come to Sakhalin for it. On his arrival at the airport of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk on 13 October 2002 Mr L. was met by Mr K., one of the applicant's accomplices, and taken to the applicant's country house where he was held until 6 November 2002, being subjected to beatings and extortion by the applicant and his gang. 11. Neither Mr K., nor Mr L. were heard in open court. Mr K. had been found dead in a remand prison cell before the trial commenced. As for Mr L., residing in the Moscow Region, the trial court attempted to secure his presence on several occasions by summoning him and ordering his escort to the court. In reply he informed the trial court about being unable to travel to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk in view of his spinal disease and a medical contraindication to air travel. He submitted a number of documents in support, as well as a written notice in which he confirmed his pre-trial statements. Having regard to these circumstances, the trial court allowed the prosecution's request to read out Mr L. and Mr K.'s statements incriminating the applicant, despite the latter's objections. 12. The jury further established that in September and December 2002 and in March 2003 the applicant had organised an armed robbery and kidnapping of eight other victims, including Mr P. and had extorted a large sum of money in exchange for their freedom. Mr P. also was not heard in court as he was allegedly on vacation in Ukraine. Disregarding the applicant's objections, the Regional Court read out Mr P.'s pre-trial statements against the applicant.

While it depends on the definition of "prompt," it appears that after being held on reasonable suspicion, the applicant was not brought promptly to trial, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Gdynia. 5. On 2 January 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed homicide together with other persons. 6. On 5 January 2007 the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. The court stressed the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given that extensive evidence had still to be obtained in the case. It also referred to the fact that the proceedings in question concerned several alleged accomplices. The court further relied on the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed on the applicant. 7. On 12 February 2007 the applicant applied for the preventive measure to be lifted or varied. On 15 February the District Prosecutor refused the request, finding that the grounds for the imposition of this measure remained valid. 8. The applicant's detention was further extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) of 20 March, 19 June and 21 August 2007. The applicant appealed against all of those decisions. His appeals were dismissed by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 4 May, 1 August and 19 September 2007 respectively. The courts repeatedly relied in their decisions on the strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question, the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on him and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, especially the need to obtain further expert evidence. 9. On 17 September 2007 the applicant again applied for release. His application was refused on 21 September 2007 by the Gdynia District Prosecutor. 10. On 27 November 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court further extended the applicant's detention until 31 March 2008. The applicant appealed, unsuccessfully. 11. On an unspecified date in late 2007 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with homicide committed together with two other co-accused. 12. The applicant's detention was continually extended during the course of the trial. 13. On 4 August 2008 the applicant requested the court to release him on health grounds. On 19 August 2008 the trial court refused his request. It relied on the medical certificate issued by a prison doctor, stating that the applicant could be adequately treated in detention. 14. On 25 September 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment (case no. IV 457/07). The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. He lodged an appeal. 15. On 13 May 2009 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case for retrial (case no. II AKa 45/09). 16. The applicant's detention was continually extended by the domestic courts, pending his appeal and in the course of the retrial. In particular, on 24 August 2009 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended his detention until 31 December 2009. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 23 September 2009 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the impugned decision, finding that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question persisted, despite the fact that the judgment convicting the applicant had been quashed. The Court of Appeal further considered that the Regional Court had correctly relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty as the principal ground for the applicant's continuing detention and on the risk of the obstruction of the proceedings. 17. On 16 March 2010 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment (case no. XIV K 48/09). The applicant was again convicted as charged and sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal. 18. On 10 November 2010 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case for retrial (case no. II AKa 277/10). 19. On 23 March 2012 the Gdańsk Regional Court further extended the applicant's detention, reiterating the grounds given in its initial decisions. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. 20. During the retrial proceedings the Gdańsk Regional Court held fifteen hearings in total. 21. On 12 July 2012 the court gave judgment (case no. XIV K 210/10). The applicant was again convicted and sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment. He lodged an appeal against that judgment. 22. On 26 October 2012 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 December 2012. On 13 November 2012 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the impugned decision. It considered that the applicant's involvement in the offences with which he had been charged had been supported by the non-final judgment of 12 July 2012, in which he had been convicted and had received a severe sentence. The court also held that further detention on remand was the only preventive measure capable of securing the proper course of the proceedings until the delivery of a final judgment. 23. On 6 June 2013 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly allowed the applicant's appeal (case no. II AKa 84/13). The appellate court upheld the conviction but reclassified the offence as involuntary manslaughter (nieumyślne spowodowanie śmierci). The applicant's sentence was reduced to four years' imprisonment. The applicant was released on the same day.

Ruled as violated by court

16. The applicant's detention was continually extended by the domestic courts, pending his appeal and in the course of the retrial. In particular, on 24 August 2009 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended his detention until 31 December 2009. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 23 September 2009 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the impugned decision, finding that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question persisted, despite the fact that the judgment convicting the applicant had been quashed. The Court of Appeal further considered that the Regional Court had correctly relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty as the principal ground for the applicant's continuing detention and on the risk of the obstruction of the proceedings. 19. On 23 March 2012 the Gdańsk Regional Court further extended the applicant's detention, reiterating the grounds given in its initial decisions. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. 22. On 26 October 2012 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 December 2012. On 13 November 2012 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the impugned decision. It considered that the applicant's involvement in the offences with which he had been charged had been supported by the non-final judgment of 12 July 2012, in which he had been convicted and had received a severe sentence. The court also held that further detention on remand was the only preventive measure capable of securing the proper course of the proceedings until the delivery of a final judgment. 23. On 6 June 2013 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly allowed the applicant's appeal (case no. II AKa 84/13). The appellate court upheld the conviction but reclassified the offence as involuntary manslaughter (nieumyślne spowodowanie śmierci). The applicant's sentence was reduced to four years' imprisonment. The applicant was released on the same day.

While it depends on the definition of "prompt," it appears that after being held on reasonable suspicion, the applicant was not brought promptly to trial, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

5. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. 6. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 24 November 2006 the applicant, the owner and CEO of a large dairy producer, was charged with large-scale fraud and money laundering and summoned for questioning. He did not show up for a few initial interviews and the investigator put his name on the list of fugitives from justice. 8. On 26 January 2007 the investigator, acting on the information that the applicant had fled abroad, asked the Ostankinskiy District Court in Moscow for a detention order. 9. The detention hearing was fixed for 1 February 2007. The applicant's lawyers had been notified of the date and time of the hearing on the previous day but did not show up and asked the investigator to postpone the examination of his application because they were busy in other proceedings. The District Court appointed legal-aid counsel to represent the absent applicant, proceeded with the hearing and issued the detention order, referring to the fact of the applicant's absconding to Ukraine and from there to Hungary, the gravity of the charges against him and the risk of interference with the investigation. On 9 February 2007 the applicant's lawyers appealed. 10. On 15 February 2007 the applicant was arrested in Moscow. 11. On 19 March 2007 the Moscow City Court heard an appeal against the detention order. The applicant and his lawyers were present at the hearing. Considering that the risks of flight and obstruction of the investigation were sufficiently established, the City Court upheld the detention order. 12. The applicant's detention was later extended on nine occasions. The applicant appealed against each of the detention orders, lodging statements of appeal within two to ten days of the hearing date. It took the appeal courts between twenty-six and sixty days to examine the complaints. 13. The most recent detention order of 25 July 2008 was quashed on appeal by the Supreme Court on 2 October 2008. The Supreme Court considered that there was no evidence substantiating the risk of absconding or interfering with justice. The investigation had been pending for over two years of which the applicant had spent more than a year and a half in custody. The Supreme Court concluded that that the proceedings had been unreasonably long and ordered the applicant's release on bail. 14. While in custody, the applicant asked the investigator to be allowed to receive visits from his mother, wife and children and also pastoral visits from two Orthodox priests, A. and S. 15. With the investigator's consent, the applicant's mother and daughters visited him on two occasions in April and May 2007. In August and September 2007 the investigator interviewed his wife and mother as potential witnesses but they refused to testify, invoking the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. The investigator refused the applicant's subsequent applications to see his family, stating that such visits could "have a negative influence on the conduct of the investigation". As to the Orthodox priests, on 29 March 2007 the investigator invoked the same ground to refuse a visit from S. On 30 August 2007 the investigator once again refused a pastoral visit, stating that the applicant should see the prison chaplain instead. 16. Counsel for the applicant applied for a judicial review of visiting restrictions. 17. On 24 October 2007 and 6 February 2008 the Tverskoy District Court pronounced the refusal of pastoral visits to be lawful and justified, holding that the investigator had full discretion to determine whether or not such visits ran counter to the interests of the investigation. On 18 June 2008 the City Court upheld the latter decision on appeal, holding that a restriction on religious rights was an inherent consequence of the pre-trial detention. 18. As regards family visits, on 30 October 2007 the Tverskoy District Court granted the applicant's complaint in part, finding as follows: (a) restrictions on visits from the applicant's wife and mother in the period after the investigator had interviewed them as witnesses in the criminal proceedings had been lawful and within the discretion of the investigator; (b) restrictions on visits from the wife and mother in the preceding period had not been justified but no relief could be afforded to the applicant because they had already been granted the status of witnesses and the investigator might wish to interview them again at some point in time; (c) restrictions on visits from the applicant's children were not justified and the investigator had an obligation to remedy a breach of the applicant's rights. 19. On 10 December 2007 the applicant's representative before the Court, Ms Kostromina, asked the director of the remand prison to allow her to see the applicant and provided credentials confirming her status. Her application was referred to the investigator. 20. On 24 January 2008 Ms Kostromina lodged a complaint with the Preobrazhenskiy District Court claiming that the prison director should have authorised her visit without any restrictions, on the basis of Article 34 of the Convention guaranteeing unhindered access of an applicant to his representative. 21. On 15 February 2008 the District Court dismissed the complaint, finding that Ms Kostromina was not the applicant's counsel in the domestic criminal proceedings and could not therefore visit him. On 6 May 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal.

Ruled as violated by court

13. The most recent detention order of 25 July 2008 was quashed on appeal by the Supreme Court on 2 October 2008. The Supreme Court considered that there was no evidence substantiating the risk of absconding or interfering with justice. The investigation had been pending for over two years of which the applicant had spent more than a year and a half in custody. The Supreme Court concluded that that the proceedings had been unreasonably long and ordered the applicant's release on bail. 18. As regards family visits, on 30 October 2007 the Tverskoy District Court granted the applicant's complaint in part, finding as follows: (a) restrictions on visits from the applicant's wife and mother in the period after the investigator had interviewed them as witnesses in the criminal proceedings had been lawful and within the discretion of the investigator; (b) restrictions on visits from the wife and mother in the preceding period had not been justified but no relief could be afforded to the applicant because they had already been granted the status of witnesses and the investigator might wish to interview them again at some point in time; (c) restrictions on visits from the applicant's children were not justified and the investigator had an obligation to remedy a breach of the applicant's rights.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

7. The applicants are Syrian nationals. Their initials, dates of birth, application numbers and the other details of their cases are set out in the Appendix. At the time of lodging their applications the applicants were detained at detention centres for foreign nationals run by the Federal Migration Service (hereinafter "the FMS") in different towns in Russia. 8. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 9. On various dates between 2012 and 2016 the applicants came to Russia on various visas and did not leave when the period of their stay had expired. They were apprehended by the police and/or officers of the FMS in various regions in Russia for breaching the applicable immigration regulations, and placed in detention centres for foreigners (see the Appendix for the applicants' dates of detention and details of the relevant proceedings). The domestic courts in the respective regions examined their cases and found the applicants guilty of breaching various immigration regulations. Some of the applicants lodged appeals, but they were rejected by the domestic courts, whereas other applicants eventually had their expulsion orders quashed by the appeal courts. One of the applicants did not appeal against his expulsion order (see the Appendix for the details of individual cases) 10. All the applicants sought to obtain refugee status and/or temporary asylum in Russia. Some of the applicants voluntarily withdrew their requests and others' requests were rejected, first by the FMS and then by the domestic courts which examined the appeals against the FMS's refusals. Only Y.A.'s request for temporary asylum was granted (see the Appendix for details). 11. According to the information provided by their lawyers, while the proceedings before the Court were ongoing, six of the applicants (M.S.A., R.K., H.R., B.Z., S.W. and A.A.) left Russia of their own volition on various dates to go to third countries, where they settled (see the Appendix for details). 12. Between 24 January 2014 and 10 June 2014 M.S.A. and R.K. were detained in a detention centre for foreign nationals run by the FMS in Krasnoye Selo, in the Leningrad Region. 13. According to their submissions, the centre was based in an eight-storey building with windows covered with grills; five of the storeys were designed to accommodate 176 people in total. Each storey comprised around ten to eleven cells. The centre was severely overcrowded during the whole period of the applicants' detention. In particular, according to a report of the Human Rights Ombudsman in Saint Petersburg, on 26 February 2014 the centre accommodated 400 foreign nationals. 14. Both applicants were detained in cell no. 511, located on the fifth storey, which measured around 9 square metres and was designed to accommodate six people. All places in the cell were occupied during the whole period of their detention. Thus, each detainee had no more than 1.5 square metres of personal space, despite the statutory requirement that each detainee in a detention centre for foreign nationals have at least 4.5 square metres of personal space. The cell was furnished with three bunk beds and two bedside tables. There was no dining table in the cell. 15. The food was of poor quality, with no fruit or vegetables, and included pork, which the applicants could not eat for religious reasons. No alternative food was offered instead of pork, so they were deprived of any meal when pork was served. There were no kitchen and dining facilities in the centre. Food was delivered to the centre in containers and served cold in the cells. Detainees were forced to eat on their beds because there were no tables in the cells. This shortage in food was exacerbated by arbitrary restrictions on the contents of food parcels delivered from outside. Detainees were not allowed to receive fermented milk products, home‑cooked food, fruit or vegetables. 16. Detainees had no free access to drinking water or devices to boil tap water. The cell where M.S.A. and R.K. were detained was only lit by one light bulb, and the detainees were not allowed to switch on the light after 10 p.m. 17. The applicants and other inmates could move around on that storey to get to sanitary facilities, but they were not allowed to leave the storey or enter other detainees' cells. At the two ends of the common corridor there were bathrooms, each equipped with three lavatories, two washbasins and two showers. The storey was under the control of a dozen "chosen" inmates who, with the tacit consent of the centre's administration, dictated their rules to others and created an atmosphere of fear, violence and extortion. One of the bathrooms was for their exclusive use. The other seventy to eighty inmates had to use the other bathroom. 18. Outdoor exercise was sporadic and lasted around 15-20 minutes. In winter, the applicants did not go outside, as they did not possess winter clothes. In the period April-May 2014 they were able to enjoy outdoor exercise only four times. Outdoor exercise took place in a closed yard measuring around 50 metres in length and 10 metres in width. There was gravel on the ground, and there were no benches, plants or sports equipment. 19. The facility did not offer any activities, and no library was available. 20. During the administrative hearing concerning his removal from Russia on 26 February 2016, H.R. was not represented by a lawyer. 21. According to the lawyer representing B.Z., H.D. and S.W., on 25 March 2015 he was not allowed to meet with them in the detention centre.

