ITEMID: 001-86664
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: DEU
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2008
DOCNAME: ROMMEL v. GERMANY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Otto Mallmann;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Steffen Rommel, is a German national who was born in 1973 and lives in Grafenhainichen. The German Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs A. WittlingVogel, Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant brought proceedings in 1994 against a hospital before the Zwickau Regional Court for alleged medical malpractice which had caused complete and irreversible paraplegia (Querschnittslähmung) at the age of thirteen, claiming damages of around 1.2 million German marks (DEM). On 10 October 1995, the parties entered into a revocable friendly settlement (widerruflicher Vergleich) before the Zwickau Regional Court, according to which the hospital agreed to pay 265.000 euros (EUR) to the applicant. The applicant, who was represented by his lawyer, was not present during the conclusion of the settlement and did not revoke the settlement within the provided period of one month, i.e. until 10 November 1995. Neither did the applicant’s lawyer, although the applicant claimed that he instructed him to revoke the settlement.
In 1998, the applicant brought proceedings against his former lawyer for damages. The major legal issue during the proceedings was whether the applicant had instructed the defendant to revoke the settlement. It was undisputed between the parties that the applicant had handed over a written statement to the defendant on 7 November 1995 in which he asked him to revoke the settlement. The defendant had read the statement and subsequently returned it to the applicant. In the following conversation, the defendant had asked the applicant and his mother to reconsider their decision and inform him by 8 November 1995 whether or not he should revoke the settlement. The applicant’s mother then called on 9 November 1995 the defendant’s legal office and talked to his secretary. The content of the conversation was disputed between the parties.
On 14 May 1999, the Zwickau Regional Court, in a judgment on the basis of the cause of action (Grundurteil), allowed the applicant’s claim. It found that the applicant had instructed the defendant to revoke the settlement on 7 November 1995. Therefore, the time-limit set by the defendant to inform him whether or not to revoke the settlement had no legal basis. In any event, the applicant had called the defendant’s legal office on 9 November 1995 in order to explain that he did not agree with the settlement. This was also supported by a letter which the defendant had sent to the applicant on 13 November 1995.
On 6 April 2000, the Dresden Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the Zwickau Regional Court and dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that the applicant had failed to prove that he instructed the defendant to revoke the settlement. The Dresden Court of Appeal reasoned that the applicant had given such an instruction on 7 November 1995, but that he had subsequently agreed to reconsider his decision. After having heard the applicant’s mother and the defendant’s secretary as witnesses regarding the telephone conversation on 9 November 1995, the Dresden Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s mother had not given an instruction to revoke the settlement when calling the defendant’s legal office on that day.
On 26 April 2000, the applicant filed his appeal on points of law with the Federal Court of Justice. After the applicant had asked for an extension of the time-limit on two occasions, he submitted his statement of grounds for appeal (Revisionsbegründung) on 14 August 2000. The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law on 24 June 2003.
On 16 September 2003, the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaint.


ITEMID: 001-99968
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: POL
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: CZECHOWSKI v. POLAND
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Mirosław Czechowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Dąbrowa Górnicza. The Polish Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
It appears that from 25 June 1990 to 17 April 2004 the applicant was detained and served various prison sentences for, inter alia, rape. In 1996 the Lubliniec District Court gave a cumulative sentence and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment of which he apparently served eight years.
In January 2002 the applicant's mother brought the applicant, who was in a detention centre, video tapes allegedly belonging to his late father. They were seized by the prison authorities as they turned out to contain pornography involving minors. On 23 April 2002 the Zabrze District Prosecutor decided to treat the tapes as evidence in a criminal investigation into the production and distribution of pornographic materials featuring scenes involving minors. An appeal by the applicant against this decision was dismissed on 28 November 2002. The applicant was notified of this decision on 16 December 2002 at the latest.
