ITEMID: 001-94099
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2009
DOCNAME: CASE OF ASADULAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13+2;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens
TEXT: 5. The applicants are:
1) Ms Lyaylya Adiyevna Asadulayeva (also spelled as Leyla/Layla Adiyevna Asadulayevna), born in 1967;
2) Ms Aset Eslyudyevna Saitova, born in 1981, and
3) Ms Zinaida Adiyevna (also spelled as Adyevna) Asadulayeva, born in 1976.
6. The applicants live in Alkhan-Kala, in the Groznenskiy District of the Chechen Republic.
7. The first and third applicants are sisters of Mr Bekman Adiyevich Asadulayev, born in 1979. The second applicant is his wife. The couple have two children, born in 2003 and 2004.
8. At the material time Bekman Asadulayev lived in the village of Kerla-Yurt together with the second applicant and their child. He was employed as a police officer of the Pobedinskoye police station of the Groznenskiy district office of the Interior (ROVD).
9. On 14 January 2004 Mr S., head of the ROVD, summoned Bekman Asadulayev to the ROVD and instructed him to go to the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (MVD) to give an explanation to Mr G., an official of the MVD human resources department, in connection with his unauthorised absence from work.
10. Bekman Asadulayev, Mr Sh., the then acting head of the Pobedinskoye police station, and a Mr A. drove to the MVD.
11. At about noon on 14 January 2004 they arrived at the MVD. The MVD grounds, including the MVD building, were surrounded by a high fence and could be entered only through a checkpoint. At that checkpoint visitors had either to apply for a special temporary pass or show their identity cards. Every visitor's identity information was registered at the checkpoint in special visitors' logbooks. Armed security guards were stationed at the secure gate leading to the MVD grounds. The external access road to the MVD grounds had two further checkpoints. Each of them was guarded by security personnel and kept its own visitors' logbook.
12. Upon arrival at the MVD secure gate Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. got out of the car and went into the MVD building. Mr A. stayed in the vehicle. Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. were received by Mr G. Bekman Asadulayev made a written statement and handed it over to Mr G. At that moment three or four armed men in military uniforms walked into the room. Their uniforms were unusual in that they were grey and had many pockets. While leaving the building Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. were stopped by the armed men who had apparently followed them. The men asked for Bekman Asadulayev's and Mr Sh.'s identity cards. After checking the documents, they returned Mr Sh.'s identity card to him but did not give Bekman Asadulayev his identity card back. They told Bekman Asadulayev that they would take him with them “for a check”, handcuffed him and put him in a dark blue VAZ-21099 car which was parked at the entrance of the MVD building. The car, which did not have licence plates, was driven to the checkpoint at the gate. The officers at the checkpoint did not stop the car; the driver merely honked and the car was allowed to pass through without being checked. Having left the MVD grounds, the car was driven to an unknown destination.
13. When Mr Sh. left the MVD grounds and met Mr A., he told the latter about the incident and they decided to go to Mr S., head of the ROVD, to alert him to the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev. Meanwhile, Mr S. had arrived at the MVD entrance gate in his car. Having heard their account, Mr S. reassured them that there were no reasons to worry and that on the following day they would “have information about everything”. Mr S. took Bekman Asadulayev's service submachine gun from the car in which the three men had arrived at the MVD and left.
14. In the days that followed Mr S. tried to find out who had apprehended Bekman Asadulayev, how the abductors had managed to enter the premises of the MVD and where they could have taken Bekman Asadulayev. However, his attempts failed to produce any results.
15. On an unspecified date in 2004 Mr Sh. was killed.
16. The description of the above events is based on complaints by the first applicant to various State bodies dated 19 February 2004, a written statement by the first applicant to her representative made on 8 December 2004, an undated written statement by Mr A. and three hand-drawn maps of the grounds of the MVD.
17. The Government submitted, with reference to the information obtained in the course of the investigation in criminal case no. 30012 (see below), that on 14 January 2004 unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had abducted Bekman Asadulayev from the secure grounds of the MVD.
18. On 17 January 2004 the third applicant complained about the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev to the prosecutor's office of the Leninskiy district of Grozny (the district prosecutor's office). She described the circumstances of her brother's abduction from the MVD grounds and requested assistance in establishing his whereabouts.
19. On 4 February 2004 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given number 30012. It does not appear that the applicants were notified of that decision.
20. On 18 February 2004 the district prosecutor's office summoned the third applicant to their office on an unspecified date in connection with her complaint of 17 January 2004. It is unclear whether the meeting took place and if so, whether any investigative measures were carried out with the third applicant's participation.
21. On 19 February 2004 the first applicant complained about the disappearance of Bekman Asadulayev to a number of State authorities, including the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic, the Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. In her letters she described the circumstances of Bekman Asadulayev's abduction from the grounds of the MVD. She submitted, in particular, that on 14 January 2004 Bekman Asadulayev had been summoned to the MVD to meet Mr D., the deputy Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. Mr G. had obtained Bekman Asadulayev's statement and while the latter had been leaving, unidentified men had apprehended him and had taken him away in a dark blue VAZ vehicle. The first applicant pointed out that the abductors' vehicle had not been stopped at the checkpoint and provided the names of the two persons who had witnessed her brother's apprehension, Mr Sh. and Mr A.
22. On 15 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office granted the third applicant victim status in connection with the proceedings in case no. 30012. She was notified of the decision on the same date.
23. On 12 May 2004 the MVD informed the first applicant that they had conducted an internal inquiry in connection with her complaint about the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev; however, it had failed to establish his whereabouts. The letter further stated that all information concerning the criminal investigation was to be obtained from the district prosecutor's office.
24. In a letter of 12 May 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic (the republican prosecutor's office) notified the third applicant, in reply to her query, that the district prosecutor's office had instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev and that operational and search measures aimed at establishing his whereabouts and solving the crime were under way.
25. On 17 May 2005 the third applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about the lack of information concerning the progress and the results of the investigation in criminal case no. 30012. She requested the authorities to conduct an effective and thorough investigation into her brother's abduction and to update her on the steps taken by the investigating authorities.
26. On 15 July 2005 the third applicant submitted to the district prosecutor's office a repeated complaint about the lack of information on the investigation in case no. 30012, reiterating the grievances she had raised in the letter of 17 May 2005 and pointing out that the district prosecutor's office had disregarded her previous complaint.
27. On 21 July 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote to the district prosecutor's office. They described in detail the circumstances of Bekman Asadulayev's abduction and complained about the lack of information concerning the criminal investigation in case no. 30012. In particular, they requested that the applicants be updated on the progress of the investigation and that it be resumed if it had been suspended. They further enquired whether the investigating authorities had questioned the servicemen on duty at the checkpoint of the MVD at the material time; whether measures had been taken to establish the circumstances of abductors' vehicle's unhindered passage through the checkpoints; whether the crime scene had been inspected; and whether eyewitnesses to the abduction had been questioned. It does not appear that the applicants or their representatives received a reply to that request.
28. On 29 December 2005 the applicants' representatives wrote a letter along the same lines to the republican prosecutor's office. They forwarded a copy of their letter to the district prosecutor's office. It does not appear that their letters were ever replied to.
29. From the Government's submissions it transpires that on 17 January 2004 the authorities launched an internal inquiry into the incident of 14 January 2004. The Government neither specified the authority in charge of the inquiry nor furnished any other information in that connection.
30. On 17 January 2004 Mr Sh. was questioned as part of the inquiry. He submitted that on 14 January 2004, at about 10 a.m., he had arrived by car at the MVD with Bekman Asadulayev and Mr A. Bekman Asadulayev had been summoned to the MVD by their human resources department. Mr Sh. and Bekman Asadulayev had entered the MVD building while Mr A. had stayed outside in the car. Mr Sh. and Bekman Asadulayev had gone to the office of Mr G., an official of the human resources department, who had instructed Bekman Asadulayev to write a statement with a view to clarifying certain personal information in connection with his recruitment. At that moment three men in camouflage uniforms armed with automatic weapons had entered the office of Mr G. Two minutes later the armed men had left.
31. When Bekman Asadulayev had finished writing his statement, Mr G. had allowed him and Mr Sh. to leave and they had left the building. There they had seen a dark blue VAZ-21099 car with tinted windows and without licence plates. There had been four men armed with automatic weapons by the car. They had not been wearing masks. One of the armed men had asked Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. who they had been visiting. Mr Sh. had replied that they had just seen Mr G. The armed man had then requested that Mr Sh. and Bekman Asadulayev produce their service certificates. Having checked them, the armed men had returned Mr Sh.'s document to him. They had told him that he was free to leave but had taken Bekman Asadulayev with them. Mr Sh. had requested the armed men to identify themselves but they had refused. They had forced Bekman Asadulayev into the back of the VAZ-21099 car, had honked to the guards who had opened the gate for them and had left the MVD grounds for an unknown destination.