Ruled as violated by court

21. According to the lawyer representing B.Z., H.D. and S.W., on 25 March 2015 he was not allowed to meet with them in the detention centre.

While it depends on the definition of "speedy," it appears that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided speedily, as it took more than 3 months.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Smederevo. 6. On 26 March 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Žabari Municipal Court against his employer, the Ministry of Interior, seeking payment of certain benefits. 7. On 23 April 2012 the Požarevac First Instance Court the Žabari Court Unit ruled in favour of the applicant. 8. On 4 October 2012 the Belgrade Appellate Court revised the First Instance Court's judgment and rejected the applicant's claim. The applicant received the said judgment on 5 November 2012. 9. On 12 November 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's constitutional appeal.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Manisa. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 7 July 2009 the applicant was dismissed from the Expert Gendarmerie School due to non-compliance with disciplinary rules. 8. On 28 July 2009 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested the annulment of the decision to dismiss him. 9. On 6 January 2010 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant's case, taking into account the "secret documents" submitted by the Ministry of Defence. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant. 10. On 5 May 2010 the applicant's request for rectification was rejected by the same court.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "fair and public," secret documents appear to threaten this definition.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants sued different State and municipal unitary companies (the debtor companies) in several unrelated sets of court proceedings. 5. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts by separate judgments made pecuniary awards in favour of the applicants to be paid by the debtor companies. In application no. 34145/11 the courts also ordered the debtor company to take certain action in favour of the applicant, as specified in the appended table. 6. The companies were incorporated as State or municipal unitary enterprises. They provided services specified in the appended table. 7. On various dates insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of some of the debtor companies. The companies were subsequently liquidated. The dates on which the insolvency proceedings started and ended are tabulated below.

Ruled as violated by court

There is no relevance between fair trial and debt recovery.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sarajevo. 5. In 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer, the local police, seeking his reinstatement and damages. His claim was eventually rejected. 6. The first-instance judgment was rendered by the Sarajevo Municipal Court on 17 April 2006. 7. The second-instance judgment was rendered by the Sarajevo Cantonal Court on 27 March 2008. 8. The third-instance judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 26 January 2010. 9. On 19 April 2010 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina complaining under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome and length of his labour dispute. 10. On 10 April 2013 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time and rejected the remainder of the case. It did not award any damages.

Ruled as violated by court

8. The third-instance judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 26 January 2010.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, according to the Constitutional Court, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Čačak. 5. On 7 September 2005 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Kotor seeking redress regarding various contractual issues. 6. On 4 December 2008 the Court of First Instance in Kotor ruled in favour of the applicant. 7. On 17 November 2009 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica upheld this judgment on appeal. 8. On 20 May 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the previous judgments and ordered a re-trial. 9. On 12 August 2011 the Court of First Instance in Kotor ruled against the applicant. This judgment was upheld by the High Court in Podgorica and the Supreme Court on 6 April 2012 and 12 September 2012 respectively. 10. The Supreme Court's judgment was served on the applicant on 20 October 2012. 11. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal on 28 November 2012. 12. On 30 June 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 25 September 2015.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kayseri. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. The applicant, who was a sergeant in the Army had a traffic accident in 2007 and was declared "disabled" (Adi malül"). 7. On unspecified date, the applicant requested the General Directorate of Pension Fund (the Fund) ("Emekli-Sandığı") to modify his retirement statute as service-disabled ("vazife malülü"), but the fund rejected that request. 8. On 9 August 2007 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the Fund's decision. 9. On 22 May 2008 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request. 10. On 11 September 2008 the applicant's rectification request was rejected. 11. During the proceedings, namely on 12 May 2008 and 29 July 2008 the Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Military Administrative Court filed lengthy written opinions on the case. However these opinions were not communicated to the applicant.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "judgment pronounced publicly," written opinions not communicated to the applicant appear to threaten this definition.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Novi Sad. 5. On 1 June 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings seeking reimbursement for income she had lost because of a car accident. 6. On 25 February 2008 the Novi Sad Court of First Instance delivered a judgment partly in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her a certain amount in that respect. 7. On 30 October 2008 the Novi Sad District Court partly quashed the judgment of 25 February 2008 and remitted the case, upholding the remainder of the judgment. 8. On 2 July 2010 the Novi Sad Court of First Instance rejected the applicant's claim in the remitted part. 9. On 30 January 2012 the Novi Sad Court of Appeal partly upheld the judgment of 2 July 2010 and partly reversed it granting certain applicant's claims. 10. On 5 February 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's complaint about the length of those proceedings, taking into consideration that the civil courts had rendered four judgments at two instances and that the proceedings had been complex.

Ruled as violated by court

10. On 5 February 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's complaint about the length of those proceedings, taking into consideration that the civil courts had rendered four judgments at two instances and that the proceedings had been complex.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The first applicant lives in Sarajevo. He is the grandfather of the second applicant. The second applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Sarajevo. 5. On 10 November 2005 the second applicant initiated administrative proceedings in order to obtain recognition of the veteran status of his late father. His request was rejected on 12 December 2005. The second applicant appealed on an unknown date in December 2005 or January 2006. 6. On 26 January 2006 the competent Ministry upheld the first-instance decision. 7. On 21 January 2008 the Sarajevo Cantonal Court quashed the decisions of 12 December 2005 and 26 January 2006, and remitted the case to the first-instance body. In the new proceedings, the second applicant's request was again rejected. The last decision was given by the Sarajevo Cantonal Court on 25 September 2012. It was served on the second applicant on 23 October 2012. 8. In the meantime, on 10 October 2012, the Constitutional Court found a breach of the second applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time. It did not award any damages.

Ruled as violated by court

5. On 10 November 2005 the second applicant initiated administrative proceedings in order to obtain recognition of the veteran status of his late father. His request was rejected on 12 December 2005. The second applicant appealed on an unknown date in December 2005 or January 2006. 7. On 21 January 2008 the Sarajevo Cantonal Court quashed the decisions of 12 December 2005 and 26 January 2006, and remitted the case to the first-instance body. In the new proceedings, the second applicant's request was again rejected. The last decision was given by the Sarajevo Cantonal Court on 25 September 2012. It was served on the second applicant on 23 October 2012.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, according to the Constitutional Court, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicants were born in 1949 and 1950, respectively, and lived in Podgorica, where the second applicant still lives. 6. On 25 July 2000 the applicants' mother instituted civil proceedings against Podgorička banka Societe Generale Group ad Podgorica (hereinafter "respondent") seeking the payment of her savings, which she had deposited with the respondent's legal predecessor Titogradska osnovna banka Titograd. 7. On an unspecified date the applicants continued the above-mentioned proceedings in their mother's stead as she had passed away in the meantime. 8. On 25 July 2008 the First Instance Court in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicants. 9. On 19 January 2010 the High Court in Podgorica reversed the first‑instance judgment by dismissing the applicants' claims in their entirety. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 19 October 2010. 10. On 5 December 2010 the Supreme Court's judgment was served on the applicants. 11. On 3 February 2011 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal. 12. On 12 April 2012 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants' appeal, which decision was served on the applicants on 29 May 2012.

Ruled as violated by court

6. On 25 July 2000 the applicants' mother instituted civil proceedings against Podgorička banka Societe Generale Group ad Podgorica (hereinafter "respondent") seeking the payment of her savings, which she had deposited with the respondent's legal predecessor Titogradska osnovna banka Titograd. 10. On 5 December 2010 the Supreme Court's judgment was served on the applicants.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Belgrade. 5. On 9 May 2005 the applicant lodged a claim seeking ownership of 265 shares of the company Tri Grozda a.d. Beograd 6. On 14 September 2007 the Belgrade Court of First Instance delivered a judgment in favour of the applicant. 7. On 13 December 2011 the Belgrade Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of 14 September 2007, and rejected the applicant's claim. 8. On 3 April 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, complaining of a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time and requesting compensation in that regard. 9. On 23 September 2014 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time. It held that the finding of a violation had constituted sufficient just satisfaction in the particular circumstances of the present case for the following reasons. First, the nominal value of the impugned shares was only slightly higher than 200 euros. The case was thus of minor importance for the applicant. Secondly, it considered that the applicant had contributed to the length of the civil proceedings by failing to lodge a constitutional appeal earlier.

Ruled as violated by court

9. On 23 September 2014 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time. It held that the finding of a violation had constituted sufficient just satisfaction in the particular circumstances of the present case for the following reasons. First, the nominal value of the impugned shares was only slightly higher than 200 euros. The case was thus of minor importance for the applicant. Secondly, it considered that the applicant had contributed to the length of the civil proceedings by failing to lodge a constitutional appeal earlier.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, according to the Constitutional Court, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The list of applicants is set out in the appended tables. 5. On the dates indicated in the appended tables the applicants obtained monetary court awards against the Municipal Unitary Enterprise Passenger Transport Company of Kotlas (MUP Kotlas Passazhirskoye avtotransportnoye predpriyatiye – муниципальное предприятие муниципального образования Котлас «Пассажирское автотранспортное предприятие»). 6. Some of the judgments in the applicants' favour have been partly enforced during the insolvency proceedings in respect of the company (see paragraphs 7-10 below), while others remained unenforced to date. 7. The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise. It was set up by the municipality of Kotlas. The company provided transport services in the town. It had "the right of economic control" (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it. 8. As submitted by the applicants, the prices for the transport services in the town of Kotlas were regulated by the Administration of Arkhangelsk region. 9. On 28 September 2007 insolvency proceedings started in respect of the company. 10. On 18 September 2012 the company was declared insolvent and subsequently liquidated.

Ruled as violated by court

There is no relevance between fair trial and debt recovery.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Podgorica. 5. Between 3 December 2002 and 15 September 2003 the daily newspaper Dan published several articles about a human trafficking case in Montenegro, in which the applicant's name was mentioned in various contexts. 6. On 22 October 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the publisher of the said newspaper, seeking compensation for non‑pecuniary damage due to violation of his honour and reputation caused by the publishing of untrue information about him. 7. On 4 June 2010, following a remittal, the Podgorica First Instance Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant, ordering the publisher to pay the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damages and to publish the judgment in Dan, the daily newspaper in question. 8. On 22 October 2010 the Podgorica High Court amended this judgment by awarding the applicant EUR 4,000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, which judgment was served on the applicant on 29 November 2010. 9. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal on 14 January 2011. 10. On 7 April 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 19 May 2011.

Ruled as violated by court

8. On 22 October 2010 the Podgorica High Court amended this judgment by awarding the applicant EUR 4,000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, which judgment was served on the applicant on 29 November 2010.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bor. 6. The proceedings began on 30 March 1992 when the applicant brought a lawsuit against third persons concerning the execution of a contract. 7. On 19 June 1997 the first-instance court accepted the applicant's claim. 8. On 30 October 1997 the appeal court quashed the decision on legal costs, remitted that issue to the first-instance court for a retrial and upheld the remainder of the first-instance judgment. 9. The first-instance court subsequently rendered three decisions on the costs of the proceedings on 23 July 1998, 19 February 1999 and 3 March 2000. All of these decisions were quashed on appeal. 10. On 5 February 2013 the first-instance court rendered a fourth decision on the issue of legal costs awarding the applicant approximately 2,000 euros (EUR). 11. According to the information on the file, the proceedings are currently pending before the second-instance court. 12. On 13 March 2013 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him EUR 300 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered in this regard. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court ordered the applicant's proceedings to be expedited.