On 15 May 2003 the applicant applied to the prison authorities for special prison leave to participate in administrative proceedings pending before the City Council concerning his official registration at a flat he had occupied before his detention. Subsequently, he applied for special prison leave in order to visit his stepfather in hospital. His requests were dismissed by the penitentiary judge. His appeals were dismissed by the Gliwice Penitentiary Court on 9 July and 24 September 2003.
On 25 June 2002 the applicant was transferred to Cieszyn Prison, where he remained until 9 August 2002. On that date he was transported to Rzeszow Prison. According to the Government at that time the applicant was serving a sentence of ten years' imprisonment.
In Cieszyn Prison the applicant was qualified as a “detainee requiring reinforced protection” (osadzony wymagajacy wzmocnionej ochrony). He was placed in a “protected cell” (cella chroniona) normally intended for persons detained pending trial.
On an unspecified date he requested the Cieszyn district prosecutor to initiate an investigation into his allegations that he had been ill-treated in Cieszyn Prison between 25 June and 9 August 2002. The applicant submitted that the prison officers had been illegally monitoring and eavesdropping on phone calls he had made using a telephone booth installed in the prison. He further alleged that the prison officer M.S. had ordered him to strip naked and do knee bends each time he wanted to use the phone. He complained about the manner in which those searches had been conducted by prison officer M.S., alleging that the latter had tormented and humiliated him.
On 16 October 2002 the Cieszyn District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) discontinued the investigation into the allegations made by the applicant, finding that the prison officer had not breached his duties. The prosecutor established that the applicant had been transferred from Brzeg Prison because of his conflictual relations with other detainees. In Cieszyn Prison he had been placed in a special cell normally intended for persons detained pending trial, which offered him protection and isolated him from convicted prisoners. The prosecutor stated as follows:
“In accordance with section 144 of the [2001 Ordinance of the Head of the Prison Service] [the applicant], as was the case for other detainees, was subjected to a personal check (kontrola osobista) when leaving the sleeping unit and after returning to it, as well as before individual meetings in the sleeping unit with the representatives of the prison authorities or other bodies. Moreover, [the applicant] was subjected to personal checks for security reasons each time he left or returned to his cell on the basis of a security instruction given to all prison officers working in the unit, namely, the “WWO Card” [Wymagający Wzmocnionej Ochrony – detainee requiring reinforced protection].
In such cases the officers working in Unit 1A were obliged to perform, in a separate room, a meticulous check of Mr Czechowski and of his clothes and belongings. The control of Mr Czechowski consisted of checking the inside of his mouth, armpits and anus. For this purpose Mr Czechowski, after undressing, was required to open his mouth, hold up his hands and do a knee bend (przysiad).”
The prosecutor confirmed that detainees were authorised to make one phone call per day for up to a maximum duration of six minutes and that the applicant had often used the phone. Thus, on each occasion, as well as each time he left the unit, he had been subjected to a personal check.
The applicant appealed against the decision.
On 9 May 2003 the Cieszyn District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) dismissed his appeal. The court established that the applicant's complaints about being hindered when using the phone had already been examined and had been found to be manifestly ill-founded. The court did not find any shortcomings in the procedure allowing the applicant to use the phone and considered that the internal prison rules had been complied with. Further, the court stated that the applicant's further allegation that an offence had been committed “had not been confirmed in the course of the investigation.” The court did not make any direct reference to the applicant's complaints about being subjected to personal checks before using the phone.
On 4 September 2004, after the applicant was released from prison, the police conducted a search of the applicant's flat and seized, inter alia, several video tapes, CDs and DVDs and a personal computer.
On 4 September 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police in connection with this set of criminal proceedings against him. On 7 September 2004 the Dąbrowa Górnicza District Court decided to remand the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he owned films containing child pornography and had shown such films to a minor. He was also charged with having threatened, in the presence of a police officer, to blow up an apartment block.
On 1 December 2004 the District Court extended the applicant's detention finding that there was a risk that he would interfere with the proceedings and that the investigation was ongoing. An appeal by the applicant against that decision was dismissed on 5 January 2005.