32. Mr Sh. had decided to follow the armed men but by that time he had seen Mr S., head of the ROVD, arrive at the MVD building. Mr Sh. had immediately alerted Mr S. to the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev. Mr S. had taken Bekman Asadulayev's service submachine gun and explained to Mr Sh. that he had talked to the head of the MVD human resources department, Mr Zh., and that the “competent authorities [were] dealing with Bekman Asadulayev” because they had had “information capable of compromising him” (компрометирующий материал).
33. On 23 January 2004 Mr S., head of the ROVD, was questioned. He submitted that in the afternoon on 13 January 2004 he had been instructed to send Bekman Asadulayev to see the deputy head of the MVD, in charge of human resources. Mr S. had summoned Bekman Asadulayev and his superior, Mr Sh., to his office on 14 January 2004, at 9 a.m. Both men had arrived at the indicated time and had surmised that the summons to the MVD human resources department could have been prompted by Bekman Asadulayev's missing of classes in a police school. After a conversation with Mr S., Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. had left for the MVD.
34. At about 11 a.m. Mr S. had arrived at the MVD. At the building entrance he had met Mr Sh. who had informed him that unidentified armed men had taken Bekman Asadulayev away in a dark blue VAZ-21099 car without licence plates. Mr S. had not been worried, considering that it would be impossible to abduct a person from the MVD grounds without the knowledge of MVD senior officials. Mr S. had made enquiries to the heads of various MVD departments about the circumstances of the disappearance of Bekman Asadulayev but none of them had furnished any specific information. All persons questioned by him had supposed that the case had been dealt with by the security services, without however naming any particular service. Subsequently Mr S. had requested information about the incident involving Bekman Asadulayev from various bodies, including the heads of the criminal police of the Ministry of the Interior, the special police forces (OMON), operational and search Bureau no. 2 (ORB-2) and the internal security directorate of the Ministry of the Interior. However, none of those bodies had furnished any relevant information. Mr S. lastly stated that he had no information on the whereabouts of Bekman Asadulayev or his abductors.
35. On 4 February 2004 the district prosecutor's office launched a criminal investigation into the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) and assigned the case number 30012.
36. On 18 February 2004 Mr Sh. was questioned. He confirmed his statement of 17 January 2004.
37. On 19 February 2004 Mr S., questioned as a witness, confirmed his statement made on 23 January 2004.
38. On 19 February 2004 the district prosecutor's office requested ORB-2 to inform the investigators whether they had carried out any special operations aimed at arresting Bekman Asadulayev and whether they had at their disposal any information capable of compromising him.
39. On 1 March 2004 the investigators sought from the FSB Department in the Chechen Republic information similar to that requested from ORB-2.
40. According to the Government, the replies of the above authorities indicated that they had not carried out any special operations with a view to arresting Bekman Asadulayev and had not had information capable of compromising him.
41. On 9 March 2004 investigators of the district prosecutor's office questioned Mr Zh., who at the time of the incident had held the post of deputy Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and had been head of the MVD human resources department. Mr Zh. submitted that on 11 or 12 January 2004 he had been contacted over the phone by Mr D., the acting Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. Mr D. had informed Mr Zh. that a certain Bekman Asadulayev, a police officer of the Groznenskiy ROVD, had concealed important personal information at the time of his recruitment by the police. Mr D. had instructed Mr Zh. to summon Bekman Asadulayev to the MVD and to obtain his explanation.
42. Following the conversation, Mr Zh. had ordered his assistant, Mr G., to summon Bekman Asadulayev to the MVD and to obtain from him a written explanation concerning his personal file and, in particular, the lacking data on the relatives of his wife.
43. On 14 January 2004 Mr Zh. had received a phone call from Mr G., notifying him that Bekman Asadulayev had arrived at the MVD. Mr Zh. had instructed Mr G. to receive Bekman Asadulayev and to obtain the information required from him. Forty to forty-five minutes later Mr G. had reported to Mr Zh. that he had obtained Bekman Asadulayev's statement and had allowed him to leave. In the afternoon Mr Zh. had met Mr S. The latter had asked him who might have taken Bekman Asadulayev away. Mr Zh. had replied that he did not know. Four days after the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev, the latter's relatives, worried by his absence, had gathered at the MVD checkpoint. Some eight days after the abduction Mr Zh. had been approached at the MVD checkpoint by two men and a woman who had enquired about Bekman Asadulayev. Mr Zh. had explained to them that he did not have any information about him. Lastly, Mr Zh. submitted that he had not seen Bekman Asadulayev on 14 January 2004.
44. On 15 March 2004 Mr A. was questioned as a witness. He submitted that on 14 January 2004, between 10 and 11 a.m., he had arrived at the MVD building with Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. Mr A. had stayed in the car, keeping an eye on Bekman Asadulayev's service weapon, while the latter and Mr Sh. had entered the MVD building. Thirty to forty minutes later Mr Sh. had returned and had told Mr A. that four men in camouflage uniforms had taken Bekman Asadulayev away to an unknown destination. Five to ten minutes later Mr S., head of the ROVD, had approached Mr A. and Mr Sh. Mr A. had asked Mr S. what had occurred and why Bekman Asadulayev had been taken away. Mr S. had explained that Bekman Asadulayev had been taken away to be questioned. Mr S. had then collected Bekman Asadulayev's submachine gun.
45. On 15 March 2004 the investigators questioned the third applicant as a witness. She submitted that on 14 January 2004 her brother had been summoned to the MVD, together with Mr Sh., in connection with the former's absence from the police school. The third applicant had learnt from Mr Sh. that when Mr Sh. and Bekman Asadulayev had left the MVD building, located within the secure grounds of the MVD, several men armed with automatic weapons had approached them. They had forced her brother into a dark blue VAZ-21099 car without licence plates and had taken him to an unknown destination. Subsequently, the third applicant had been received by the deputy Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, Mr Zh., who had confirmed that Bekman Asadulayev had been summoned to the MVD to provide some information. Bekman Asadulayev's written statement had been given to Mr G. Mr Zh. himself had not seen her brother, but had promised to investigate the incident.
46. On the same day the third applicant was granted the status of victim in criminal proceedings no. 30012.
47. On 16 March 2004 the investigators conducted an on-site verification of the statements by Mr Sh. During the verification Mr Sh. confirmed his previous statements and “indicated to the investigators the location of the objects of interest to the [them]”.
48. On 23 March 2004 a certain Ms M. gave the investigators a written statement which was appended to case file no. 30012. Ms M. stated, in particular, that she traded food at a market in Altayskaya Street, opposite the MVD. On 14 January 2004 Ms M had been trading at the market. On that day she had not noticed anything suspicious and had not heard about the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev.
49. The Government submitted that on an unspecified date a certain Ms Z. A. and a certain Ms Z. I. made statements similar to that of Ms M.
50. On 30 April 2004 the investigators questioned as a witness Mr D., who at the time of the incident had held the post of acting Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. Mr D. submitted that on 10 January 2004 Mr Zh. had informed him that the personal files of several police officers were incomplete. In that connection Mr D. had summoned to the MVD all police officers whose personal files did not comply with the established requirements. In the beginning of February 2004 relatives of Bekman Asadulayev had on several occasions applied to Mr D. in connection with the alleged abduction of their relative from the secure grounds of the MVD. Mr D. had not met Bekman Asadulayev and had never spoken to him.
51. The Government submitted that the investigators had not questioned Mr G., who had received Bekman Asadulayev on 14 January 2004, because he had left the Chechen Republic on an unspecified date.
52. The Government further submitted that the investigation in case no. 30012 had been suspended several times owing to the failure to identify those responsible for the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev. The investigation had then been resumed with a view to verifying the information obtained as a result of the investigative steps taken by the authorities. The Government did not indicate the dates of the decisions to suspend and resume the investigation, nor did they furnish any further information in that connection. According to the Government, the investigation into the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev was still ongoing.
53. Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government refused to furnish any copies from the investigation file in case no. 30012. They claimed that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings.
54. By a judgment of 21 June 2005 the Groznenskiy District Court of the Chechen Republic (the District Court) allowed an action by the second applicant to have her husband declared a missing person.
55. On an unspecified date in 2006 the second applicant filed with the District Court a civil action to have her husband declared dead. She submitted, in particular, that Bekman Asadulayev had disappeared in life-threatening circumstances, that two years had elapsed since his disappearance and that, given the situation in the Chechen Republic, there were grounds to believe that he had been killed following his abduction.
56. On 25 May 2006 the District Court dismissed the second applicant's claim. The court's reasoning, in its relevant parts, was as follows:
“[The court] obtained copies of materials from criminal case file [no. 30012].
From the decision of 4 February 2004 to institute criminal proceedings it transpires that on 14 January 2004 four unidentified men in camouflage uniforms, armed with automatic weapons, arrived at the entrance to the [MVD] building in a dark blue VAZ-21099 vehicle without licence plates and took Bekman Asadulayev, born in 1979, by force to an unknown destination from the secure grounds of the [MVD]; [Bekman Asadulayev's] whereabouts remain unknown.