Ruled as violated by court

11. According to the information on the file, the proceedings are currently pending before the second-instance court. 12. On 13 March 2013 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him EUR 300 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered in this regard. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court ordered the applicant's proceedings to be expedited.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, according to the Constitutional Court, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 6. On 25 September 2000 the Neamț County Court ordered a state‑owned company to pay the applicant due salary rights. 7. On 9 October 2001 the Roman District Court ordered a private person to reimburse a loan to the applicant. 8. On 14 November 2008 the Brașov County Court ordered the municipality of Brașov to leave a plot of land in the applicant's full property and possession. 9. On 3 April 2009 the applicant signed a report, drafted on the occasion of the compulsory enforcement of the above judgment, which attested to the restoration of his possession over the land in dispute by placement of metal bars on the free area and by tracing a line with white paint over the area occupied by roads and bridge pillars belonging to the municipality. 10. On 18 July 2008 the applicant contracted a loan of 250,000 euros (EUR) from a bank, with the plot of land used as guarantee. 11. On 22 August 2011 the bank sold the land at a public auction for EUR 325,000, since the applicant had failed to repay the loan within the set deadline. In accordance with domestic law, the remaining amount after the recovery of the debt must be returned to the debtor.

Ruled as violated by court

10. On 18 July 2008 the applicant contracted a loan of 250,000 euros (EUR) from a bank, with the plot of land used as guarantee. 11. On 22 August 2011 the bank sold the land at a public auction for EUR 325,000, since the applicant had failed to repay the loan within the set deadline. In accordance with domestic law, the remaining amount after the recovery of the debt must be returned to the debtor.

There is no relevance between fair trial and debt recovery.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Županja. 6. On 5 July 2011 the applicant was indicted before the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) on charges of causing a road accident under Article 272 of the Criminal Code. 7. The applicant was tried in summary proceedings (skraćeni postupak). On 4 May 2012 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court convicted the applicant as charged and gave him a suspended sentence of four months' imprisonment with two years' probation. 8. On 23 May 2012 the applicant appealed against his conviction and asked to be allowed to appear at the session of the appeal panel. 9. On 15 January 2013 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu), without informing the applicant or his lawyer, examined the case without holding a hearing. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the applicant's conviction and sentence. 10. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining, inter alia, that he had not been allowed to appear at the session of the appeal panel. 11. On 18 September 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. That decision was served on the applicant's representative on 4 October 2013.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "defending oneself," it appears that the applicant was denied this right, as he asked to appear at the appeal session but was denied.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Čurug. 5. On 2 August 2002 the applicant and one of his colleagues (hereinafter "the plaintiffs") instituted civil proceedings against their employer seeking payment of salary arrears and other employment-related benefits. 6. On 8 February 2013, after two remittals the First Instance Court in Novi Sad, specifically its Detached Section in Bečej, ruled partly in favour of the plaintiffs, ordering their employer to pay each of them specified sums in respect of salary arrears. The remainder of their claims was rejected. 7. On 15 April 2013 the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad reversed a part of the above judgment, while upholding the remainder. This judgment was served on the plaintiffs on 6 June 2013. 8. On 29 January 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on points of law as the value of their respective claims was below the statutory threshold allowing for this remedy. 9. On 9 April 2013 the plaintiffs lodged the constitutional appeal, complaining of a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the impugned proceedings. By its decision of 9 December 2015, the Constitutional Court found a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded each of them EUR 800 in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage suffered.

Ruled as violated by court

7. On 15 April 2013 the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad reversed a part of the above judgment, while upholding the remainder. This judgment was served on the plaintiffs on 6 June 2013. 9. On 9 April 2013 the plaintiffs lodged the constitutional appeal, complaining of a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the impugned proceedings. By its decision of 9 December 2015, the Constitutional Court found a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded each of them EUR 800 in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage suffered.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, according to the Constitutional Court, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. Between 1986 and 1987 the applicants took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis. 5. Considering these benefits insufficient, the applicants together with other 482 people, sued the Russian Ministry of Finance for additional compensation corresponding to non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation. 6. On different dates in January and April 2011 the Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkaria ("the Town Court") allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant, including the applicants, compensation ranging between 1,200,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 1,600,000 for non‑pecuniary damage. 7. No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory ten-day time-limit. The judgments became final but have never been executed. 8. On different dates the Town Court granted the defendant authority's request to extend the time-limit for appeal on the grounds that the authorities had not received a copy of the judgment in due course. Subsequently the regional Supreme Court quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants' favour on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

6. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul. 7. On 11 December 1995 the applicant, a traffic control officer, was hit by a car while on duty. He suffered bodily injuries as a result of the accident. An official disability report indicated that he had a reduced working capacity of 60%. 8. On the basis of this report the applicant, while reserving the right to increase his claims in due course, made an initial request for compensation to the Ministry of Interior, claiming 20,000 Turkish liras (TRY) in pecuniary damages and TRY 5,000 in non-pecuniary damages. 9. Following tacit dismissal of the claim by the Ministry, the applicant brought a case for compensation before the Istanbul Administrative Court for the amounts he had specified in his request to the Ministry. 10. During the course of the proceedings, the court decided of its own motion to order an expert report to determine the exact amount of pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. The report, which was submitted to the court on 26 September 2005, indicated the applicant's pecuniary damages as 157,077 TRY. The applicant did not submit a request to the court to increase his initial claims in the light of that report. The Istanbul Administrative Court in its decision delivered on 15 February 2006 only awarded him the amounts initially requested by him.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1985 and is currently detained in St Petersburg. 6. He was suspected of involvement in large-scale drug dealing. 7. On 2 February 2011 he was arrested. He remained in custody pending the investigation and trial. 8. On 6 October 2011 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan ("the District Court") received the case file and set the trial date for 19 October 2011. 9. On 19 March 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine and a half years' imprisonment. 10. During the trial, which consisted of sixteen hearings, the applicant was confined in a metal cage in the courtroom. There was no desk inside the cage, only a wooden bench, which made it impossible for him to take notes during the hearings. Armed security guards remained beside the cage dock. The applicant's lawyer could only approach him with the court's permission. Any conversations between them had to take place in the presence of the guards. 11. On 10 August 2012 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal. The applicant participated in the hearing by videoconference. He was placed behind a floor-to-ceiling metal partition on the premises of the remand prison SIZO-3 of the Tatarstan Republic where he was detained and communicated with the judges via a video link.

NOT ruled as violated by court

It depends on whether the applicant's state during the trials counts as an infringement upon "adequate facilities" with which to prepare his defense.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicants are Turkish nationals, whose dates of birth and places of residence are shown in the appendix. They all own plots of land located in different cities of Turkey. 5. Following local land development plans, the applicants' plots of land were designated for public use. Subsequently, complaining about the decrease in the market value of the land and the long-term uncertainty about the fate of their plots of land, the applicants initiated compensation proceedings before the civil courts. 6. During the proceedings relating to their land, the applicants submitted the decision given by the Plenary Chamber of the Court of Cassation (civil divisions, numbered E.2004/5-555 K.2005/17) to the domestic courts and asserted that according to this decision their compensation claims had to be accepted. 7. On various dates between 2007 and 2010, the applicants' respective claims for compensation were dismissed by the domestic courts on the ground that their plots of land were not actually seized by the authorities. In their decisions, neither the courts of first instance nor Fifth Civil Division of the Court of Cassation, which examined the applicants' claims on cassation, expressed any reason as to why they had reached a different conclusion from the plenary Court of Cassation. 8. The details of the proceedings may be found in the appended table.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that some applicants did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 6. On 21 November 1994 the applicants were taken into police custody. Their statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. All the applicants confessed to having committed the crimes with which they had been charged. On 28 December 1994 they were remanded in custody. 7. On 24 January 1995 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants (except for Eyyup Yaşar), charging them under Section 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. 8. On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of the State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges. 9. On 4 December 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged. 10. On 20 November 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the convictions. 11. State Security Courts were abolished on 16 June 2004 pursuant to Law no. 5190. The case was accordingly transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 12. On 22 February 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court again convicted the applicants under Section 125 of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 13. On 6 February 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicants were denied their right to defend themselves.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicants, whose names are listed in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. 6. On 17 and 18 July 2008, each of the applicants sent a letter to the Halfeti (Şanlıurfa) public prosecutor`s office which contained the following passage: "If using the word of "sayın" (esteemed) is an offense, then I also say "Sayın Abdullah Öcalan", I commit this offense and denounce myself." 7. On 19 September 2008, the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Halfeti Magistrates' Court in Criminal Matters against the applicants. They were charged with praising an offence and offender, prescribed by Article 215 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237), on account of their statements in the above mentioned letters. 8. On 9 March 2009 the Halfeti Magistrates' Court in Criminal Matters found the applicants guilty of praising the imprisoned leader of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, on account of their statements in the aforementioned letters and accordingly, sentenced them each to two months and fifteen days' imprisonment. In accordance with Article 50 of the Criminal Code, this prison sentence was commuted to a fine of 1,500 Turkish Liras (TRY). 9. The applicants appealed against this judgment. On 20 June 2012 the Court of Cassation, holding that the amount of the fine that had been imposed on the applicants did not attain the minimum requisite level, dismissed the appeal request.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ercsi. 6. On 28 February 2007 the applicant filed an action with the Székesfehérvár Labour Court against his former employer, claiming unlawful dismissal. On 6 June 2008 the court found in his favour and obliged the respondent to the action to pay him a severance payment, outstanding wages, a lump sum in compensation, and default interest. 7. On appeal, on 25 February 2009 the Fejér County Regional Court changed the judgment in part. In June 2009 the respondent filed a petition for review. 8. In an order of 2 June 2010 the Supreme Court forwarded the respondent's petition to the applicant and informed him that, within eight days of receiving the order, he could file comments on the respondent's petition and/or request an oral hearing. 9. On 7 June 2010 the applicant received the order, and on 14 June 2010 he dispatched his comments on the petition for review. The document was received by the Supreme Court on 17 June 2010. 10. Meanwhile, on 16 June 2010 the Supreme Court, sitting as a review court, had given a judgment in which it had reversed the previous decisions and dismissed the applicant's action. The court stated that the applicant had not filed any comments on the petition for review. 11. The applicant complained and addressed his complaint of 6 December 2010 to the President of the Supreme Court. The Head of the Civil Division informed him that his comments on the petition for review had been belated.

Ruled as violated by court

8. In an order of 2 June 2010 the Supreme Court forwarded the respondent's petition to the applicant and informed him that, within eight days of receiving the order, he could file comments on the respondent's petition and/or request an oral hearing. 9. On 7 June 2010 the applicant received the order, and on 14 June 2010 he dispatched his comments on the petition for review. The document was received by the Supreme Court on 17 June 2010. 10. Meanwhile, on 16 June 2010 the Supreme Court, sitting as a review court, had given a judgment in which it had reversed the previous decisions and dismissed the applicant's action. The court stated that the applicant had not filed any comments on the petition for review. 11. The applicant complained and addressed his complaint of 6 December 2010 to the President of the Supreme Court. The Head of the Civil Division informed him that his comments on the petition for review had been belated.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. On 28 February 1996 the applicants and the debtor (JSP "Tara" Cetinje) reached a court approved settlement before the Cetinje Municipal Court, whereby the debtor undertook to pay the applicants specified amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 5. The settlement became final on the same date. 6. The debtor ultimately paid part of the amounts determined in the settlement. 7. On 26 May 1997 the Podgorica Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings against the debtor. 8. On 19 August 1997 the applicants submitted their respective claims based on the settlement. 9. In the course of the insolvency proceedings the Podgorica Commercial Court acknowledged the applicants' claims. 10. On 23 December 2009 the Podgorica Commercial Court terminated (zaključio) the insolvency proceedings against the debtor, but continued the proceedings against the debtor's estate. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Court on 9 April 2010. 11. The proceedings are still pending. 12. On 14 October 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' constitutional appeal on procedural grounds. 13. The court settlement in question remains partly unenforced to the present day. 14. It transpires from the case file that at the time the court settlement was concluded and became final (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above) the debtor was a company predominantly comprised of State‑controlled capital. The Government neither contested this nor provided any evidence to the contrary.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicants did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Novi Sad. 5. The proceedings began on 19 November 1999 when a third private party brought a lawsuit concerning his tenancy rights in respect of a flat owned by a respondent. The applicant acted as an intervener in these proceedings on the side of the respondent since she had previously signed a tenancy agreement with him. 6. On 8 April 2003 the first instance court suspended the proceedings (mirovanje postupka). 7. On 20 August 2003, 20 October 2005 and 13 May 2009 the first instance court terminated the proceedings having deemed the lawsuit as withdrawn due to the fact that the parties had failed to appear at the scheduled hearings. All three of these decisions were subsequently quashed on appeal. 8. On 29 March 2012 the first instance court rendered a judgment in favour of the respondent and the applicant. 9. On 22 August 2012 this judgment was upheld on appeal. 10. On 28 September 2012 the applicant lodged a further appeal with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 11. On 10 February 2015 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time, but rejected her claim for non-pecuniary damages stating that the finding of a violation alone constituted sufficient redress for the said breach. In so doing it noted, inter alia, that the applicant had significantly contributed to the length of proceedings in question.