On 2 March 2005 the applicant's detention was further extended. The court reiterated the grounds given previously and relied on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant and on the complexity of the case. The court further considered that there was a risk of the applicant interfering with the proper course of the proceedings given the nature of the offences he had been charged with. On 20 April 2005 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant.
On 20 May 2005 the applicant was indicted before the Dabrowa Gornicza District Court on three charges: owning pornographic films featuring scenes involving minors, showing them to a minor and uttering threats.
On 24 May and 5 September 2005 the trial court extended the applicant's detention in almost identically reasoned decisions. The court considered that there had been no exceptional personal or health reason to release the applicant from detention or to change the preventive measure imposed on him. On the latter date the first hearing was held.
Subsequently, the applicant's detention was extended on 9 December 2005, 21 February and 13 June 2006. In addition to the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the applicant that he had committed the offences the court relied on the risk that he would interfere with the course of the proceedings, in particular by influencing witnesses. The court also underlined that the probability that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant was high as he had been a recidivist offender. Appeals by the applicant against those decisions were dismissed.
On 7 June 2006 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicant on 28 February 2006 alleging a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki). The court found that since the indictment the trial court had been diligent and had acted speedily. In particular the first hearing was held as soon as it had been practicable and the trial court held hearings once a month.
On 31 August 2006 the District Court convicted the applicant of possession of pornographic films featuring scenes involving children under the age of 15, showing such films to a minor under the age of 15 and uttering threats. The court sentenced him to two years and six months' imprisonment and ordered the seizure of the pornographic video tapes, CDs and DVDs as well as of his computer.
Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment.
On 17 November 2006 the Katowice Regional Court granted the applicant's request to attend the appeal hearing scheduled for 15 December 2006.
On 30 March 2007 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the appeals as manifestly ill-founded. The court also decided to release the applicant from detention.
On 13 February 2008 the Supreme Court examined a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. It acquitted the applicant of the charge of having uttered threats and remitted the remaining part of the judgment regarding the charges of possession of pornographic films and showing them to a minor to the lower court.
The criminal proceedings regarding the last two charges are pending.
Under section 116 of the 1997 Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (Kodeks karny wykonawczy) and rule 7 of the 1998 Rules on Serving Sentences (Regulamin wykonywania kary pozbawienia wolności), in force at the material time, a personal check of prisoners could be ordered if such a need arose. Their clothes, underwear and shoes, as well as their cells, could be searched. A personal check was permissible in particular when convicts or detainees left or returned to their cell.
The Government submitted that the issue of personal search in the present case was also governed by the provisions of the unpublished Ordinance of the Head of the Prison Service. Section 143 stipulated that a strip search could be ordered in order to search for dangerous and prohibited items or in other justified circumstances. Section 144 provided that a strip search could be ordered, in particular, before leaving and after returning to the sleeping unit or work place.
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Gołek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006, and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.


ITEMID: 001-98380
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: CASE OF MUTAYEVA v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13
JUDGES: Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens
TEXT: 5. The applicant was born in 1948. She lives in the village of Assinovskaya, in the Chechen Republic. The applicant is the mother of Luiza Mutayeva, born in 1984.
6. The applicant, with her husband and two daughters, Luiza and Madina, lived at 60 Bershchanskaya Street in the village of Assinovskaya, in the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy district (in the submitted documents the district is also referred to as Sunzhenskiy district), in the Chechen Republic. Their house was located near a local hospital. At the material time the village was under the firm control of the federal forces, which maintained manned checkpoints at the entry and exit points to and from the village.
7. In the night of 19 January 2004 (in the submitted documents the date is also referred to as 9 January 2004) the family was sleeping in their house at the above address.
8. At about 2.30 a.m. on 19 January 2004 the applicant and her family members were woken up by someone knocking at the entrance door. The applicant approached the door and asked in Chechen: “Who is it?” The answer was given in Russian: “Passport check”. When the applicant wondered why the passport check was being conducted so late at night, she was told: “You better open the door; we have an order!” The applicant opened the door and fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms without insignia entered the house. All but five or six of the intruders were wearing masks. The applicant and her relatives noticed that the men without masks were of Slavic appearance. The intruders spoke unaccented Russian. The applicant inferred that they were Russian servicemen.