From the transcripts of the interview of the deputy Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, Mr Zh., dated 9 March 2004; the head of the Groznenskiy ROVD, Mr S., dated 19 February 2004; the acting head of the Pobedinskoye police office, Mr Sh., dated 18 February 2004, and the then acting Minister of the Interior, Mr D., dated 30 April 2004, it follows that [Bekman Asadulayev] had been taken away with their knowledge [с их ведома] and, most likely, by officials of the power structures. Hence, the court finds no reasons to believe that [Bekman Asadulayev] could have perished during his abduction and is not alive.
Thus, the latest date when there was information on [Bekman Asadulayev's] whereabouts is 14 January 2004. The five-year term has not expired.
However, under Article 45 of the Civil Code, a citizen may be declared dead if in his place of residence there has been no information on his whereabouts for five years; if he has gone missing in life-threatening circumstances or there are grounds to believe that he has died as a result of an accident [a citizen may be declared dead] within six months.
The court is not in possession of any information that [Bekman Asadulayev] went missing in life-threatening circumstances, as a consequence of which his death could be presumed, because he was taken away from secure grounds to which no person has access without a proper pass.”
57. There is no indication that the second applicant challenged the District Court judgment on appeal.
58. Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure 2001 (“CCP”) provides that an investigator's or prosecutor's decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings or to terminate a case, and other orders and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede a citizen's access to justice may be appealed against to a local district court, which is empowered to examine the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions.
59. Article 161 of the CCP prohibits the disclosure of information from the preliminary investigation file. Under part 3 of the Article, information from the investigation file may be divulged only with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the parties to the criminal proceedings or prejudice the investigation. Divulging information about the private lives of parties to criminal proceedings without their permission is prohibited.
60. Article 1069 of the Russian Civil Code provides that damage sustained by an individual because of unlawful actions or inaction of State and municipal agencies or their officials is to be compensated for by a State or municipal treasury.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 13
2
3
5


ITEMID: 001-79105
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2007
DOCNAME: CASE OF BULGAKOVA v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson
TEXT: 6. The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Novosibirsk.
7. Since 1988, the applicant had been receiving an old-age pension. From February 1998, her pension was to be calculated under the Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions. The law introduced a new method for calculating pensions. This method, “a pensioner's individual multiplier” was meant to link the pensioner's pension to his or her previous earnings.
8. The authority in charge of the applicant's pension, the Pension Fund Agency of the Zayeltsovskiy District of Novosibirsk, fixed the applicant's multiplier at 0.525. The applicant considered that the agency had misread the law, and that her multiplier should be higher. On an unspecified date in 1999 she challenged the agency's decision in a court. Thus, in her view the net underpayments from February 1998 until December 1999 amounted to 1,627.5 Russian Roubles, without taking into account the raise of the local cost of living index.
9. The case came before the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk. On 21 October 1999 the court held for the applicant. It found that the agency had misread the law: as from 1 February 1998 the multiplier should have been 0.7. Consequently, the agency was ordered to recalculate the applicant's pension accordingly and pay it.
10. The agency appealed against the judgment, but on 14 December 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court dismissed the appeal, and the judgment came into force. On the same day the court issued a writ of execution where it invited the local branch of the Pension Fund to recalculate the applicant's old age pension, applying the multiplier 0.7, and pay it to the applicant. The enforcement proceedings against the Agency were initiated. The agency recalculated the pension in accordance with the judgment of 14 December 1999 and requested the federal Pension Fund to allocate respective amounts.
11. On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had passed an Instruction on the Application of Limitations Established by the Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions (hereinafter – “Instruction”). The Instruction clarified how to apply the law.
12. Some time thereafter a group of individuals challenged the Instruction before the Supreme Court. On 10 April 2000 the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour was suspended in connection with the proceedings before the Supreme Court. On 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It found that contrary to what the plaintiffs suggested the Ministry of Labour had not trespassed its authority when it issued the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Law had been correct. On 25 May 2000 the Cassation Section of the Supreme Court upheld this judgment on appeal.
13. On 21 August 2000, the agency asked the District Court to re-open the case due to discovery of new circumstances. They argued that the interpretation of the law on pensions given by the Instruction was different from that of the Zayeltsovskiy District Court. Further, they referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation which confirmed the lawfulness of the Instruction. The agency argued that it had not known about those facts until after the litigation, and that the case should therefore be reconsidered.
14. On 16 January 2001, the district court granted the agency's request and reopened the judgment under Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under this Article, a court might reopen a judgment, if a party discovered significant circumstances that were not and could not have been known to this party during the litigation.
15. Having reconsidered the case, on 12 February 2001 the district court dismissed the applicant's claims in full. On 22 March 2001, the regional court upheld the judgment on appeal.
16. The Code of Civil Procedure of 1964 (“CCivP”), as in force at the material time, provided as follows:
Article 333. Grounds for re-consideration
“[Judgments] which have come into force may be re-considered on the basis of newly-discovered circumstances. The grounds for re-consideration ... shall be:
1. significant circumstances which were not and could not have been known to the party who applies for re-consideration;...
4. cancellation of a court [judgment] or of another authority's decision which served as legal basis for the [judgment] in question.”
Article 334. Making of application
“... [An application for re-consideration of a [judgment] due to newly-discovered circumstances] is to be made within three months after the discovery of the circumstances.”
Article 337. Ruling on the re-reconsideration of the case
“... The ruling ordering the re-consideration of the judgment ... due to newly-discovered circumstances is not subject to any appeal”.
17. On 2 February 1996 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted a ruling concerning certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP). In that ruling the Constitutional Court decided that Article 384 of the CCrP (“Grounds for re-consideration of a [criminal] case on the basis of newly discovered circumstances”, which was in many respect similar to Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure) was unconstitutional in that it limited the grounds for the re-opening of a criminal case by the situations of “newly discovered circumstances”. In that ruling the Constitutional Court suggested that this provision of the CCrP prevented rectification of judicial errors and miscarriages of justice.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-60324
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: LTU
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2002
DOCNAME: CASE OF PUZINAS v. LITHUANIA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
JUDGES: Ireneu Cabral Barreto
TEXT: 8. Since 20 March 1991 the applicant has been serving in the Sniego Prison in Vilnius a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment for aggravated murder. By a Presidential decree of pardon of 27 June 1998 the applicant’s sentence was reduced by two years.
9. On 21 July 1998 the applicant applied to the prison administration, requesting his transfer to another prison. The prison administration refused his request. The applicant unsuccessfully complained that he was unable to change prisons to various Lithuanian and international authorities and NGOs, including the Council of Europe, the Council of the Baltic Sea States (“the CBSS”) and Amnesty International.
10. On 20 October 1998 he received a letter dated 16 October 1998 from the CBSS Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights based in Copenhagen. The letter had been opened when he received it.
11. On 2 November 1998 he received a letter dated 21 October 1998 from the Secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights. The letter had also been subjected to initial screening by the prison administration before the applicant had access to it.
12. On 3 December 1998 the applicant was reprimanded in disciplinary proceedings. He lodged with the Ombudsman a complaint concerning the reprimand and alleged breaches of the freedom of his correspondence.
13. On 22 December 1998 the Ombudsman found that the prison administration had censored a letter from the applicant to his wife in which he had accused the prison staff of theft. The Ombudsman found that, as a consequence, on 30 October 1998 the prison administration had disciplined the applicant for slander. The Ombudsman held that the applicant’s letters to his wife pertained to the field of his private life, and that his allegations of theft did not constitute any formal suggestions, applications or complaints for the purpose of Rule 7 § 3 (4) of the Prison Rules (see the ‘Relevant domestic law’ part below). The Ombudsman concluded that the disciplinary penalty was unlawful, and suggested that it should be lifted. The Ombudsman also found that the letter from the CBSS of 16 October 1998 had been opened. He held that the applicant’s right to respect for correspondence under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights was “almost inviolable”, but that the State was allowed to censor prisoners’ letters in certain cases. The Ombudsman found no violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence.
14. On the basis of the Ombudsman’s conclusions, on 29 December 1998 the Director of the Penitentiary Department lifted the disciplinary penalty.
15. Article 22 of the Constitution provides that correspondence of a person is inviolable. Persons shall be protected by courts from arbitrary or unlawful interference with that right.
16. Article 41 of the Prison Code (Pataisos darbų kodeksas) provides that “convicted persons’ correspondence shall be censored”.