Ruled as violated by court

9. On 22 August 2012 this judgment was upheld on appeal.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, according to the Constitutional Court, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant company is a privately owned company registered in Danilovgrad, Montenegro. 5. In July 2004 a call for tender for hotel "Otrant" in Montenegro was issued. The deadline for submitting bids was October 2004. Together with three other companies, the applicant company took part in the tendering process. On 30 November 2004, however, it was informed that the tender was awarded to another bidder. 6. On an unspecified date in December 2004, the applicant company objected to this decision. On 29 December 2004 the Commercial Court in Podgorica (Privredni sud u Podgorici) rejected the applicant company's objection. 7. On 28 January 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance. 8. On 15 June 2006 the Commercial Court ruled against the applicant company. This decision was served on the applicant company on 8 September 2009. 9. On 26 March 2010 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Commercial Court. The decision of the Court of Appeal was served on the applicant company's lawyer on 27 April 2010. 10. On 15 July 2010 the applicant company lodged an initiative urging the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office (Vrhovno državno tužilaštvo) to file a request for the protection of legality (zahtjev za zaštitu zakonitosti), but this motion was rejected on 21 July 2010. 11. On 30 July 2010 the applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal. On 14 October 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected this appeal as having been lodged out of time.

Ruled as violated by court

6. On an unspecified date in December 2004, the applicant company objected to this decision. On 29 December 2004 the Commercial Court in Podgorica (Privredni sud u Podgorici) rejected the applicant company's objection. 8. On 15 June 2006 the Commercial Court ruled against the applicant company. This decision was served on the applicant company on 8 September 2009.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

6. The applicants, who were born in 1980 and 1977, respectively, live in Slobozia and Parcani, in the self-proclaimed "Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria" ("MRT"). In view of the fact that, in the applicants' submission, it was impossible for them to apply to the Court directly, the application was lodged by their mothers. 7. On 2 March 2005 the applicants were arrested by the "MRT" authorities and placed in detention on remand on suspicion of murder. On 1 June 2009 they were convicted by an "MRT" court and sentenced to terms of fourteen years and a half, and fourteen years' imprisonment, respectively. On 4 August 2009 the Supreme Court of the "MRT" upheld the above judgment, but reduced the sentence of the first applicant to fourteen years' imprisonment. 8. It does not appear from the material in the case file and from the parties' submissions that the applicants informed the authorities of the Republic of Moldova about the proceedings against them and the conviction and detention in the "MRT". 9. In December 2014 the applicants challenged their conviction by way of an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Moldova which, on 14 February 2015, upheld their appeal and quashed the judgments of the "MRT" courts on the ground that they had been issued by unconstitutional tribunals. 10. The applicants were released from detention on 20 July and 20 August 2015, respectively, for reasons which were not related to the Supreme Court of Moldova's decision of 14 February 2015.

Ruled as violated by court

8. It does not appear from the material in the case file and from the parties' submissions that the applicants informed the authorities of the Republic of Moldova about the proceedings against them and the conviction and detention in the "MRT".

It is arguable whether or not the MRT courts count as "independent and impartial tribunals."

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

6. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Larnaca. 7. Following his dismissal from Cyprus Airways Ltd as a trainee pilot, the applicant on 26 June 1998 brought a civil action before the District Court of Nicosia for wrongful dismissal and defamation (civil action no. 7562/98). The defendant company was represented by a law firm. 8. On 29 December 2006 the court dismissed the action. 9. On 9 February 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (appeal no. 43/07). The appeal was tried by a bench of three judges. 10. The hearing of the appeal was held on 11 March 2007. On that date the managing partner of the above-mentioned law firm, Mr P.G.P., appeared for the defendant company and addressed the Supreme Court. Up until that date, other lawyers from the firm had appeared before the appeal bench on behalf of the defendant company. 11. On 21 April 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal unanimously. 12. The applicant submitted that after the judgment of the Supreme Court was given, he discovered that the son of one of the judges sitting on the bench, Judge A.K., and the daughter of Mr P.G.P., were married and that both worked at the latter's law firm. The lawyer representing him in the domestic proceedings had not requested the exemption of the judge in question because he had not had sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts at the time. The applicant had also not instructed his lawyer to do so as he had found out about this fact only after the appeal proceedings had ended.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicants were born in 1961 and 1996 respectively and live in Muğla. 5. The first applicant was the husband and the second applicant was the son of Mrs Özlem Gürakın, who died on 3 September 2001. 6. On an unspecified date, the applicants brought compensation proceedings against the Dokuz Eylül University Hospital, alleging that Mrs Özlem Gürakın had been a victim of medical negligence. The applicants further requested legal aid for the court fees. In respect of their legal aid claim, they submitted documents attesting to their poor financial situation. 7. On 13 December 2006 the Izmir Administrative Court rejected the applicants' legal aid claim, without indicating any specific reasons. They were notified that they had to pay 1,683 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 870 Euros (EUR)) in court fees within one month to continue the proceedings and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings. 8. As the applicants failed to pay the court fees within the time-limit, the İzmir Administrative Court sent a further warning letter to the applicants and ordered them to pay the court fees. 9. On 6 April 2007 the applicants made a second request for legal aid and asked the court to reconsider its former decision. 10. On 20 April 2007 the Izmir Administrative Court once again rejected the applicants' request and granted them one month to pay the court fees. 11. On 12 July 2007 the court decided to discontinue the proceedings, because the applicants had not paid the necessary court fees.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicants did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Kyustendil. 5. In a judgment of 15 August 2004 the Sofia District Court awarded the applicant BGN 2,120.28 (about 1,100 euros (EUR)) in damages, plus the legal interest for the period starting on 11 February 2003 until full payment, and BGN 200 in costs and expenses, against the National Centre for Recreation, Rehabilitation and Sport ("the Centre"). The Centre was a State body subsidised by the Ministry of Education. It exercised certain functions entrusted by the Ministry. The damages were awarded for loss of salary following the applicant's unlawful dismissal from work. The judgment became final on 11 February 2008. 6. In the meantime, on 25 May 2005 the Minister of Education ordered that the Centre be closed down and its remaining property be managed by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry then established a State-owned joint-stock company with part of the Centre's property. 7. On 26 November 2008 the applicant was issued with a writ of enforcement for the amount awarded against the Centre in the final judgment of 11 February 2008 (see paragraph 5 above). On 18 March 2009 he filed a request with the Minister for Education for payment of that amount. 8. The Ministry of Education replied in May 2009 that neither the Ministry, nor the State-owned joint-stock company, was the successor of the Centre and that the amount claimed was not due by them. 9. As of 23 March 2015, the date of the applicant's last communication to the Court, no change in the above circumstances had been recorded.

Ruled as violated by court

8. The Ministry of Education replied in May 2009 that neither the Ministry, nor the State-owned joint-stock company, was the successor of the Centre and that the amount claimed was not due by them.

There is no relevance between fair trial and debt recovery.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

6. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Adana. 7. On 11 July 2000 the Adana Magistrate's Court ordered the detention of the applicant in absentia. 8. On 20 July 2000 the applicant was questioned by the gendarmerie in the absence of his lawyer. In his statement, the applicant gave a detailed description about his involvement in an illegal organisation and the activities in which he had taken part. Subsequently, he was brought before the public prosecutor at the Adana State Security Court. During the interview, the applicant stated, again in the absence of a lawyer, that his statements made to the gendarmerie had been correct. 9. On 15 September 2000 the investigating judge at the Mardin Magistrate's Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention, again in the absence of a lawyer. 10. On 24 October 2000 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment before the Adana State Security Court, charging the applicant under Section 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. 11. On 25 October 2005 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged. 12. On 26 April 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the conviction. 13. On 6 November 2007 the Adana Assize Court found that, inter alia, on the basis of the applicant's statements to the gendarmerie and the public prosecutor, the applicant had committed the offence under Section 125 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 14. On 12 November 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant was denied his right to defend himself.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicants were born in 1977 and 1964, respectively, and live in Voronezh. 5. The applicants are lawyers practicing in Russia. 6. Between 2008 and 2010 the applicants, within the group of lawyers, consulted several municipal organisations about various legal issues and provided other legal service. However municipal organisations did not pay for the service and the applicants instituted proceedings seeking to recover the debt. 7. On 22 June 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicants claim against the municipal transport company and awarded them 40,020,000 Russian roubles. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. It appears that the judgment was executed at the expense of the municipal budget. 8. On 9 January 2013 the prosecutor of the Voronezh Region applied to the district court for the extension of the time-limits for an ordinary appeal against the judgment of 22 June 2010. 9. On 13 June 2013 the district court refused to extend the time-limits. The prosecutor appealed. 10. On 8 August 2013 the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the decision of the district court and extended the time limit for an ordinary appeal. The court found that the public interest had been concerned as far as the judgment had been executed by means of the municipal budget. Thus the prosecutor had the right to lodge an appeal. 11. On 12 November 2013 the Voronezh Regional Court granted the appeal lodged by the prosecutor and quashed the judgment of 22 June 2010 and ordered the reversal of execution. The judgment became final and was partially executed.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Sofia. 6. The Sofia Municipal Council approved the exchange of a municipal flat for a smaller flat owned and occupied by the applicant in December 2005. However, the mayor of Sofia did not issue the necessary order and did not sign a contract for the exchange, as provided in the applicable rules. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the mayor's tacit refusal to act. The Sofia Administrative Court quashed the mayor's tacit refusal in a judgment of 1 April 2010 and instructed the mayor to issue an order for the exchange of the flats. That part of the judgment became final and enforceable on 19 May 2010. 7. By a decision of 25 March 2010 the Sofia Municipal Council revoked its December 2005 decision approving the exchange of the two properties. The applicant lodged a challenge against that 25 March 2010 decision. In a final judgment of 7 March 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court declared the Council's decision of 25 March 2010 null and void. 8. On 18 April 2011 the mayor issued a decision explicitly refusing to issue an order for the exchange of the two flats. Following an application by the applicant for judicial review, on 30 March 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court declared that decision null and void as having been issued in breach of the judgment of the Sofia Administrative Court of 1 April 2010. The court also instructed the mayor to issue an order for the conclusion of the exchange agreement. 9. The mayor ordered the flat exchange on 6 March 2013 and the applicant signed a contract for the exchange on 25 June 2013.

Ruled as violated by court

8. On 18 April 2011 the mayor issued a decision explicitly refusing to issue an order for the exchange of the two flats. Following an application by the applicant for judicial review, on 30 March 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court declared that decision null and void as having been issued in breach of the judgment of the Sofia Administrative Court of 1 April 2010. The court also instructed the mayor to issue an order for the conclusion of the exchange agreement.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

6. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Muş. 7. On 30 October 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). 8. On 1 November 2001 the applicant's statement was taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. During his interrogation, he confessed being a member of the PKK and gave a detailed account of his acts within the illegal organisation. 9. On 3 November 2001 the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, again in the absence of a lawyer. In his statements before both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied the accusations. On the same day, upon the order of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. 10. On 6 November 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code, with membership of an illegal armed organisation. 11. The state security courts were later abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. 12. On 6 October 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court, relying on, inter alia, the applicant's statements to the police, convicted him of membership of an illegal organisation under Article 314 § 2 of the new Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years and six months' imprisonment. 13. On 15 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first‑instance court.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant was denied his right to defend himself.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Oslo, Norway. 5. On 26 April 2000 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and one other person in connection with a traffic accident which had resulted in death of a child. 6. On 25 February 2003 the Court of First Instance in Podgorica convicted the applicant for endangering public traffic and sentenced him and his co-accused to one year and six months' imprisonment. 7. On an unspecified date in 2006 the High Court in Podgorica quashed this judgment and remitted case back to the Court of First Instance. 8. On 18 April 2007 the Court of First Instance adopted a new judgment and again convicted the applicant and his co-accused. But the court reduced the sentence to one year and four months' imprisonment. 9. On 13 November 2009 the High Court further reduced the sentence of the applicant's co-accused, but upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance in respect of the applicant. 10. The applicant's subsequent appeal against the judgment of the High Court was rejected on 14 June 2010. 11. Following that rejection, on an unspecified date in 2010, the applicant lodged a further appeal on points of law (zahtjev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude) with the Supreme Court. 12. On 26 October 2010 the Supreme Court rejected this appeal. 13. On 11 December 2010 the applicant lodged an action for fair redress (tužba za pravično zadovoljenje) with the Supreme Court, complaining about the overall length of criminal proceedings. It was rejected on 31 December 2010. 14. On 19 April 2013 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's ultimate appeal.