9. The servicemen asked the applicant whether there were any men in the house. The only man in the household was the applicant's husband, a disabled person with one leg. The servicemen checked the family's passports and returned them to the applicant. Then the unmasked servicemen said to their colleagues that they should leave the applicant's house as no men were to be found there. However, one of the masked servicemen told them that they should search the house. The servicemen searched the house, turning everything upside down. It appears that they did not find anything of interest to them other than a few video cassettes which they took away.
10. Having searched the house, the servicemen ordered the applicant's daughters, Luiza and Madina, to put on warm clothing as they were being taken to the vehicles for questioning. The applicant's younger daughter, fifteen-year old Madina, started crying. One of the masked servicemen told her: “Do not be afraid; we will just question you and will let you go. I promise that nothing will happen to you.” Before leaving the house, Luiza Mutayeva insisted that she should be the only one to go for questioning. The servicemen let Madina stay in the house; they took Luiza outside to the vehicles.
11. The applicant managed to run outside and saw that Luiza Mutayeva was handcuffed and was standing next to a white GAZ minivan. Beside the minivan the applicant saw a white VAZ-2107, two grey UAZ vehicles, two military all-terrain UAZ vehicles (“таблетка”) and a grey VAZ-2109 vehicle, which were all parked around the applicant's house. The vehicles did not have number plates. According to the applicant, further vehicles belonging to the intruders were parked near her house but she was unable to recall their models or their colour. The applicant shouted at the servicemen and asked them to take her for questioning with her daughter. In response they pushed her away. Luiza Mutayeva was put into the GAZ minivan and the intruders drove away.
12. A number of people witnessed the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva. In particular, M.K., who was a patient in the hospital across the street, was woken up by shouting coming from the applicant's courtyard and rushed outside. She saw that the applicant's house was surrounded by armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms. The men did not allow her to approach and pushed her back into the hospital. While they were doing so, she saw them take Luiza Mutayeva away.
13. At about 3 a.m. on 19 January 2004 the applicant's neighbours, B.M. and S.B., were woken up by the noise of armoured vehicles and the applicant's shouting and saw armoured and other vehicles stationed at the street. B.M. and S.B. were afraid to approach the persons in camouflage uniforms and masks because they were armed. Another neighbour, Yu.D., who was woken up by a woman's shouting at about 3 a.m. on 19 January 2004, got outside and saw armoured and other vehicles parked on the street at the applicant's house; women at the entry gate to the applicant's house were shouting at several men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks. Afraid of the camouflaged men because of their weapons, Yu.D. returned home. When it was quiet he went to see the applicant and learnt from her that Luiza Mutayeva had been kidnapped.
14. The applicant has had no news of Luiza Mutayeva since 19 January 2004.
15. The description of the events above is based on the applicant's application form and written statements by M.K., B.M., S.B. and Yu.D., made on 19 October 2005.
16. The Government submitted that on 19 January 2004 Luiza Mutayeva had been abducted by unidentified persons.
17. On the morning of 19 January 2004 the applicant complained about her daughter's abduction to a number of law-enforcement agencies in Achkhoy-Martan. In particular, she complained to the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (the ROVD), to a local department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and the security service of the Chechen President. The authorities denied having any information about the whereabouts of the applicant's daughter. However, unspecified officers from the security service of the Chechen President suggested to the applicant that her daughter had most likely been abducted by officers of the FSB Special Forces from Khankala, Chechnya.
18. The applicant also complained about the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva to T., head of the local administration. The latter also suggested that her daughter had been probably taken to Khankala.
19. Every day between 19 and 26 January 2004 the applicant went in person to a number of State authorities in Achkhoy-Martan, trying to obtain information concerning her daughter's whereabouts. It appears that her attempts produced no results.