17. Rule 7 § 1 (7) of the Prison Interim Rules (Pataisos darbų įstaigų vidaus tvarkos laikinosios taisyklės) states that “convicted persons’ letters (except those to a prosecutor) sent from or received in a prison are subject to censorship”. Rule 7 § 1 (8) states that any letters containing “cryptography [and] cynical or threatening statements shall not be sent to the addressee”. Rule 7 § 3 (4) provides that written “suggestions, applications or complaints containing insults, jargon or obscenities shall not be sent, [and that] disciplinary penalties may be imposed on the persons who have signed” such papers.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 8


ITEMID: 001-80170
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2007
DOCNAME: CASE OF HACI ÖZEN v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 2
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Şırnak.
5. The facts surrounding the arrest and detention of the applicant are disputed between the parties.
6. On an unspecified date, the applicant was contacted by two persons in the centre of Şırnak who asked him either to give them money or to help them. They did not specify what they wished the applicant to do. The applicant refused their request. On 11 June 1998, one week after this incident, they again contacted the applicant, asked him to help them and threatened him with death. As the applicant was scared, he followed their instructions. He went near to a cemetery outside the city centre where two armed men appeared. They asked him about the supplies and when the applicant told them that he did not know about the supplies, they beat him. Subsequently, four or five other plain-clothes persons carrying weapons arrived. They tied the applicant’s hands and covered his mouth. One of them had a radio with which he talked to someone whom he addressed as “my commander”. The applicant was then blindfolded, put in a vehicle and taken to the Şırnak provincial gendarmerie command.
7. During his detention in the custody of the gendarmerie the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment. In particular he was stripped naked and beaten. He was also deprived of food and water and was prevented from going to the toilet. The applicant was kept in a small and dark cell, threatened with death and insulted. Furthermore, the gendarmerie officers attempted to rape him.
8. In the evening of 11 June 1998, the applicant’s son, Mehmet Özen, applied to the Şırnak Security Directorate claiming that his father left home at around 8 - 8.30 a.m. to go to their farm and that he was seen by one of their neighbours, Ömer Katar, at around midday being abducted by an armed group of six or seven persons. On 12 June 1998 an official report was drawn up concerning Mehmet Özen’s claim.
9. On 13 June 1998 a similar protocol was drawn up containing Ömer Katar’s statement about the applicant’s arrest. He stated that he had seen the applicant being taken away by seven men who were carrying rifles. Ömer Katar testified that Haci Özen’s hands were tied and that he was being beaten by these men.
10. On 15 June 1998 the applicant was brought before a forensic doctor, Mr Veli Gül. The medical report drafted by the doctor at 1.45 p.m. on the same day referred to the following marks on the applicant’s body: a bruise on the right shoulder, scratches and bruises on the front of his right arm, bruises on the right part of his back, bruises of 2 x 2 cm on his waist, bruises on the front of his left arm, a bruise on the back of his left shoulder, bruises of 2 x 2 cm on his left hip and a trauma of 2 x 0,5 cm on his parietal bone. All the bruises on the applicant’s body were described as purple in colour.
11. On 23 June 1998 the gendarmerie officers drafted a document allegedly containing the applicant’s statements, according to which the applicant admitted to have willingly acted as a courier for the PKK and have fallen and sustained other injuries while trying to escape from the gendarmerie officers on 15 June 1998, the day of his arrest. The applicant was forced to apply his thumbprint to this document.
12. On 24 June 1998 the applicant was examined by the same doctor who noted the presence of the traces of old bruises on his shoulders and arms.
13. On the same day the applicant was brought before the Şırnak public prosecutor. He denied the accusations against him. The statements that he had allegedly made at the gendarmerie command were read to him. The applicant denied that he had made these statements and maintained that he had been forced to sign them. He claimed that he had been threatened with death by two men unless he delivered a bag to some people whose identity was not known to him.
14. After being questioned by the public prosecutor he was brought before the Şırnak Magistrates’ Court (Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi), where he denied the charges against him. He further pleaded not guilty and reiterated his statement that he had made before the Chief Public Prosecutor. The Şırnak Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. The court also took note of the applicant’s allegation that he was threatened with death and decided to refer his complaint to the public prosecutor’s office.
15. On 30 June 1998 the Şırnak public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction in respect of the investigation against the applicant holding that the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court had the jurisdiction to conduct this investigation.
16. On 17 August 1998 the Şırnak public prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation based on Mehmet Özen’s allegation. The public prosecutor found that the applicant had not been abducted as alleged by Mehmet Özen but taken into custody on 15 June 1998 on suspicion of aiding the PKK.
17. On 15 June 1998 the applicant was arrested by officers from the Şırnak provincial gendarmerie command on suspicion of aiding the PKK. Although on 11 June 1998 the applicant’s son lodged a petition with the security directorate and on 13 June 1998 the applicant’s neighbour stated that he had seen the applicant being taken away by seven men, there is no statement indicating that the persons who abducted the applicants had been gendarmerie officers.
18. According to the arrest report signed by four gendarmerie officers, on 15 June 1998, at around 8.30 a.m., following information received by the gendarmerie officers the applicant was captured in a rural area while carrying a bag containing clothes that he was taking to members of the PKK. The applicant was told twice to stop by the officers but he tried to escape. While running, he fell, hit his head and sustained injuries to various parts of his body.
19. On the same day, three officers further drafted a scene of the incident report. According to this report, the applicant was captured at around 4 a.m. following the receipt of information that the applicant was taking supplies to members of the PKK. The officers noted that the applicant had been carrying two bags containing clothes, soap and a carpet and that he had sustained injuries when he fell from a height of 8-10 metres. It is to be noted that neither the arrest report nor the scene of the incident report bears the signature of the applicant.
20. Following his arrest, the applicant was examined by a doctor (see paragraph 10 above) and, subsequently, taken to the Şırnak gendarmerie command where he made statements admitting that he had aided the members of the PKK. The applicant was kept in custody until 24 June 1998.
21. On 9 July 1998 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.
22. The first hearing, held before the Diyarbakır State Security Court composed of three judges including a military judge, on 13 July 1998, in the applicant’s absence, was taken up with procedural matters, such as the measures to be taken for securing the presence of the accused.
23. On 21 December 1998 the applicant’s representative stated before the Diyarbakır State Security Court that the applicant was arrested on 11 June 1998. He alleged that the protocols prepared by gendarmerie officers contained false information. He maintained that the medical report of 15 June 1998 established the ill-treatment of the applicant received at the hands of gendarmerie officers. He further complained that the length of the applicant’s detention was excessive. He made an oral complaint against the gendarmerie officers in relation to the ill-treatment of the applicant before the State Security Court and requested the court to notify the public prosecutor’s office concerning their complaint. In reply to the request of the applicant’s representative the State Security Court stated:
“It has been decided that the representative of the accused be authorised to lodge a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office where the act took place and that the copy of the hearing minutes be provided if needed.”
24. On the same day, the first-instance court decided to request the Şırnak Assize Court to issue a summons requiring the gendarmerie officers who had signed the arrest and scene of the incident reports to give evidence.
25. At the beginning of the hearing of 8 February 1999, the Diyarbakır State Security Court appointed an interpreter to assist the applicant, noting that he did not have a good command of the Turkish language.
26. On the same day, the applicant made statements before the court with the assistance of the interpreter. He maintained, inter alia, that he was at his farm on the day of his arrest when two persons arrived and asked him to give them money. When he refused their request, they beat him. Subsequently, they tied his hands and covered his mouth and took him to a place, where there were supplies. They then asked him to accept that the supplies belonged to him but he refused. The applicant further denied the accuracy of the arrest and scene of the incident reports. The first-instance court decided to postpone the hearing as the statements of the gendarmerie officers had not been taken. It further ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.
27. On 22 March 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court postponed the hearing as the statements of the gendarmerie officers had not been taken.
28. On 10 May 1999 the statements of one of the gendarmerie officers were read out. The applicant’s lawyer maintained before the Court that the contents of these statements and the arrest and scene of the incident reports were contradictory. The court once again postponed the hearing as it had not received the statements of two gendarmerie officers.
29. On an unspecified date, the statements of the two officers were sent to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
30. On 18 June 1999 Turkey’s Grand National Assembly amended Article 143 of the Constitution and excluded military members from State Security Courts. Following similar amendments made on 22 June 1999 to the Law on the State Security Courts, the military judge sitting on the Diyarbakır State Security Court hearing the applicant’s case was replaced by a civilian judge.
31. At the hearing held on 13 September 1999, the public prosecutor read out his observations on the merits of the case. The hearing was postponed for the preparation of the applicant’s final submissions on the merits of the case.
32. At the hearing held on 27 September 1999 the first-instance court heard the applicant’s lawyer’s final submissions on the merits of the case. On the same day, the court noticed that the applicant’s statements of 8 February 1999 had been taken without the bill of indictment having been read to him. The court therefore requested the Şırnak Assize Court to read out the bill of indictment to the applicant and to take his statements with the assistance of an interpreter.
33. On an unspecified date the applicant made statements before the Şırnak Assize Court with the assistance of an interpreter. These statements were sent to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
34. At the hearing of 13 December 1999 the public prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer made their final submissions on the merits of the case. The applicant’s lawyer maintained, inter alia, that the applicant’s arrest and the length of his detention in custody had been unlawful and that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in custody.