NOT ruled as violated by court

10. The applicant's subsequent appeal against the judgment of the High Court was rejected on 14 June 2010. 11. Following that rejection, on an unspecified date in 2010, the applicant lodged a further appeal on points of law (zahtjev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude) with the Supreme Court. 12. On 26 October 2010 the Supreme Court rejected this appeal.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year. However, the Constitutional Court rejected this.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

6. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Sofia. 7. The applicant's grandfather owned part of a real estate. He donated his part to the applicant's cousins in 1997. The applicant's grandfather died on 16 January 2003. 8. On 13 February 2004 the applicant brought proceedings under section 30 of the Inheritance Act 1949 before the Sofia District Court. She claimed that, by donating his part in the immovable property in 1997, her grandfather had infringed her right to a "reserved share" in his inheritance, given that the immovable property in question represented his entire estate. In a decision of 2 March 2005 the court upheld her claim by diminishing the part of the estate donated to the applicant's cousins and restoring the applicant's "reserved share" in her grandfather's inheritance. 9. Following an appeal by the other party, on 20 September 2007 the Sofia City Court quashed the first instance court's judgment and rejected the applicant's claim for restoration of her "reserved share" in her grandfather's estate. In particular, referring to Interpretative Decision No. 1 of 4 February 2005 by the Supreme Court of Cassation ("SCC"), the court found that the applicant had not complied with the statutory requirements for claiming her reserved share. The court held that, given that her cousins to whom the real estate had been donated could not be considered "heirs-at-law", the applicant should have claimed the reserved share of the inheritance by means of an "inventory". 10. Following a cassation appeal brought by the applicant, on 24 March 2009 the SCC upheld the Sofia City Court's findings in full in a final decision.

Ruled as violated by court

9. Following an appeal by the other party, on 20 September 2007 the Sofia City Court quashed the first instance court's judgment and rejected the applicant's claim for restoration of her "reserved share" in her grandfather's estate. In particular, referring to Interpretative Decision No. 1 of 4 February 2005 by the Supreme Court of Cassation ("SCC"), the court found that the applicant had not complied with the statutory requirements for claiming her reserved share. The court held that, given that her cousins to whom the real estate had been donated could not be considered "heirs-at-law", the applicant should have claimed the reserved share of the inheritance by means of an "inventory". 10. Following a cassation appeal brought by the applicant, on 24 March 2009 the SCC upheld the Sofia City Court's findings in full in a final decision.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Smědčice. 6. On 9 November 2006 the applicant requested a building permit for temporary stables for horses. On 6 January 2011 the Rokycany Planning Office (stavební úřad) dismissed his request and on 26 May 2011 the Plzeň Regional Office (krajský úřad) upheld that decision. 7. On 29 March 2013 the Plzeň Regional Court (krajský soud) dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Plzeň Regional Office. 8. On 31 July 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. The decision was served on the applicant on 28 August 2013. 9. On 29 October 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint (ústavní stížnost). 10. On 31 March 2014 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) rejected the applicant's appeal as being lodged out of time. It held that as the Supreme Administrative Court's decision had been served on him on 28 August 2013, the last day of the two-month time-limit for lodging a constitutional appeal was 28 October 2013. 11. On 8 April 2014 the applicant wrote to the Constitutional Court urging it to set aside its decision. He argued that as 28 October 2013 had been a national holiday, domestic procedural rules provided that the last day for lodging his appeal had been the following day, namely 29 October 2013. 12. By a letter of 11 April 2014 the Registrar (generální sekretář) of the Constitutional Court acknowledged that the judge-rapporteur had undoubtedly overlooked the fact that the time-limit had been complied with. However, as the Constitutional Court did not have the power to set aside its own decision, he advised the applicant to lodge an application with the European Court of Human Rights.

Ruled as violated by court

12. By a letter of 11 April 2014 the Registrar (generální sekretář) of the Constitutional Court acknowledged that the judge-rapporteur had undoubtedly overlooked the fact that the time-limit had been complied with. However, as the Constitutional Court did not have the power to set aside its own decision, he advised the applicant to lodge an application with the European Court of Human Rights.

With the multiple dismissals of appeals, the applicant was denied his right to fair trial to determine civil rights.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Naberezhnyye Chelny. 5. The applicant was a police officer. On 1 November 2004 he was arrested on suspicion of having extracted a bribe. 6. On 10 November 2005 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic convicted the applicant and sentenced him to imprisonment. He stayed under the obligation not to leave his place of residence in Naberezhnyye Chelny until the conviction became final. He could leave his place of residence only upon the summons from the investigator or the court. 7. Several parties to the criminal proceedings, including the applicant, appealed against the conviction. The case was forwarded to the Russian Supreme Court in Moscow, 1,000 km away from Naberezhnyye Chelny. The applicant never received any summons to the appeal hearing due to the Supreme Court's mistake in the postal code. Neither did he receive copies of the statements of appeal filed by the prosecutor, by the co-accused, G., and the latter's lawyer. 8. On 28 February 2006 the conviction was upheld by the Russian Supreme Court. The prosecutor and G.'s lawyer attended the appeal hearing. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present. 9. In 2011 the applicant lodged a compensation claim for non-pecuniary damages caused by poor conditions of detention. In the text of his claim the applicant explicitly asked the court to consider the claim in his absence. On 14 April 2011 the Bugulminskiy Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic dismissed his claim. The applicant received the notification of the time and date of the hearing after the hearing had actually taken place. 10. The first-instance judgment was upheld on 4 July 2011 by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic. The applicant had been notified of that hearing on 29 June 2011.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "fair and public," the applicant's lack of summons appear to threaten this definition.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. Following judicial proceedings which ended with a final judgment of the Bălţi Court of Appeal of 8 December 2009, the applicant company obtained a final ruling obliging the Cadastral Authority to register immovable property privatised by it in 1999 and in 2004 in its name. 6. On an unspecified date the defendant in the proceedings lodged a request for a review of the judgment of 8 December 2009, seeking its annulment on the grounds that in a technical report dated 25 May 2009 it had been stated that the immovable property in question did not qualify as immovable property ("the review request"). 7. On 24 August 2010 the Bălţi Court of Appeal dismissed the review request on the grounds that the information contained in the technical report of 25 May 2009 did not qualify as new and relevant information which could not have been obtained before the delivery of the final judgment in the case. 8. On 22 December 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the above judgment and ordered a re-examination of the review request. 9. On 16 November 2011 the Chişinău Court of Appeal re-examined the review request and allowed it. The court relied on grounds other than those relied upon by the defendant in framing the request. In particular, the court relied on a Government decision from 2005, in accordance with which the disputed goods had been transferred to the defendant's control. The court quashed the final judgment of 8 December 2009 and ordered a fresh examination of the case. 10. On 16 August 2012, after examining the merits of the case, the Edineţ District Court again found in favour of the applicant company and required the Cadastral Authority to register some of the immovable property privatised by the applicant company in 1999 and in 2004 in its name. The Cadastral Authority challenged that judgment by lodging an appeal and the proceedings are still pending.

Ruled as violated by court

9. On 16 November 2011 the Chişinău Court of Appeal re-examined the review request and allowed it. The court relied on grounds other than those relied upon by the defendant in framing the request. In particular, the court relied on a Government decision from 2005, in accordance with which the disputed goods had been transferred to the defendant's control. The court quashed the final judgment of 8 December 2009 and ordered a fresh examination of the case.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

8. The applicants were born in 1949 and 1923 respectively and lived in Bucharest, where the first applicant still lives. 9. The applicants were co-owners of two adjacent plots of land in Montenegro. 10. On 13 June 2009, during a visit to the plots, the first applicant noticed a metal fence built partly on their property. The fence divided the two plots of land and made it impossible for them to access one plot from the other. It appears that the fence had been erected some time in February 2009. 11. On 15 July 2009 the applicants, who had legal representation, instituted civil proceedings for trespass (radi smetanja posjeda) against B.Ć., their neighbour. 12. On 27 June 2011 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Kotor ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered B.Ć. to remove the fence and pay the applicants 1,435 euros (EUR) in respect of legal costs. The court was satisfied that the applicants had lodged their claim in time, given that the deadline for initiating proceedings was 30 days from the day on which they had noticed the trespass, taking into account that 13 and 14 July were national holidays. In doing so the court relied on section 77 of Property Act (see paragraph 14 below). 13. On 20 December 2011 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica, ruling on an appeal lodged by B.Ć., quashed the previous judgment and rejected the applicants' claim (tužba se odbacuje) as submitted out of time. The court held that 13 and 14 July were indeed national holidays when the courts did not sit. It considered, however, that the 30-day period within which the applicants could institute proceedings was mandatory "[in which case] there could be no shifting of the time-limit when its last day fell on a day when the courts [did] not sit". The time-limit had therefore expired on 13 July 2009, and the applicants had not filed their claim until 15 July 2009.

Ruled as violated by court

13. On 20 December 2011 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica, ruling on an appeal lodged by B.Ć., quashed the previous judgment and rejected the applicants' claim (tužba se odbacuje) as submitted out of time. The court held that 13 and 14 July were indeed national holidays when the courts did not sit. It considered, however, that the 30-day period within which the applicants could institute proceedings was mandatory "[in which case] there could be no shifting of the time-limit when its last day fell on a day when the courts [did] not sit". The time-limit had therefore expired on 13 July 2009, and the applicants had not filed their claim until 15 July 2009.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicants did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kraljevo. 6. Between June 2003 and December 2004 the applicant, as an entrepreneur, was providing heating installation services to AD Fabrika za proizvodnju konfekcije i trikotaže Raška, a socially-owned company based in Novi Pazar (hereinafter "the debtor company"). 7. On 2 December 2010 the Kraljevo Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company (St. 31/2010). 8. The applicant duly submitted his claim. 9. On 15 March 2011 the Commercial Court rejected his claim and instructed him to initiate a regular civil suit and request determination of his claim. The applicant lodged a separate civil claim. 10. On 1 December 2011 the Commercial Court ruled in favour of the applicant by recognizing his claim and ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant the costs of the civil proceedings. 11. On an unspecified date thereafter, the said judgment having become final, was acknowledged within the insolvency proceedings. 12. On 22 July 2013 the Commercial Court issued a decision ordering payment of approximately 10 % of the total debt to the applicant. The applicant received this payment on an unspecified date. 13. The debtor company was ultimately struck from the relevant public register on 9 July 2014. 14. On 16 December 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining against the Commercial Court's decision of 22 July 2013 and that his right to work and right to compensation for work and providing services were infringed, because he received only 10 % of the total debt. He asked further the Constitutional Court to order the payment of the rest of the debt. 15. On 2 March 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal finding that it is not vested with the power to order such a payment. That decision was delivered to the applicant after 24 April 2015.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took less than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

6. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Muş. 7. On 19 April 2003 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. 8. On 20 April 2003 the applicant's statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. During the interrogation, the applicant gave a detailed account of his acts within the illegal organisation PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). 9. On 22 April 2003 the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, again in the absence of a lawyer. In his statements before both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied the accusations and maintained that his statements to the police had been given under duress. On the same day, upon the order of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. 10. On 6 May 2003 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code, Law no. 765. 11. The State Security Courts were later abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. 12. On 19 September 2006, relying on, inter alia, the applicant's statements to the police, the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 314 § 2 of the new Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years and three months' imprisonment. 13. On 19 November 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on procedural grounds. 14. On 30 December 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant again under Article 314 § 2 of the new Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years and three months' imprisonment. 15. On 20 March 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant was denied his right to defend himself.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was employed by HK Komgrap and Komgrap-Makiš doo, a company based in Belgrade (hereinafter "the debtor"). At the relevant time, the company was predominantly socially-owned (see Stoković and Others v. Serbia, nos. 75879/14 and seq. §§ 10-14, 8 March 2016) 6. Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations towards its employees, the applicant brought a civil claim seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions. 7. On 23 June 2003 the Belgrade Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud u Beogradu) ordered the debtor to pay to the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears and the various social security contributions. This judgment became final and enforceable on 25 July 2005. 8. On 26 September 2005 the applicant applied to the Belgrade Fourth Municipal Court (Četvrti opštinski sud u Beogradu) for enforcement of the judgment of 23 June 2003. 9. On 18 January 2006 the said court ordered the enforcement of the judgment and awarded the applicant the costs incurred in the enforcement proceedings. 10. On 27 October 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, seeking redress for the non-enforcement of the judgment in question. 11. On 27 November 2013 the Constitutional Court held that the applicant had suffered a breach of the "right to a trial within a reasonable time" with regard to the enforcement proceedings. The court ordered the acceleration of these proceedings and declared that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered in the amount of 800 euros (EUR) converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. 12. The Constitutional Court held that since the enforcement proceedings in question had not yet been completed, the constitutional appeals were premature in so far as they concerned the pecuniary damage, and dismissed the appeal in that regard.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, according to the Constitutional Court, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. Between 1986 and 1987 the applicants took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis. 5. Considering these benefits insufficient, the applicants together with other 482 people, sued the Russian Ministry of Finance for additional compensation corresponding to non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation. 6. On different dates in January and April 2011 the Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkaria ("the Town Court") allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant, including the applicants, compensation ranging between 1,100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 1,800,000 for non‑pecuniary damage. 7. No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory ten-day time-limit. The judgments became final. Some judgments in respect of several applicants remained unenforced (see "Enforcement status" in the Appendix). 8. On different dates in 2012 and 2013 the domestic courts granted the defendant authority's request to extend the time-limit for appeal essentially on the ground that the defendant authority had not been served with the impugned judgments. Subsequently the regional Supreme Court quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants' favour on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law. The applicants were ordered to repay the sums received under the judgments. 9. The applicants lodged a supervisory review application. There is no indication that they requested the enforcement proceedings to be suspended pending the examination of their supervisory review application. 10. Between June and August 2013 the Presidium of the regional Supreme Court partially quashed the appeal judgments as regards the applicants' obligation to reimburse the sums paid.