20. The applicant also contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the Chechen administration, military commanders' offices and prosecutors' offices at different levels, describing in detail the circumstances of Luiza Mutayeva's abduction and asking for help in establishing her whereabouts. The applicant retained copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to the Court. An official investigation was opened by the local prosecutor's office. The relevant information is summarised below.
21. On 27 April 2004 the prosecutor's office of the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy district (“the district prosecutor's office”) instituted an investigation into the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given number 49516. It does not appear that the applicant was informed about the decision.
22. By a decision of 28 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office granted the applicant victim status in connection with criminal case no. 49516. The decision stated, among other things, that at about 2.30 a.m. on 19 January 2004 about fifteen unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had arrived at the applicant's home at 60 Bershchanskaya Street in a GAZ minivan, a UAZ vehicle, two military all-terrain UAZ vehicles (“таблетка”), a VAZ-2109 and a VAZ-2107 and had taken Luiza Mutayeva to an unknown destination. The applicant was accordingly provided with a copy of the decision.
23. On 27 August 2004 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on that date the investigation in criminal case no. 49516 had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators; the operational and search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way.
24. On 14 May 2005 the applicant's representatives from SRJI wrote to the district prosecutor's office, complaining about the lack of information concerning the investigation. They requested to be informed about its progress; the specific actions taken to solve the crime since the opening of the criminal case and during the eight months after the decision to suspend the investigation; the reasons for the suspension of the investigation, and the reasons for Luiza Mutayeva's arrest. They further requested to be informed whether the investigating authority had interviewed the witnesses of the abduction and had requested information from various remand centres on Luiza Mutayeva's eventual detention. Lastly, they submitted that the applicant had not been provided with the decision to open the investigation and requested that she be provided with a copy.
25. On 21 June 2005 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic (“the republican prosecutor's office”) replied to the applicant's representatives that the district prosecutor's office had instituted an investigation into the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva and the applicant had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings; the operational and search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way. The letter also stated that pursuant to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure any information about the investigation was confidential and was not to be disclosed.
26. On 20 July 2005 the applicant's representatives wrote to the republican prosecutor's office and to the Prosecutor General's office. Referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, they pointed out that the authorities' letter of 21 June 2005 had failed to provide the requested information or any plausible explanations for the authorities' failure to provide the applicant with copies of basic investigative decisions. The applicant's representatives repeated their request for information about the progress of the investigation and copies of those decisions.
27. On 17 August 2005 the Prosecutor General's office informed the applicant's representatives that their request of 20 July 2005 had been forwarded to the republican prosecutor's office for examination.
28. On 27 October 2005 the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor's office. In her letter she described the circumstances of her daughter's abduction by armed persons in camouflage uniforms and masks, who had arrived in “ordinary” and armoured vehicles and complained that she had had no information concerning the investigation. She pointed out that her numerous requests to various State authorities had failed to produce any results and requested, among other things, to be provided with the following information: the number of the criminal case opened in connection with the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva; the prosecutor's office and the name of the person in charge of the investigation; the investigative measures taken by the authorities; whether witnesses to the abduction had been questioned by the investigation; whether the investigation had been suspended; whether the investigation had established how a convoy of military and civil vehicles with the abducted Luiza Mutayeva had managed to drive through the numerous Russian federal forces checkpoints located in the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy district and, in particular, on the road to and from the village of Assinovskaya; whether the investigation had examined the theory of possible implication of Russian servicemen or representatives of Russian special forces in the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva and whether the authorities had obtained information from various detention centres in Chechnya concerning her eventual detention. Lastly, she requested to be provided with the decision to suspend the investigation, which the authorities had not sent to her.