35. On the same day, the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the members of the PKK and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. In its judgment, the court relied on the applicant’s confession statements made in the custody of the gendarmerie, the statements of the gendarmerie officers who had drafted the arrest and scene of the incident protocols and the content of the bag that the applicant was allegedly carrying when he was arrested.
36. The military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was present at one preliminary hearing and six hearings on the merits until June 1999. After the replacement of the military judge with a civilian judge, the first-instance court held four hearings before rendering its judgment in the case.
37. On 20 March 2000 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 13 December 1999.
38. On 18 October 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
39. The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments: Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 95-100, ECHR 2004-... (extracts)); Özel v. Turkey (no. 42739/98, §§ 20-21, 7 November 2002); and Öcalan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 46221/99, §§ 5254, ECHR 2005-...).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 13
3
5
6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 5-3
6-1


ITEMID: 001-72749
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: LVA
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: CASE OF SVIPSTA v. LATVIA [Extracts]
IMPORTANCE: 1
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 5-1 (as regards the detention of the applicant between 18 May and 11 October 2001);Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violations sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: Alvina Gyulumyan;David Thór Björgvinsson;Ineta Ziemele;John Hedigan;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky
TEXT: 8. On 17 February 2000 I.S., a head of division at the National Privatisation Agency, was murdered in front of the entrance to the building where she lived in Riga. The same day the specialised public prosecutor's office for organised crime and other offences (Organizētās noziedzības un citu nozaru specializētā prokuratūra) opened a preliminary investigation into the murder.
9. On 27 March 2000 the police arrested two men, V.S. and V.B., on the ground that they were suspects (aizdomās turētie) in the murder and took them into police custody. Shortly afterwards, they were charged and placed in detention on remand.
On 18 April 2000 the Belarusian police, acting on a request from the Latvian authorities, arrested two other men, I.F. and I.Č., who had fled to Belarus in the meantime. On 28 April 2000 the men were extradited to Latvia. They too were charged with the murder of I.S. and were brought before the relevant judge, who remanded them in custody.
10. During the preliminary investigation, the four co-defendants gave statements to the public prosecutor to the effect that the applicant, who at the time had been the manager of a private company, had ordered and funded I.S.'s murder for reasons of personal revenge. According to I.F., the applicant had first given him 10,000 United States dollars (USD) as payment for carrying out the murder and later comparable sums to enable him to flee the country. On 20 April 2000 I.F.'s girlfriend, who was questioned as a witness, said that she had overheard a conversation between her boyfriend and I.Č. in which both men had referred to V.B. as having perpetrated the murder.
11. Accordingly, on 1 June 2000, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being the principal organiser and instigator of the murder. On being taken into police custody and questioned, the applicant admitted having known the victim personally; however, she denied any financial links with her.
The same day the police conducted two searches, one at the applicant's home and the other at her office. They seized a large number of documents and files, which were placed in forty cardboard boxes and taken away.
12. On the following day, 2 June 2000, the public prosecutor's office placed the applicant under investigation for murder. At the same time, V.S., V.B., I.F. and I.Č. were charged with committing the murder.
13. Also on 2 June 2000, the public prosecutor's office applied to the Riga City Kurzeme District Court seeking to have the applicant and the four suspected perpetrators of the crime remanded in custody for an initial period of two months. In court, the prosecution referred to the statements by the four men, which it considered to be credible, and stressed the need to detain the applicant “so that it [could] conduct a thorough preliminary investigation and establish the facts of the case in an objective manner”. According to the prosecution, “if A. Svipsta remain[ed] at liberty, there [was] a danger that she [would] hinder the determination of the truth [and] evade investigation and trial”.
In an order issued on 2 June 2000 following inter partes proceedings attended by the applicant and her lawyer, the District Court granted the public prosecutor's request. The order stated that the applicant's detention was necessary in order to counter the risk of collusion and prevent her from obstructing the investigation. Further reasons given were the seriousness of the offence, the personality of the defendant and “other circumstances”. The applicant did not appeal against the detention order.
14. After being questioned on 6, 7 and 9 June 2000, the applicant eventually admitted that she had had financial links with I.S. She stated in particular that, in December 1998, when she had begun receiving income as an administrator of public undertakings which were being liquidated, I.S. had started to extort money from her. She also said, in contradiction of her earlier statements, that she knew I.F. and had told him about a row she had had with the murder victim on the subject of their financial links.
15. On 29 June 2000 the public prosecutor presented the applicant with full details of the charges against her. According to the facts as established by the prosecutor, the applicant and I.S. had concluded a secret agreement in 1996, under the terms of which I.S. had promised to appoint the applicant as administrator of the public undertakings whose liquidation she was overseeing. In return, the applicant had promised to pay her USD 500,000. By the time of I.S.'s murder, the applicant had already paid her almost half the sum agreed.
16. On 12 July 2000 the public prosecutor's office received a statement from a Latvian bank to the effect that the applicant and I.S. had gone to Switzerland together; during the trip, the applicant had paid all the expenses using her credit card. On 19 July 2000 the State telecommunications company sent the prosecutor's office records of mobile telephone conversations between the applicant and both I.S. and I.F. and between the four suspected perpetrators of the murder.
17. On 24 July 2000 the prosecutor in charge of the case requested the Kurzeme District Court to extend the applicant's detention on remand until 29 September 2000 on the ground that a number of investigative measures, specified by the prosecutor, still needed to be carried out. The measures involved preparing expert reports on the physical evidence gathered at the applicant's home and office and on her state of health, organising at least six confrontations with the defendants, questioning at least ten further witnesses and requesting relevant information from Interpol's National Central Bureau. The prosecutor also expressed the view that the applicant's guilt was “demonstrated by the statements of her co-defendants and witnesses, the reports [on the scene and the physical evidence], the expert opinions and the remaining evidence in the case file”.
18. In an order of 26 July 2000 issued in the presence of the applicant's lawyer, the relevant judge at the Kurzeme District Court granted the public prosecutor's request. The order read as follows:
“Order extending detention on remand
Riga, 26 July 2000
[L.B.], judge at the Riga City Kurzeme District Court, has examined the evidence in the criminal file ... concerning the aggravated murder of [I.S.], committed in the courtyard of 20 Valguma Street, Riga on 17 February 2000. The file was submitted by prosecutor [S.N.] of the specialised public prosecutor's office for organised crime and other offences, with a request for extension of the detention on remand of Astrīda Svipsta, who has been charged under Articles 20 § 2 and 117 ... of the Criminal Code. Having heard the observations of [S.N.] and the opinion of the lawyer/lawyers [A.D.], the Court
having noted [the following]:
The time allowed for preferring the indictment in this case has been extended until 29 September 2000.
The crime of which A. Svipsta stands accused is particularly serious. Accordingly, if she remains at liberty, there is a danger that she will evade investigation and trial, commit further criminal offences and hinder the determination of the truth in the criminal case. [Consequently], without examining whether the defendant is guilty or innocent of the charges against her, I consider it appropriate to extend the period of detention in question.
Having regard to the above and on the basis of Article 77 of the KPK [Latvijas Kriminālprocesa kodekss – Code of Criminal Procedure],
I hereby decide:
To extend the detention on remand of Astrīda Svipsta ... until 29 September 2000.
This order is amenable to appeal before the Riga Regional Court, the appeal to be lodged with the Kurzeme District Court.
Execution of the order shall not be stayed pending such appeal.
Judge: [signature]”
19. The above order, which was one page long, had been typed on a computer and printed out. However, the fields for the date, the judge's name and the lawyer's name had been left blank, and the relevant information (given in italics above) had been added by hand.
20. The applicant appealed against the order before the Riga Regional Court. In her memorial she submitted that the first-instance judge had omitted to conduct a thorough examination of all the evidence in the file before issuing the order. The applicant further argued that the seriousness of the offence was not sufficient in itself to warrant extending her detention and that there was nothing in the case file to suggest that she intended to evade investigation or commit further offences. In that connection she stressed that she had left the country several times since the murder and had always returned to Latvia; this proved that she had no intention of absconding or obstructing the investigation.
21. By an order dated 15 August 2000, issued following a hearing attended by the applicant and her lawyer, the Riga Regional Court dismissed the appeal in the following terms:
“... Having taken cognisance of the evidence in the case file and heard evidence from the parties, the Court concludes that there are plausible reasons to believe that, if A. Svipsta remains at liberty, there is a danger that she will evade investigation and trial and hinder the determination of the truth in this case. The Court further takes into consideration the seriousness of the charges against A. Svipsta; [it] considers that the order issued by the Kurzeme District Court ... on 26 July 2000 is in accordance with the law and is justified. ...”