Ruled as violated by court

9. The applicants lodged a supervisory review application. There is no indication that they requested the enforcement proceedings to be suspended pending the examination of their supervisory review application. 10. Between June and August 2013 the Presidium of the regional Supreme Court partially quashed the appeal judgments as regards the applicants' obligation to reimburse the sums paid.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicants did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Vilnius. 5. On 17 April 2009 the applicant was officially notified that she was suspected of having organised the embezzlement of property of high value. On 7 May 2009 the applicant was charged with the relevant offences. She denied her guilt. 6. On 22 July 2011 the Vilnius Regional Court held that the legal classification of the charges against the applicant was incorrect, because the total value of the allegedly embezzled property was not high. The court reclassified the charges on the basis of a less serious offence, held that the prosecution had become time-barred and discontinued the proceedings. 7. The prosecutor appealed. On 27 October 2011 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Vilnius Regional Court. 8. After re-examining the case, on 10 June 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court found the applicant guilty of the charges against her. She was given a fine of 12,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 3,475 euros (EUR)). She was also ordered to pay some of the damages claimed by a company, amounting to LTL 2,800 (approximately EUR 810). 9. The applicant lodged an appeal, but on 18 October 2013 the Court of Appeal dismissed it and upheld the lower court's judgment in its entirety. 10. On 7 January 2014 the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court. On 17 February 2014 a selection panel of three judges refused to examine the appeal, on the basis that it did not comply with Article 368 § 2 and Article 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter "the CCP") (see paragraphs 15 and 16 below). The chair of the selection panel, Judge V.G., was the father of M.G., who had been the prosecutor in the case against the applicant before the first-instance and the appellate courts. 11. The Supreme Court consists of two divisions: Civil and Criminal. The Criminal Division has sixteen judges in it.

Ruled as violated by court

11. The Supreme Court consists of two divisions: Civil and Criminal. The Criminal Division has sixteen judges in it.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicants did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

6. The applicant was born in Qesarat, Tepelenë, in 1977. He is currently serving a prison sentence. 7. On 14 January and 10 November 2005, following proceedings in absentia, the Gjirokastër District Court and the Court of Appeal, respectively, convicted the applicant of attempted theft resulting in death in collusion with others and sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment. That decision became final on 9 February 2007 after the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant's lawyer. It appears that the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by his family throughout the court proceedings. 8. It appears that on 30 March 2007 the applicant was extradited from Greece to Albania. 9. On 3 May 2007 the Gjirokastër District Court allowed a request by the applicant to appeal out of time and he lodged an appeal against his conviction in absentia. 10. On 12 November 2007 the Gjirokaster Court of Appeal while requalifying the charges against the applicant on the basis of the evidence obtained during the proceedings in absentia, upheld the applicant's conviction, ruling that it had become res judicata. 11. By a final decision of 7 October 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's conviction as decided in the Gjirokastër District Court's decision of 2005, ruling that it had become res judicata and that the facts and law in the case had been examined previously. It further noted that leave to appeal out of time should not have been granted as the case had become res judicata. 12. On 21 February 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court against the Supreme Court's decision, complaining, inter alia, about the fact that the domestic courts had not given him the possibility of a fresh factual and legal determination of the criminal charge. 13. On 9 May 2011 the applicant's lawyer was notified of the Constitutional Court's decision to dismiss his appeal.

Ruled as violated by court

8. It appears that on 30 March 2007 the applicant was extradited from Greece to Albania.

With the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant was denied the right to fair trial.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The list of applicants is set out in the appended tables. 6. The applicants were employees of a municipal education institution. 7. On 13 June 2001 they brought proceedings before the Kolomna Town Court of the Moscow Region ("the Town Court") against their employer and the town administration seeking recovery of unpaid wages and taxes to various social funds. 8. On 13 July 2004 the Kolomna Town Court issued a first-instance judgment on the merits of the case. On 22 September 2004 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 9. On 7 July 2005 the Town Court granted the applicants' claims awarding each of them a certain amount against their employer (see Appendix I). The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Regional Court on 28 September 2005. 10. Between 26 June 2001 and 7 July 2005 the court hearings were adjourned twenty-five times due to the respondents' or one of the respondents' failure to appear, eighteen times on the claimants' request and eleven times pursuant the requests by the defendants; four times the first‑instance court adjourned the case as the respondent authorities had been requested to submit additional documents. Moreover, on 11 June 2002 the proceedings were suspended pursuant to a decision by the domestic court on account of the claimants' alleged failure to appear; on 4 February 2003 that decision was quashed by the appeal court, due to the first-instance court's failure to notify the applicants of the hearing date. Thus, the period attributable to the authorities amounts to over one year. 11. On an unspecified date in 2005 the employer institution was liquidated. On 18 October 2005 the relevant record was made into the State Register of Legal Entities. 12. According to the Government's submissions of 19 July 2011, on 30 June 2006 the judgment of 7 July 2005 was partially enforced in respect of certain applicants, as specified in Appendix I.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicants did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Štitare. 5. On 30 May 2000 the Belgrade Third Municipal Court ordered a socially-owned company KMG Trudbenik (hereinafter "the debtor company"), based in Belgrade, to pay to the applicant a specified amount on account of salary arrears, plus the costs of the civil proceedings (judgment no. P1 863/99). This judgment became enforceable on 19 June 2000. 6. On 13 March 2002, upon the applicant's request to that effect, the Fourth Belgrade Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant's enforcement costs (enforcement order no. I-VIII 101/2002). 7. On 7 October 2003 the enforcement proceedings were suspended due to the institution of compulsory settlement proceedings before the Belgrade Commercial Court ("the Commercial Court"). 8. On 9 December 2011 the Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company. 9. On 6 March 2012 the applicant submitted his request for enforcement of the 30 May 2000 judgment ("enforcement request") to the insolvency manager. The insolvency manager neither rejected the applicant's claim nor forwarded it to the Commercial Court. 10. On 24 February 2014 the applicant thus submitted his enforcement request with the Commercial Court, and on 1 October 2014 he supplemented it. 11. On 6 August and 27 October 2014 the applicant complained about the inactivity of the acting judge in the insolvency proceedings. 12. On 13 October 2014 the Commercial Court rejected the applicant's enforcement request as having been lodged out of time. 13. On 28 January 2015 the Commercial Appellate Court rejected the applicant's appeal, and upheld the Commercial Court's decision of 13 October 2014. 14. On 24 March 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, complaining of the decision of 28 January 2015. 15. However, on 19 May 2016 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's appeal as unfounded.

Ruled as violated by court

There is no relevance between fair trial and debt recovery.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

6. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. 7. On 16 June 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation, namely Hizbullah. 8. On 21 June 1999 the applicant's statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. During his interrogation, he confessed being a member of the Hizbullah and gave a detailed account of his acts within the illegal organisation. 9. On 22 June 1999 the applicant was heard by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, again in the absence of a lawyer. In his statements before both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied the accusations and maintained that his statements to the police had been given under duress. On the same date, upon the order of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. 10. On 30 June 1999 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the former Turkish Criminal Code, namely for membership of an illegal armed organisation. 11. On 9 November 1999 the applicant was released pending trial. 12. The State Security Courts were later abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, and the case was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 13. On 12 June 2008, relying on, inter alia, the applicant's statements to the police, the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 314 § 2 of the new Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years and three months' imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the Assize Court further took into consideration information on computer hard disks and print-outs, which had been seized in a house belonging to the illegal organisation, as well as the statements of several witnesses who had testified against the applicant. 14. On 4 June 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant was denied his right to defend himself.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The first applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Cetinje. The second applicant was founded in Cetinje in 1990. The first applicant is the founder, the sole owner, and the executive director of the second applicant. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. On 1 July 2013 an insolvency creditor X (stečajni povjerilac) requested the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Podgorica to open insolvency proceedings (stečajni postupak) in respect of the second applicant. In the proceedings before the Commercial Court the second applicant was represented by the first applicant and a lawyer duly authorised by the latter. On 27 December 2013 the Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the second applicant and, inter alia, appointed an insolvency administrator (stečajni upravnik). 7. On 23 January 2014 the second applicant, through the lawyer, lodged an appeal against the Commercial Court decision. 8. On 18 March 2014 the Court of Appeals (Apelacioni sud) in Podgorica rejected the appeal (žalba se odbacuje) as having been submitted by an unauthorised person, given that the lawyer had not been appointed by the insolvency administrator. The court relied on sections 75 and 76 of the Insolvency Act (see paragraphs 17-18 below). This decision was served on the applicants on 17 April 2014. 9. On 12 May 2014 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal. 10. On 13 May 2014 the applicants' representative filed an initiative with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud) seeking the assessment of the constitutionality of section 76 of the Insolvency Act in force at the time. There is nothing in the case-file as to the outcome of that initiative. 11. On 23 July 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants' constitutional appeal for "not having been lodged by a party to the domestic proceedings or by a person authorised to appeal on behalf of the person whose rights and freedoms were violated". This decision was served on the applicants on 15 October 2014.

Ruled as violated by court

It depends on the meaning of "fair and public trial" whether the 2nd applicant being represented by the 1st applicant and their appointed lawyer is allowed.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1971 and serves his life sentence in a correctional colony in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region of Russia. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. On 27 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on charges of illegal possession of firearms, two armed robberies of local post offices, murder of three Russian Post Service cash messengers and attempted murder of the fourth one. On 14 October 2003 the case was sent to the Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic ("the Regional Court") for trial. 7. Twice, on 20 April 2004 and 22 May 2007, the applicant was convicted as charged. Both convictions were set aside by the Supreme Court of Russia. On 12 September 2008, in the course of the third round of jury trial, the Regional Court decided, upon a request by a representative of the Russian Post, to close proceedings to the public. It dismissed the applicant's objections made with reference to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In doing so the Presiding judge referred to the case-file documents containing information about security measures and equipment in post offices, weaponry, schedules and routes of cash messengers, etc. Under the relevant Russian Post regulations that information was classified as "for internal use only". The Regional Court found that that information was a trade secret protected by the Commercial Secrets Act (Federal Law no. 98-FZ of 29 July 2004) and that its disclosure could have harmed public interests. Every hearing after 12 September 2008 was held in camera. 8. On 14 December 2008 the jury convicted the applicant as charged. In the last days of December the trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 4 June 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction on one count and upheld the remainder of the verdict and sentence. The hearing was public. The court of appeal held, in particular, that the decision to dispense with a public hearing had been lawful and rejected, in a summary fashion, the relevant arguments by the applicant.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a right to a public trial. But according to the appeal court, there were legitimate democratic interests for limiting public access to the trial.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Lisichansk-18, the Lugansk region of Ukraine. 5. In 1972 the applicant suffered 100 per cent disability as a result of a traffic accident. In 1994 the Lisichansk Town Court of the Lugansk Region of Ukraine found the State Health Care Institution of the Sanitary and Epidemiology Monitoring of the Ministry of Railways of the Russian Federation ("the institution") responsible for the accident and ordered it to pay to the applicant compensation and to reimburse his medical expenses. Since that time, the applicant has been involved in several sets of proceedings concerning various types of allowances and compensation due to him. 6. On 17 July 1995 by the Lisichansk Town Court ordered the increase of the monthly payments due to the applicant in respect of compensation, allowances and medical expenses. It appears that the debtor institution complied with the judgment in part and in May 2000 discontinued payments due under the judgment. 7. On 31 March 2006 the Perm Regional Court of Russia allowed the applicant's request for compulsory execution of the above judgment in Russia as from May 2000. It was enforced on 30 March 2007. 8. The applicant sued the defendant institution for medical expenses, various types of allowances and compensation, as well as index-linking and arrears in the respective payments, and acquired several judgments by Russian courts in his favour listed in Appendixes I and II. 9. In course of the proceedings the defendant institution was replaced by the Federal Health Care Institution "Hygiene and Epidemiology Center of the Perm Region and the Komi-Perm Autonomous Region" and subsequently by Federal Health Care Institution "Hygiene and Epidemiology Center of the Perm Region", its legal successors. 10. He complained about non-enforcement to the Ministry of Finance, the prosecutor's office and various other authorities, but to no avail. 11. The judgments were enforced fully or in part on dates listed in Appendixes I and II. Some of them have not been enforced, as shown in the tables below.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant was able to engage in multiple trials.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kocaeli. 6. Following a dispute with a private third party, the applicant initiated compensation proceedings. 7. On 12 March 2009 the Tuzla Civil Court of General Jurisdiction granted the applicant compensation, amounting to 386,464.75 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 174,000 euros (EUR)). In the operative part of the judgment, the court indicated that the defendant party had to pay TRY 16,000 (approximately EUR 7,400) for court fees pursuant to the Law on Charges. The court registry accordingly sent a payment order to the defendant party. However, no payment was made. 8. On 18 May 2009 the applicant submitted a petition to the registry of the first instance court, requesting that the judgment be served on her in order to commence enforcement proceedings. On the same day, the court rejected the request on the ground that it was impossible under Section 28(1) (a) of the Law on Charges (Law no. 492) to serve a copy of the judgment unless the court costs that should have been born by the defendant party had been discharged. 9. At the time when the application was introduced, the applicant had therefore been unable to bring enforcement proceedings in order to have the above-mentioned judgment executed unless she herself was willing to pay the court fees that the defendant party had failed to pay. 10. Following the introduction of the present application with the Court, the domestic legislation was amended (see paragraphs 11-13 below), and subsequently the judgment in question was served on the applicant. In the absence of an appeal, the judgment became final on 17 October 2012. On 5 March 2013 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings against her debtor. On 10 April 2013 the applicant further requested the enforcement office to place a lien on the debtor's property. According to the documents in the file, as of 14 April 2017 the debt, which is still not enforced, amounts to TRY 812,648.94 (approximately EUR 193,500) including the initial amount of compensation awarded by the domestic court plus interest running at statutory rate.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "entitled to a hearing," it appears that the applicant's right was threatened by her inability to bring enforcement proceedings without paying for defendant costs.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Smolyan. 5. In two final judgments of 28 February 2005 and 8 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Cassation awarded the applicant pecuniary damages in respect of breach of contract for construction works which she had carried out. The awarded damages comprised BGN 52,784 for the principal amount, plus BGN 17,685 in default interest and BGN 5,433 in costs and expenses, or a total amount of BGN 75,902.93, the equivalent to 38,000 euros (EUR). The damages were awarded to the applicant against the National Centre for Recreation, Rehabilitation and Sport – Ministry of Education and Science ("the Centre", a State body subsidised by the Ministry of Education and Science and exercising certain functions delegated by the Ministry). 6. By an order of 25 May 2005 the Minister of Education closed down the Centre and ordered that its remaining property be managed by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry then established a State-owned joint‑stock company with part of the Centre's property, including the real estate in which the applicant had carried out the construction works. 7. On 13 May 2005 and 15 March 2007 the applicant was issued with two writs of enforcement for the amounts awarded in the final judgments of 2005 and 2006 (see paragraph 5 above) and on 6 February 2008 she presented the writs to the Ministry of Education asking it to pay. 8. The Ministry replied in writing that it was not the successor to the Centre and did not owe payment to the applicant. In October 2009 the applicant reiterated her request but received a similar reply by the Ministry. The Ministry also pointed out that payment could not be sought from the State-owned joint-stock company either as it had a legal personality separate from that of the Ministry. By a letter of 23 September 2010, the Minister provided a similar explanation to the applicant. 9. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the Minister's refusal. In a final decision of 8 April 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible. 10. As of 19 March 2015, the date of the applicant's last communication to the Court, no change in the above circumstances had been reported.

Ruled as violated by court

8. The Ministry replied in writing that it was not the successor to the Centre and did not owe payment to the applicant. In October 2009 the applicant reiterated her request but received a similar reply by the Ministry. The Ministry also pointed out that payment could not be sought from the State-owned joint-stock company either as it had a legal personality separate from that of the Ministry. By a letter of 23 September 2010, the Minister provided a similar explanation to the applicant. 10. As of 19 March 2015, the date of the applicant's last communication to the Court, no change in the above circumstances had been reported.

The applicant was able to bring proceedings.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in İzmir. 5. In March 2002, the applicant, who was a working as a civil servant, was dismissed due gross misconduct. He applied to the administrative courts to have the annulment of that decision. In the course of the proceedings, on 4 July 2006 Law no. 5525, granting amnesty to civil servants who had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings, entered into force. Accordingly, in the light of this new amnesty law, on 10 April 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court decided that there was no need to examine the merits of the case. 6. In the meantime, on 30 September 2005 the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant had ended with the decision of the criminal court, convicting him of abuse of office. 7. Following the entry into force of the amnesty law, the applicant applied to the administration and asked to be reinstated. His request was refused on 19 December 2006. The applicant initiated proceedings to have the annulment of that decision. 8. By a decision dated 8 January 2008, the Ankara Administrative Court found in line with the applicant's claims and decided to annul the decision of the authorities by which they had refused to reinstate the applicant. 9. Following appeal, the case was transferred before the Supreme Administrative Court. In the course of the proceedings, the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court filed his written opinion. This opinion included substantial grounds on the merits of the case with a proposal to quash the decision of the first instance court. On 25 May 2009, relying also on the opinion of the Chief Public Prosecutor, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of 8 January 2008. In particular, the appeal court referred to its previous leading case which had been delivered on 17 October 2008 on a similar case and held that the amnesty law did not put an obligation on the administration to reinstate the applicant. 10. The case was accordingly remitted before the Ankara Administrative Court. On 9 October 2009 the first instance court adhered to the judgment of the appeal court and dismissed the applicant's case. This decision was served on the applicant on 13 November 2009.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, with the multiple closings and reopenings, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Riga. 6. On 17 October 2000 the Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health and Fitness for Work (Veselības un darbspēju ekspertīzes ārstu komisija) granted the applicant a disability status of category 3 (the least severe level of disability) on the grounds of a visual impairment. 7. On 16 October 2001 following an examination the Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health and Fitness for Work declined the applicant's request to prolong her disability status. 8. On 9 November 2001 this decision was upheld by the State Medical Commission for the Assessment of Health and Fitness for Work (Veselības un darbspēju ekspertīzes ārstu valsts komisija, hereinafter ‑ the Commission) and on 5 December 2001 by an extended composition of that Commission. 9. The applicant challenged the decision of the Commission before a court. On 22 April 2002 the Riga City Zemgale District Court declined the claim. The applicant appealed. 10. On 30 July 2004 the Regional Administrative Court annulled the decision of 5 December 2001 due to lack of reasoning and ordered the Commission to carry out a new examination. On 30 November 2004 this judgment was upheld by the Administrative Cases Division of the Supreme Court. 11. On 11 January 2005, following a new examination by an extended composition, the Commission again refused to grant the applicant the status of a disabled person. 12. On 9 January 2006 the applicant brought a claim to the Administrative District Court challenging the Commission's decision and requesting to be granted the status of a disabled person from 16 October 2001. 13. On 29 September 2006 the Administrative District Court declined the applicant's claim. This judgment was upheld by the Regional Administrative Court. 14. The Administrative Cases Division of the Supreme Court two times quashed the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court for its failure to follow the interpretation of the domestic law given by the Supreme Court. 15. On 24 November 2010 the Regional Administrative Court declined the applicant's claim, and on 14 March 2011 the Administrative Cases Division of the Supreme Court refused to institute cassation proceedings.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, with the multiple closings and reopenings, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1976 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment. 5. In December 2005 violent robberies were committed at two scrap metal collection points in Odesa. One employee was shot dead. In the course of the investigation, the police organised an ambush, which led to the applicant and his acquaintance, Mr D., being arrested. As established by the domestic courts, before his arrest the applicant had pointed a gun at a police officer, who had knocked it out of his hands using a martial arts technique. The gun had been loaded and had had its safety catch released. 6. On an unspecified date the applicant had free legal counsel appointed for him for the pre-trial investigation and the proceedings before the first‑instance court. 7. On 4 September 2006 the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of first instance, found the applicant guilty of the illegal handling of arms, robbery with violence, intentional murder for profit and an attempt on the life of a law-enforcement officer. It relied, inter alia, on the statements of several eyewitnesses who had recognised the applicant. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had previously been convicted of the intentional infliction of fatal injuries and that he had committed the crimes at issue while on probation following release in October 2005, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment. 8. The applicant, who was no longer legally represented, appealed in cassation. He complained, in particular, about the absence of free legal assistance at that stage of the proceedings. The applicant contended that the first-instance court had erred in its assessment of the facts of the case and their legal classification. 9. On 30 January 2007, following a hearing with the participation of Mr D. (the other defendant) and his lawyer, as well as the prosecutor, but without the applicant or any representative from his side, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 4 September 2006. 10. On 11 June 2007 the applicant, who was not aware of the above ruling, requested that the Supreme Court ensure his presence at its hearing. 11. On 17 August 2007 a copy of the Supreme Court's ruling of 30 January 2007 was sent to the applicant.

Ruled as violated by court

10. On 11 June 2007 the applicant, who was not aware of the above ruling, requested that the Supreme Court ensure his presence at its hearing.

While it depends on the definition of "defending oneself," it appears that the applicant was denied this right, as he wanted to appear at the hearing but was not allowed prior.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1984 and is currently being detained in a correctional colony in the village of Torbeyevo, Mordovia Republic, Russia. 6. On 21 April 2005 the applicant was convicted during a public hearing of murder and was sentenced to imprisonment. He and his lawyer had had thirty-five minutes to study the case file, which consisted of five volumes. The conviction was upheld on appeal in a public hearing on 18 August 2005 ("the 2005 proceedings"). 7. On 30 July 2010 the appeal judgment was quashed by way of a supervisory review (on grounds not related to the applicant's Article 6 complaints in respect of the 2005 proceedings) as the applicant's right to defence had been breached during the appeal hearing. The case was sent for fresh examination on appeal. 8. The applicant was allowed to re-read the case file within the new appeal proceedings. He and his lawyer had five days, from 4 to 8 October 2010, to study the now six-volume case file (about 1,500 pages) in remand prison no. IZ-24/1 in Krasnoyarsk, where the applicant was being detained. The applicant was allegedly held in a metal cage while studying the case, without a table or any other facilities to take notes. After studying the case file both the applicant and the lawyer filed appeals. In his appeal statements the applicant analysed the case materials in detail, referred extensively to all the main items of evidence, including expert opinions and witness testimony, and referred to exact pages in the case file. 9. The applicant's case was examined by the Supreme Court of Russia ("the Supreme Court") over four hearings, three of which (21 October, 30 November and 16 December 2010), according to the trial record and the court's procedural decisions, were held in camera. The case file did not contain any formal decision by the Supreme Court to close the hearings to the public. The applicant was represented by two lawyers who confirmed to the court that they had had enough time to study the case file. 10. On 16 December 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 21 April 2005. The Supreme Court's judgment was delivered to the remand prison, where the applicant was still being detained, on 11 January 2011 ("the 2010 proceedings").

Ruled as violated by court

9. The applicant's case was examined by the Supreme Court of Russia ("the Supreme Court") over four hearings, three of which (21 October, 30 November and 16 December 2010), according to the trial record and the court's procedural decisions, were held in camera. The case file did not contain any formal decision by the Supreme Court to close the hearings to the public. The applicant was represented by two lawyers who confirmed to the court that they had had enough time to study the case file.