22. In the meantime, on 6 August 2000, the applicant provided the public prosecutor's office with detailed information concerning the sums of money she had paid to I.S. since January 1998. On 17 August 2000 she sent further information to the Prosecutor General's Office, stating that I.S. had harassed her and extorted large sums of money from her; accordingly, she requested that a separate criminal investigation be opened into the alleged extortion and that she be acquitted.
23. On 18 September 2000 the public prosecutor's office requested the Kurzeme District Court to extend the applicant's detention on remand until 28 November 2000. In support of its request, it referred to the need to organise at least two further confrontations, question five further witnesses, study the new statements made by the applicant alleging that I.S had extorted funds from her, examine and analyse the evidence obtained from abroad as a result of international judicial cooperation, examine certain items of physical evidence and order a psychologist's expert report on the defendants I.F. and I.Č.
24. By an order dated 20 September 2000, the relevant judge granted the public prosecutor's request. The wording and layout (font, positioning of the text and line spacing) exactly matched those of the order of 26 July 2000. Only the date, the judge's name, his signature and the length of detention were different. The field for the lawyer's name, meanwhile, had been left blank.
25. The applicant appealed against this order before the Riga Regional Court which, in an order issued on 17 October 2000 following inter partes proceedings, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the applicant “[was] accused of a particularly serious crime [and] ha[d] pleaded not guilty; that the crime in question [had been] committed by an organised group; that there [were] good grounds for suspecting that she might attempt to hinder the determination of the truth in the case”.
26. On 30 October 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General's Office alleging that the public prosecutor “ha[d], without any justification, disregarded the comments and oral suggestions from the defence concerning the procedural aspects of the case”. According to the applicant, her lawyer had made oral requests for permission to consult the investigation file. The Prosecutor General's Office did not reply.
27. On 17 November 2000 the public prosecutor requested a further extension of the applicant's detention, this time until 30 January 2001. The reasons given were essentially the same as those cited in the request of 18 September 2000, the only differences were the number of witnesses to be questioned (twenty-seven), and a reference to the need to carry out biological tests, in particular DNA tests.
28. On 22 November 2000 the judge ordered the applicant's continued detention until 28 January 2001. This order was drawn up in the same manner as those of 26 July and 20 September, with the date and the lawyer's name having been added by hand. The judge's name had first been typed but had then been crossed out with a ballpoint pen, and the stamp of another judge had been added beside it; the order had been signed by the second judge.
29. The applicant then lodged a fresh appeal with the Riga Regional Court. In her memorial she submitted that the proceedings leading to adoption of the document in question had constituted a serious breach of the former Code of Criminal Procedure (Latvijas Kriminālprocesa kodekss – “the KPK”), which was in force at the time. In that connection the applicant observed that all the orders issued by the court of first instance, by three different judges, had been absolutely identical, even in the way they were worded. She inferred from this that the judges had merely signed the draft orders prepared in advance by the prosecutor. In the applicant's view, this theory was borne out by the fact that the most recent decision had been taken in camera in the judge's office; the judge had allowed the applicant's lawyer into the room only after he had spent approximately twenty minutes alone with the prosecutor. Consequently, the lawyer had not even been able to hear the prosecutor's observations, the defence having been present only when the judge had signed the draft decision, which had been prepared in advance. The applicant also reiterated her previous arguments against her continued detention.
30. By an order made on 5 December 2000 after inter partes proceedings, similar to the order of 17 October 2000, the Riga Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the impugned order, observing that the murder in question had been committed by a group of persons and that the applicant had pleaded not guilty. In court, the applicant's lawyer was invited to speak first. However, despite repeated requests on his part, the judge did not permit him to reply to the prosecutor's observations. The Regional Court also did not reply to the applicant's arguments based on Article 5 of the Convention as interpreted by certain judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, declining to take cognisance of the copies of the relevant judgments or to add them to the case file.
31. On 10 December 2000 the applicant lodged a second complaint with the Prosecutor General's Office, alleging a series of procedural irregularities, in particular the refusal of the relevant prosecutor to grant defence counsel access to the file. In a letter dated 8 January 2001, the Prosecutor General's Office rejected this complaint on the ground that the requests supposedly made by the defence did not feature in any official record; the letter added that a copy of the entire file would be sent to the applicant once the investigation had been completed.
32. On 2 January 2001 the public prosecutor's office attempted to obtain information concerning the transfers of funds between the applicant and the murder victim. To that end it made enquiries of fifteen Latvian banks; none had accounts under the names in question.
33. On 16 January 2001 the public prosecutor's office applied for a further extension of the applicant's detention on the ground that she had made further statements in the meantime to the effect that I.F., one of the suspected perpetrators of the murder, had raped her and then subjected her to pressure. The prosecution further cited the need to carry out the same investigative measures referred to in its previous requests, the only difference being the number of witnesses to be questioned (six).
34. In an order of 25 January 2001, the Kurzeme District Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 March 2001. Again, the order was virtually identical to the previous orders issued by the same court, apart from a few details concerning the names of the judge, the prosecutors and the lawyer. This time the whole order had been typed and no additions or corrections had been made by hand.
35. On 31 January 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Riga Regional Court, complaining in particular of the refusal of the public prosecutor's office and the court to allow her lawyer access to the documents in the investigation file on which her continued detention had been based. On 9 February 2001 the court dismissed her appeal in an order which was to all intents and purposes identical to those of 15 August and 17 October 2000. In addition to the seriousness of the crime, this order also cited as a reason the risk that the applicant might abscond or evade justice.
36. In the meantime, on 26 January 2001, V.S., one of the applicant's co-defendants, had been released and placed under police surveillance (nodošana policijas uzraudzībā). In addition, on 30 April 2001, the public prosecutor's office drew up a fresh charge against the applicant, charging her with commercial corruption within the meaning of Article 199 of the Criminal Code.
37. In two orders dated 29 March and 30 April 2001, the Kurzeme District Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 April and 18 May 2001 respectively. In both cases the court was ruling on requests from the public prosecutor's office based on the necessity of carrying out a number of additional investigative measures. As in its previous requests, the prosecutor's office cited the need to question further witnesses (four). However, it laid particular emphasis on the need to send the documents in the file to the applicant, her co-defendants and their lawyers, to prepare the final indictment and to prepare the case for trial.
The layout of the two orders was again identical to all the previous orders given by the same court in the instant case. Although the order of 29 March 2001, having been typed entirely on a computer, differed in appearance from the other orders, it was identical to them in content.
38. On 30 March and 2 May 2001 the applicant lodged appeals with the Riga Regional Court, complaining in particular of the refusal by the public prosecutor's office and the court to allow her lawyer access to the documents in the investigation file on which her continued detention had been based.
On 17 April and 11 May 2001 the Riga Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeals and upheld the impugned orders. All the decisions of the Riga Regional Court were drafted in terms virtually identical to the orders of 15 August and 17 October 2000. Only the decision of 17 April 2001 specified that the applicant's continued detention was justified on account of her personality and that the first-instance court had had legitimate grounds to fear a risk of collusion, since the applicant had made the arrangements for her co-defendants to flee the country.
39. On 11 May 2001 the public prosecutor's office concluded the investigation and sent copies of the documents in the file to the applicant. On 14 May 2001 the applicant began studying the file, which comprised sixteen volumes.
On 5 July and 1 August 2001 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General's Office about the attitude of the prosecutor handling her case, who had sent her only a few documents at a time and at long intervals. In letters of 30 July and 7 August 2001, the Prosecutor General's Office rejected her complaints without giving any reasons.
40. Meanwhile, on 18 May 2001, the latest order for the applicant's detention expired. However, as she had begun studying the documents in the investigation file, her release was “suspended” in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 77 of the KPK (see paragraph 60 below). She therefore remained in detention.
41. On 18 July 2001 the applicant finished studying the documents in the file. On the same day she requested the public prosecutor's office to question a number of persons who had allegedly seen her in a Riga hotel the day after I.S.'s murder. The request was rejected for failure to give reasons; the prosecutor's office took the view that the defence had not made sufficiently clear how the evidence of the persons concerned could establish the applicant's innocence or contribute any new evidence to her file.
42. The applicant's co-defendants, V.S., I.F., V.B. and I.Č., finished studying the file on 2 August, 3 August, 2 October and 5 October 2001 respectively. On 5 October 2001 the prosecutor dealing with the case informed the applicant that all the parties had now taken cognisance of the file.
43. On 8 October 2001 the public prosecutor signed the final indictment (apsūdzības raksts) against the applicant and her four co-defendants. The file was subsequently sent to the trial court, in this case the Riga Regional Court. On 11 October 2001 the relevant judge of the Regional Court found that there was sufficient evidence in the file and decided to commit the applicant for trial (lēmums par apsūdzētās nodošanu tiesai). As to the preventive measure applied to the applicant, the judge decided to extend it, without, however, giving any reasons.