While it depends on the definition of "adequate time and facilities," it does not appear the applicant and their lawyer received adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău. 6. The applicant had a dispute with H. over ownership of a house. He brought a claim against H. seeking acknowledgement of his property rights, as his father's heir, and H.'s eviction from the house. H. lodged a counterclaim, seeking acknowledgement of her property rights to the house as she had built it. 7. On 20 December 2007 the Buiucani District Court dismissed H.'s counterclaim and allowed the applicant's claim in full. H. lodged an appeal. On 20 May 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the earlier judgment and dismissed H.'s appeal. H. did not attend the appellate hearing, even though the summons had been repeatedly sent to the address she had provided in her appeal. A registered letter was returned with a note stating that H. did not live at the address indicated by her. The judgment became final after the expiry of the two-month time-limit for lodging an appeal on points of law. 8. On 11 May 2009 H. lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice, stating that she had only learned of the judgment of 20 May 2008 on 23 April 2009. In her application, she indicated the same address as in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The applicant asked the Supreme Court of Justice to dismiss the appeal as being lodged outside the legal time-limit. He submitted that since it had been H. who had lodged the appeal with the Chişinău Court of Appeal, it had been her duty to enquire about the progress of the proceedings and not to wait for a year before doing so. 9. On 16 October 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed H.'s appeal on points of law, quashed the previous judgments and delivered a new judgment on the merits of the case dividing the disputed house into equal shares between the applicant and H. The court argued that the appeal had not been lodged outside the time-limit because H. had not attended the hearing before the Court of Appeal and there was nothing in the file to suggest that that court had informed her of the availability of the full judgment. The court concluded that without any evidence of the date when H. had learned of the judgment, her appeal was considered to have been submitted on time. The judgment was final.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "public judgment," it appears that H. was not sufficiently notified of the judgment, as the final court argued.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ankara. 5. The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Ankara. On an unspecified date, the applicant brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court against the Çankaya Municipality and the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality for the annulment of the construction permit pertaining to a neighboring building which was being built opposite his apartment. 6. On 14 December 1999 the Ankara Administrative Court accepted the applicant's request and revoked the construction permit based on a breach of height restrictions. According to this judgment, the building in question was constructed 1.48 meters higher than the norm that was laid down in the zoning plan in force. 7. On 17 February 2000 the Çankaya municipal executive committee (belediye encümeni) ordered the demolition of the illegally constructed part of the building in order to comply with the administrative court's judgment. However, it did not implement the said decision. 8. On 19 November 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the administrative court's judgment. 9. In the meantime, on 3 August 2001 the Çankaya municipal council (belediye meclisi) amended the zoning plan and sent its decision to the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality for approval. 10. On 26 October 2001 the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality withheld its approval, holding that the zoning plan had been amended with the aim of legalizing the previously revoked building permit and thereby avoiding the demolition of the illegal construction. 11. On 5 December 2001 the Çankaya municipal council insisted in its previous decision and the amended zoning plan thus came into force. 12. Subsequently on 31 December 2001 the applicant brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court for the annulment of the Çankaya municipal council's decision of 5 December 2001. 13. On 31 March 2003 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the said decision for, inter alia, encouraging unlicensed construction practices. 14. On 21 February 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the administrative court's decision and on 18 October 2005 it rejected the Çankaya Municipality's rectification request. This decision was served on the applicant on 13 December 2005.

Ruled as violated by court

There is no relevance between fair trial and resulting construction decisions.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Belgrade. 6. On 15 June 2004 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. He suffered severe serious injuries. An investigation into this incident was initiated in November 2004 and terminated in May 2005, with no criminal charges being brought. 7. On 10 June 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim for non-pecuniary damages with the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade against the Belgrade City's Transportation Company (Gradsko saobraċajno preduzeċe Beograd). 8. On 27 December 2007 the Second Municipal Court ruled in the applicant's favour. On 3 July 2008 the District Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the first instance. 9. On 23 October 2009 the Second Municipal Court adopted a partial decision (delimičnu presudu) against which the applicant and the defendant appealed on 7 December 2009 and 10 December 2009, respectively. 10. On 30 September 2010 the Court of Appeals in Belgrade quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Court of First Instance for a re-trial. 11. In the meantime, on 22 December 2009, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court complaining under Article 32 of the Constitution (a provision which corresponds to Article 6 of the Convention) about the overall fairness of domestic proceedings and their length. The Constitutional Court's decision was rendered on 4 November 2010. No violation in respect of the applicant's complaints was found. 12. Due to applicant's change to the value of the dispute (vrednost spora), on 31 October 2010 the Court of First Instance ruled that it had no further jurisdiction to examine the applicant's complaint. The case was then sent to the High Court in Belgrade. 13. On 20 June 2013 the High Court adopted a partial judgment against which the applicant and the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals in Belgrade. 14. On 6 June 2014 the Court of Appeals partly quashed the impugned judgment. 15. It would appear that the case is still pending before the High Court. 16. Additionally, on 28 October 2014 the applicant lodged a new submission with the Constitutionals Court concerning, inter alia, the length of the impugned proceedings. It would appear from the facts of the case that the Constitutional Court has not yet responded.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time, as it took more than a year.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod. 6. On 25 October 2002 the Military Court of the Vladikavkaz Garrison ("the Military Court") ordered, inter alia, the head of the respondent military institute to re-calculate the period of the applicant's service, applying the favourable terms of such calculation for a specified period of service. The applicant was also awarded some additional allowances and payments for certain periods. 7. The judgment came into force on 5 November 2002. 8. On 3 March 2003 the Military Court issued a writ of execution. On 4 August 2003 the bailiffs' service instituted the enforcement proceedings. 9. On 19 September 2003 the enforcement proceedings were terminated and the writ of execution was returned to the applicant, as the debt could not be recovered. 10. On 13 November 2003 the head of the respondent military institute issued Order No. 463 requiring to make payments in accordance with the judgment of 25 October 2002. However, no calculations or payments were made at that time. 11. On 4 February 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury. 12. On 18 May 2005 the writ was returned to the applicant on the ground that the judgment obliged an official of an organisation to take certain actions rather than ordered to recover payments from a budgetary organisation. Thus, the writ of execution was to be submitted to the bailiffs' service. 13. On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. 14. On 14 April 2006 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant from the bailiffs' service without enforcement. The bailiffs explained that for the applicant to be able to receive the payments under the judgment, he should obtain a writ of execution stating the sum of the debt to be recovered. After that, the writ could be submitted to the Federal Treasury for enforcement. 15. In 2005 in accordance with Order No. 463, the defendant military institute calculated the amounts due to the applicant as follows: the compensation for the supplementary ration for the period from October 1998 until March 2000 –11,341.85 Russian roubles (RUB); allowance for special regime of the service in 1998-2002 – RUB 2,720.1; and special allowance – RUB 327,000. In total: RUB 341,061.95.

Ruled as violated by court

8. On 3 March 2003 the Military Court issued a writ of execution. On 4 August 2003 the bailiffs' service instituted the enforcement proceedings. 9. On 19 September 2003 the enforcement proceedings were terminated and the writ of execution was returned to the applicant, as the debt could not be recovered. 10. On 13 November 2003 the head of the respondent military institute issued Order No. 463 requiring to make payments in accordance with the judgment of 25 October 2002. However, no calculations or payments were made at that time. 11. On 4 February 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury. 12. On 18 May 2005 the writ was returned to the applicant on the ground that the judgment obliged an official of an organisation to take certain actions rather than ordered to recover payments from a budgetary organisation. Thus, the writ of execution was to be submitted to the bailiffs' service. 13. On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. 14. On 14 April 2006 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant from the bailiffs' service without enforcement. The bailiffs explained that for the applicant to be able to receive the payments under the judgment, he should obtain a writ of execution stating the sum of the debt to be recovered. After that, the writ could be submitted to the Federal Treasury for enforcement. 15. In 2005 in accordance with Order No. 463, the defendant military institute calculated the amounts due to the applicant as follows: the compensation for the supplementary ration for the period from October 1998 until March 2000 –11,341.85 Russian roubles (RUB); allowance for special regime of the service in 1998-2002 – RUB 2,720.1; and special allowance – RUB 327,000. In total: RUB 341,061.95.

There is no relevance between fair trial and debt recovery.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

5. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Tuzla. 6. By judgment of the Mostar Municipal Court of 18 June 2009, which became final on 16 December 2010, company R. was ordered to reinstate the applicant in his previous employment, as well as to pay him a total amount of 16,314 convertible marks (BAM)[1], together with default interest calculated from 20 March 2007 until final payment. The respondent company was further ordered to pay the applicant BAM 2,641 in respect of legal costs, together with default interest calculated from 18 June 2009 until final payment. Lastly, the respondent company was ordered to cover all pension-related contributions in respect of the applicant between 1 January 2003 and 17 January 2007. 7. On 17 October 2011 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) in this regard. 8. On 23 February 2012, upon the applicant's request, the Municipal Court amended its decision of 17 October 2011 by changing the object of enforcement. 9. On 16 January 2012 the Municipal Court requested the respondent to indicate why it had not reinstated the applicant. On 23 January 2012 it fined the respondent in this connection. 10. On 1 February 2013 the Municipal Court joined the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case with an earlier enforcement procedure against the respondent. 11. On 25 June 2014 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found a violation of the applicant's right to enforcement within a reasonable time, and ordered the Municipal Court to urgently finalise the enforcement proceedings. The Constitutional Court considered this to be sufficient just satisfaction and rejected the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 15 August 2014. 12. On 18 March 2015 the Municipal Court ordered the sale of the respondent's property. On 27 April 2015 it transferred the respondent's real estate to company H., the highest ranked judgment creditor. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision. 13. On 29 March 2016 the Mostar Cantonal Court quashed the decision of the Municipal Court of 27 April 2015 and remitted the case for reconsideration. 14. According to the latest information provided by the parties on 28 July 2017, on that date the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case were still pending.

Ruled as violated by court

11. On 25 June 2014 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found a violation of the applicant's right to enforcement within a reasonable time, and ordered the Municipal Court to urgently finalise the enforcement proceedings. The Constitutional Court considered this to be sufficient just satisfaction and rejected the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 15 August 2014. 12. On 18 March 2015 the Municipal Court ordered the sale of the respondent's property. On 27 April 2015 it transferred the respondent's real estate to company H., the highest ranked judgment creditor. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision. 13. On 29 March 2016 the Mostar Cantonal Court quashed the decision of the Municipal Court of 27 April 2015 and remitted the case for reconsideration. 14. According to the latest information provided by the parties on 28 July 2017, on that date the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case were still pending.

While it depends on the definition of "reasonable time," it appears, according to the Constitutional Court, that the applicant did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011). 5. The applicants or their close relatives participated in demonstrations and were injured or killed by gunfire during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest, Slobozia, Târgoviște and Reșița, which led to the fall of the communist regime. 6. In 1990 the military prosecutor's offices from several cities opened on their own motion criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators. The applicants' injury and their close relatives' deaths were investigated along with most of the cases in a main criminal investigation recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). 7. The most important procedural steps were mentioned in Association "21 December 1989" and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and in Sidea and Others v. Romania ([Committee] no. 889/15, §§ 8-11, 5 June 2018). Subsequent relevant developments of the criminal investigation are as follows. 8. On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the initiation in rem of a criminal investigation for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same circumstances of fact. Up to February 2017 further steps were taken in gathering information from domestic authorities, the prosecutor's office contacting 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of events, planning the taking of evidence from military officers and other participants in the events, verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio/video recordings broadcast by radio and television. 9. From March 2017 the military prosecutor examined military and civilian archives, including the vast archives of the Romanian Senate. They also viewed and transcribed more than 400 hours of audio/video recordings. They proceeded with the re-examination of several witnesses. They questioned military personnel involved in the December 1989 military operations and fifty-one members of the political party which ruled at the time and of other authorities. They verified the documents indicating the military units' actions from that period. 10. At the date of the latest information communicated by the parties to the Court (29 March 2018), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.

NOT ruled as violated by court

6. In 1990 the military prosecutor's offices from several cities opened on their own motion criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators. The applicants' injury and their close relatives' deaths were investigated along with most of the cases in a main criminal investigation recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). 10. At the date of the latest information communicated by the parties to the Court (29 March 2018), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.

There is no relevance between fair trial and ongoing criminal investigation.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

4. The applicant was born in 1982 and is detained in Labytnangi, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region. 5. On 22 May 2008 the applicant arrived at the IK-8 correctional colony, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region. 6. On 31 March 2008 the applicant's wife instituted divorce proceedings. 7. On 9 April 2008 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 2 of the Krasnosulinskiy District of the Rostov Region ("Justice of the Peace") sent a letter rogatory to the courts of Tyumen Region, asking them to interview the applicant and to establish whether he wished to attend the hearing in person. 8. On 22 April 2008 the Tyumen Regional Division of the Judicial Department received the letter. 9. On 4 July 2008 a Justice of the Peace in Labytnangi fixed an interview with the applicant for 18 July 2008 and sent two summonses to his home address, which his wife had listed in her statement of claim. Both summonses were returned undelivered. 10. On 10 September 2009 the Tyumen courts informed the Justice of the Peace that it had been impossible to reach the applicant. On the same day the Justice of the Peace decided to hold a hearing in the applicant's absence, noting that although the applicant had his registered residence at the address mentioned by the plaintiff, he had not appeared for an interview before the Justice of the Peace. 11. On 18 September 2008 the Justice of the Peace granted the divorce. On the same day a copy of the decision was sent to the applicant's home address. 12. On 20 November 2013, the applicant learnt of the judgment of 18 September 2008. He asked for an extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal against it. He argued that he had never received the judgment of 18 September 2008 and that he had been previously unaware of the divorce proceedings. 13. On 26 December 2013 the Justice of the Peace heard evidence from the applicant's former wife who claimed that the applicant should have been aware of the divorce proceedings in 2008 because his mother had received the final judgment of 18 September 2008. The Justice of the Peace held that an excerpt of the judgment had been served on the applicant in person on 31 October 2008 and refused the applicant's application to extend the time limit for lodging an appeal. The hearing was held in the applicant's absence. The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision. 14. On 15 May 2014 the Krasnosulinskiy District Court of Rostov Region upheld the decision of 26 December 2013, again in his absence.

Ruled as violated by court

While it depends on the definition of "public judgment," it appears that the applicant was not sufficiently notified of the judgment.