44. On 12 October 2001 the applicant wrote to the same judge requesting that she be released. She asked him to convene, if necessary, a preparatory hearing (rīcības sēde) to examine whether her detention was justified. In a letter of 19 October 2001, the judge rejected the request, reminding the applicant that she stood accused of a crime punishable by life imprisonment, and that the preventive measure reflected the seriousness of the offence and her personality. The judge further stated that there were “no grounds” for convening a preparatory hearing. Lastly, he observed that the applicant would have an opportunity to reiterate her request for release at the hearing on the merits of her case, and informed her that the hearing had been set down for 2003.
45. On 31 October 2001 the applicant requested the President of the Riga Regional Court to review the merits of her detention and to take steps to expedite the consideration of her case, arguing in particular that a prolonged term of detention was in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. In a letter of 9 November 2001, the President replied that the Regional Court did not have jurisdiction to review procedural decisions taken by the lower court in charge of a case. As to the timetable for consideration of the case, the President said that it was impossible to speed it up. He observed that “[c]riticism of, or requests made to, the court concerning its hearing of the case 'within a reasonable time' [were] of no relevance whatsoever, as the court work[ed] with the resources allocated to it by the State”.
46. Notwithstanding the date initially set for the first hearing, consideration of the merits of the case began on 26 June 2002. The applicant pleaded not guilty in court.
On 14 August 2002 the prosecution addressed the court. On the following day, it was the turn of the defence.
47. In a judgment delivered on 13 September 2002, the Riga Regional Court found the applicant guilty of organising the murder. However, it considered that no intention to kill on the part of the applicant and two of her co-defendants had been established; accordingly, they were found guilty of manslaughter.
V.B., meanwhile, was found guilty of murder and illegally possessing a knife. The court also found it established that, after V.B. and V.S. had been arrested, the applicant had paid the other two co-defendants substantial sums to enable them to flee the country. Finally, the court considered that the applicant's guilt on the charge of commercial corruption had been sufficiently established.
Consequently, the Regional Court sentenced the applicant to twelve years' imprisonment. Her co-defendants also received long prison sentences: seventeen years in the case of V.B., twelve years in the case of I.F. and ten years in the case of I.Č. V.S. received a suspended sentence of four years' imprisonment.
48. The applicant and her co-defendants lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court. In a judgment of 11 September 2003, the Criminal Division upheld the applicant's conviction for manslaughter. However, it acquitted her on the charge of commercial corruption and reduced her overall sentence to ten years' imprisonment.
49. The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Senate of the Supreme Court. In a final judgment of 6 February 2004, the Senate dismissed the applicant's appeal and those of her co-defendants.
...
52. The former Code of Criminal Procedure (KPK), a legacy of the Soviet era which was amended on numerous occasions, was applicable at the material time. It remained in force until 1 October 2005, when it was replaced by the new Criminal Procedure Act (Kriminālprocesa likums).
53. Under the terms of Article 68 of the KPK, a preventive measure could be applied where plausible reasons existed to suspect that the accused would seek to evade investigation or hinder the determination of the truth in the case. Eight types of preventive measure existed: an undertaking not to change one's residence, personal guarantees, financial guarantees, police surveillance, house arrest, detention in prison and two measures specifically applicable to minors and members of the armed forces.
54. Under Article 72 of the KPK, a preventive measure had to be chosen and implemented on the basis of the following criteria: the seriousness of the alleged offence; the personality of the accused; the likelihood that he or she would seek to evade investigation and hinder the determination of the truth in the case; and the accused's occupation, age, domestic circumstances and health and other relevant criteria. Any preventive measure had to be applied on the basis of an order giving sufficient reasons.
55. Under the terms of Article 76 of the KPK, a period of detention on remand could be ordered only by a judge and only in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable by imprisonment. The detention order was to be issued following adversarial examination of the evidence submitted by the prosecution service or the police; the presence of the accused was in principle compulsory.
56. At the material time, the principles governing the length of detention on remand and the system of appeal were fundamentally different for the preliminary investigation stage (pirmstiesas izmeklēšana) and the judicial stage (iztiesāšana) of the proceedings.
57. At the preliminary investigation stage (comprising the police investigation and preparation of the case file), the initial period of detention on remand could not exceed two months (Article 77 of the KPK). However, where it was not possible to complete the preliminary investigation and commit the accused for trial within that time, and where “there [were] no grounds for amending the preventive measure”, the prosecutor could request the judge to extend the term of detention. In such cases, evidence was heard from the accused and his or her lawyer “if necessary”.
58. The Law of 20 June 2001 (in force since 12 July 2001) amended the second paragraph of Article 77 by setting a two-month limit on each successive extension of the term of detention. The detained person could appeal against an order extending his or her detention by means of an appeal before a higher court, which had to consider the appeal within seven days of receiving it. After hearing evidence from the detained person and the public prosecutor's office, the higher court took a decision by means of a final order (Article 222-1 of the KPK).
59. At this stage in the proceedings, the total length of detention on remand could in no circumstances exceed eighteen months. If, after eighteen months had elapsed, the case had still not been sent for trial, the accused person had to be released.
60. The fifth paragraph of Article 77 of the KPK read as follows:
“On completion of the investigation, and before the maximum statutory period has elapsed, the documents in the file must be sent immediately to the accused and his or her counsel so that they may familiarise themselves with it. The time spent by all the accused in familiarising themselves with the documents in the file shall not be taken into account in calculating the period of detention on remand ...”
In practice, the prosecuting authorities and the courts interpreted the second sentence of this provision as authorising the continued detention of the accused person throughout the time during which he or she and any co-accused were studying the file, even if the validity of the last detention order given by the judge had expired.
61. After drawing up and signing the final indictment, the public prosecutor's office had to forward the file to the trial court (Articles 209-11 of the KPK). Within fourteen days of receiving the file, the trial court, without ruling on the accused's guilt, had to decide whether the file provided a sufficient basis for committing the accused for trial, or whether the case should be referred back for further information or no further action should be taken.
As a rule, the order committing the accused for trial (lēmums par apsūdzētā nodošanu tiesai) was given by a single judge (Articles 223 and 226), who also had to rule on whether the preventive measure in place should be extended, amended or lifted. Where the judge considered that the preventive measure was justified, he confirmed it by means of a final decision. If, on the other hand, he had doubts as to the lawfulness of the measure or its justification, he convened a preparatory hearing (rīcības sēde) to examine the issue. The order given following the preparatory hearing was amenable to appeal before a higher court.
62. Under the terms of Article 241 of the KPK, “consideration of the case at a hearing [had to] begin not more than twenty days or, in exceptional cases, one month from the date on which the court receive[d] the file”. However, this provision, which was a legacy from the Soviet era and had never been amended, was very rarely complied with by the Latvian courts.
63. In principle, once the order for the accused person's continued detention had been given, the decision remained in force throughout the proceedings at first instance. In other words, before 1 November 2002, there was no limit on the length of detention on remand at this stage in the proceedings. The Law of 20 June 2002, which came into force on 1 November 2002 and amended Article 77 of the KPK, set a limit of one year and six months on the period of detention, which ran from the time the trial court received the investigation file until delivery of the judgment at first instance. Once this time-limit had been exceeded, the detained person had to be released immediately.
Originally, however, if the case concerned “particularly serious crimes involving violence or the threat of violence”, the Senate of the Supreme Court could extend the term of detention beyond the maximum period. Following a Constitutional Court judgment of 27 June 2003 which found part of this provision to be in breach of the Constitution, Parliament amended it by means of a Law of 25 September 2003 which guaranteed the person concerned the right to submit his or her observations on an exceptional extension of this kind, and set out the individual's procedural rights.
64. In practice, although the legislation contained no express provision enabling accused persons to appeal against detention at this stage, the courts considered all applications for release made by detainees. The response generally took the form of a simple letter, against which no appeal was possible. However, in more complex cases the court gave its decision in the form of an order (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 45, 28 November 2002).
65. A Law amending Articles 237, 248 and 465 of the KPK, which came into force on 1 April 1999, introduced a right of appeal against orders imposing preventive measures at the judicial stage of the proceedings. However, the Law related only to the period after adversarial examination of the case had begun. Moreover, the right to appeal was subject to the condition that examination of the case had been adjourned for a minimum period of one month. The appeal had to be lodged within seven days of the order being served and the court was required to consider it within seven days of receiving it.
66. Finally, the third paragraph in fine of Article 226 stipulated that the accused could reiterate his or her request for release at the hearing on the merits.
67. The third paragraph of Article 97 of the KPK read as follows:
“Defence counsel shall have the right to take cognisance of all the documents in the file and to copy out extracts from it by hand or using technical means:
(1) in cases where the accused are persons covered by Article 98, points 1 and 2, of the present Code [minors or the physically or mentally disabled] – from the time when the person concerned is placed under investigation;
(2) in all other cases – from the time the person concerned is placed under investigation, with the consent of the investigating authority or the prosecutor;
(3) in all cases – in the circumstances referred to in Article 204 of the Code [on completion of the preliminary investigation and before the file is forwarded to the trial court].”
68. The seventh paragraph of the same Article prohibited the lawyer from disclosing information obtained during the proceedings. Article 130 of the KPK reinforced this duty of confidence, stating that information obtained during the preliminary investigation could be disclosed only with the permission of the head of the investigating authority or the prosecutor and only where the aforementioned authorities considered it practicable. If necessary, the prosecutor was required to remind the witnesses, victims, lawyers and other participants in the proceedings of the fact that failure to comply with this requirement rendered them criminally liable.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 5
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 5-1
5-3
5-4
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
NON_VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-114445
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2012
DOCNAME: TAŞÇI AND DUMAN v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre
TEXT: 1. The applicants, whose particulars are set out in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They are the wife and children of Mr Osman Nuri Taşçı, who disappeared in 1987. They were represented before the Court by Mr Yurdan Dağaşan, a lawyer practising in Oltu, near Erzurum.
2. s and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 4 July 1987 Osman Nuri Taşçı and two men were seen getting into a white car outside Osman Nuri Taşçı’s shop in the town of Oltu. Nothing has been heard from Mr Taşçı since that date.
4. On 7 July 1987 Mr Taşçı’s son, Necati Taşçı, who is one of the applicants, applied to Oltu police headquarters and informed them of the disappearance of his father.
5. Police officers subsequently questioned three witnesses, one of whom informed them that two persons, fitting the description of the men who had taken Mr Taşçı away, had asked him for directions to Mr Taşçı’s shop. The remaining two witnesses told the police officers that they had seen Mr Taşçı getting into the car together with the two persons.
6. On 15 July 1987 the Oltu prosecutor took statements from a petrol station attendant who claimed that the two persons had bought petrol for the white car in question and paid with a cheque. It was later established that the cheque belonged to a bank account of the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter “the MIT”) but that it had been given to the petrol station at an earlier date by one of the two persons who was seen together with Mr Taşçı on the day of the incident.
7. On 24 July 1987 Necati Taşçı submitted a petition to the office of the Oltu governor, and complained about the disappearance of his father. In his petition Mr Taşçı claimed that his family was worried about the fate of his father and that, in his opinion, his father had been abducted by members of the MIT. The governor forwarded the petition to the Oltu police headquarters the same day.
8. Further investigative steps were taken by the police and the prosecutor in the coming days and months. During that investigation a number of other eyewitnesses confirmed having seen Osman Nuri Taşçı in a white car together with the two persons who, it was later established, were members of the MIT. The Director of the MIT denied that his service had taken away Osman Nuri Taşçı.
9. On 11 February 1988 the Oltu prosecutor issued a continuous search order for Mr Taşçı, and asked the police to give him progress reports every three months. Police officers complied with this instruction and gave progress reports to the prosecutor on a regular basis.
10. Fifteen years later, the Oltu prosecutor sought permission to prosecute three MIT officers in relation to the abduction. In May 003 permission was granted and the officers were questioned by the prosecutor. They all denied the accusations. On 16 January 2004 the Oltu prosecutor rendered a decision not to prosecute the three MIT officers for lack of sufficient evidence.
11. The police continued their search for Mr Taşçı and kept the prosecutor informed about their progress. No further information came to light about Mr Taşçı’s fate. On 11 June 2008 the investigation was closed due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. The applicant objected to the decision terminating the investigation, but that request was rejected by the Erzurum Assize Court on 23 February 2010.


ITEMID: 001-81331
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: LVA
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2007
DOCNAME: CASE OF BROKA v. LATVIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: No violation of Art. 6-1
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Riga, Latvia.
5. Before 1940, the applicant's aunt owned a farm in the Jelgava district which comprised a plot of land, a dwelling house and several farm buildings. The land was nationalised by the Soviet Union in 1940 and the buildings were considered as abandoned. In 1956 a third person bought from the local administration a barn and a wood shelter belonging to the estate; he subsequently converted the barn into a dwelling house. Throughout the Soviet period, most of the estate was kept and operated by a co-operative agricultural society.
6. Following the restoration of Latvia's independence in 1991, the applicant's mother, relying on the new property reform and denationalisation laws, sought the return of both the buildings and the land. In 1993, she got back a residential house, but not the remaining buildings, since they were already owned by other persons. Moreover, in 1995 or 1996 a certain J. privatised another two buildings previously belonging to the estate in accordance with privatisation agreements concluded between him and the co-operative society according to the laws then in force.
7. In 1995 the applicant, acting on behalf of her mother, applied to the Land Commission of the Svēte municipality requesting that the land be restored within its exact historical boundaries, as they stood in 1940. This request was refused.
8. The applicant's mother died on 25 February 1997, leaving the applicant as her sole heir. Later, on 20 May 1998, the Riga City Vidzeme District Court legally declared the applicant her mother's successor.
9. On 14 March 1997 the applicant brought an action before the Zemgale Regional Court against five co-defendants: the district council of Jelgava, the local municipality of Svēte, the land commission of the latter, the co-operative society and the successor of the present owner of the barn and the shelter.
10. The first hearing was held by the Zemgale Regional Court on 27 June 1997. At this hearing, some of the defendants recognised the applicant's claim, and the applicant herself asked the court to conclude the examination of her claim as soon as possible. However, the proceedings were subsequently postponed fifteen times, namely:
(a) on 27 June 1997, until 12 November 1997 – in order for the parties to see the estate by themselves and to clarify certain points in their submissions;
(b) on 12 November 1997, sine die (in fact until 26 August 1998) – in order to await an official confirmation of the applicant's inheritance status by the Riga City Vidzeme District Court;
(c) on 26 August 1998, sine die (in fact until 30 May 2000) – when the court, motu proprio, declared J. the sixth co-defendant in the case since the applicant claimed ownership rights to the buildings privatised by him; however, the court established that J. had died and adjourned the proceedings pending his succession case before another court;
(d) on 30 May 2000, until 12 June 2000 – in order to invite the Zemgale Regional Office of the State Land Service to join the proceedings as one of the co-defendants and to compel J.'s successor to submit the judgment of 11 April 2000 concerning her inheritance rights;
(e) on 12 June 2000, until 24 July 2000 – upon the request of the State Land Service in order for them to prepare all necessary documents;
(f) on 24 July 2000, until 21 August 2000 – after the court had, at the applicant's request, declared J.'s widow – now legally confirmed in her inheritance rights – a defendant and ordered her to join the case;
(g) on 21 August 2000, until 18 October 2000 – upon the request of both parties, in order to submit further evidence;
(h) on 18 October 2000, until 8 November 2000 – upon the applicant's request (she in fact asked for a postponement sine die because, according to her, she could not quickly obtain evidence from some state authorities);
(i) on 8 November 2000, until 7 December 2000 – upon the request of the applicant's counsel (who explained that she was unable to attend);
(j) on 6 December 2000, until 26 February 2001 – upon the request of one of the defendants, in order to rectify the boundary of the estate and possibly to seek a friendly settlement;
(k) on 26 February 2001, until 19 April 2001 – because of a repeated absence of the representative of the State Land Service at the hearing (by a letter of 27 February, the court issued a formal warning to this authority and requested it to attend the following hearing);
(l) on 19 April 2001, until 19 July 2001 – one of the defendants being absent for medical reasons (she had previously submitted a medical certificate granting her sick leave from 9 to 17 April 2001);
(m) on 19 July 2001, until 6 August 2001 – upon the request of the State Land Service since it could not provide a proper representation before the court, and because of the absence of counsel of one of the defendants (despite the applicant's objections);
(n) on 6 August 2001, until 26 September 2001 – since the defendants had not received the amendments to the applicant's claim;
(o) on 26 September 2001 until 29 October 2001 – upon the applicant's and J.'s common request, since the State Land Service was absent from the hearing and the applicant deemed it necessary to see the respective land plans owned by this Office (it appears from the case file that this defendant had nevertheless requested the court to hear the case in its absence).
11. On three occasions, on 1 June 2000, 1 December 2000 and 10 October 2001, the applicant extended and modified her claim. In April 2000 and in March 2001, she unsuccessfully tried to accelerate the examination of her case by complaining, respectively, to the president of the Zemgale Regional Court and to the Prosecutor's General Office about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
12. On 29 October 2001 the Zemgale Regional Court held a hearing and finally gave a judgment, granting the applicant's claim in part. In its judgment, the court ordered the defendants to restore to the applicant a part of the plot of land and six farm buildings, and declared null and void the privatisation agreements concluded between J. and the co-operative society. The remainder of the claim was refused according to the Law on Land Privatisation in Rural Regions and the Law on the Return of Real Estate to the Legitimate Owners.
13. The applicant appealed. On 21 February 2002 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, after having held a hearing, dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant then filed an appeal on points of law. On 22 April 2002 the Senate (Cassation Division) of the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of arguable points of law.
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
NON_VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1