29. On 28 October 2005 the district prosecutor's office replied to the applicant. The letter stated that on 27 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office had opened criminal case no. 49516 into the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva and that the investigation had undertaken the following measures: examination of the crime scene; the applicant had been granted victim status; an unspecified number of the applicant's relatives, acquaintances and neighbours had been interviewed; unspecified investigative measures had been undertaken in collaboration with a number of other law-enforcement agencies; instructions had been given to the ROVD to conduct operational and search measures; the district prosecutor had issued instructions aimed at solving the crime. According to the letter, the investigation had been examining the thesis of possible involvement of servicemen or members of special forces in the crime. In addition, the investigation was examining the theory that Luiza Mutayeva had been kidnapped for ransom. Finally, the letter stated that the above measures had failed to produce any results and on 27 August 2004 the investigation in criminal case no. 49516 had been suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators.
30. On 13 June 2006 the applicant's representatives wrote to the republican prosecutor's office. Referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, they complained about the lack of information concerning the investigation into the abduction of the applicant's daughter and pointed out that the applicant had not received copies of the decisions to open the criminal case and to grant her the victim status in the criminal proceedings. The letter requested the authorities to provide the applicant with the following information: the status of the criminal investigation; the reasons for Luiza Mutayeva's abduction; whether witnesses to the abduction had been questioned by the authorities; measures undertaken by the investigation between 21 June 2005 and 13 June 2006 and whether the authorities had carried out an examination of detention centres in the region to establish the whereabouts of the applicant's daughter. Finally, the letter requested that the applicant be provided with copies of basic investigative decisions, including the one granting the applicant victim status in the criminal case.
31. On 17 June 2006 the republican prosecutor's office forwarded the request of the applicant's representatives to the district prosecutor's office for examination.
32. On 3 July 2006 the republican prosecutor's office informed the applicant's representatives that they had examined their request. According to the letter, the investigation had been undertaking measures aimed at solving the crime. Referring to unspecified provisions of Russian legislation the letter stated that copies of basic investigative decisions could not be provided to the applicant's representatives; under Article 42 § 13 only the applicant was entitled to receive in person copies of the decisions concerning opening of the criminal proceedings, grant of the victim status and suspension of the investigation.
33. On 20 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office received from the NGO Memorial information concerning the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva.
34. On 27 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office launched an investigation into the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping).
35. On 28 April 2004 the district prosecutor's office requested prosecutor's offices of various levels, departments of the interior in the Chechen Republic and the Criminal Police of the Temporary Operational Group of Authorities and Departments of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation in the Caucasus Region (“Служба Криминальной милиции МВД Временной оперативной группировки органов и подразделений МВД в Северо-Кавказском регионе”, “the CP”) to provide information on whether Luiza Mutayeva had been arrested. From the replies of those State authorities it appeared that the applicant's daughter was not being held in the ROVDs of the Chechen Republic; she had not applied to medical institutions for assistance; there were no compromising materials (“компрометирующий материал”) on her.
36. According to a reply from the deputy head of CP, that authority had not carried out any special operations in Assinovskaya on 19 January 2004; Luiza Mutayeva had not been taken to any penal institutions in the North Caucasus Region.
37. On 28 April 2004 the applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no. 49516 and her procedural rights and obligations were explained to her.
38. Being interviewed as a victim on 28 April 2004, the applicant submitted, among other things, that on 19 January 2004 unidentified persons had told her to open the door for an identity check. Subsequently, several armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks burst into the house. They had asked the applicant in Russian where the men were. The applicant had pointed at her husband, explaining that he was the only man in the household. The intruders had checked the family members' identity papers and told the applicant's daughters to get dressed. Meanwhile the intruders had turned everything in the house upside down. They had told Luiza Mutayeva to follow them to their vehicle for questioning. When the applicant protested the armed men replied that they would question Luiza Mutayeva and then let her go. The applicant had wanted to follow her daughter outside but had been held in the house. Having nonetheless managed to get outside, she had seen Luiza Mutayeva, handcuffed, near a white GAZ minivan without number plates. The applicant had also seen about six or seven vehicles, including an UAZ vehicle, two UAZ military all-terrain vehicles (“таблетка”), a VAZ-2109 and a VAZ-2107 vehicle. Despite the applicant's attempts to stop them, the abductors had left with her daughter. The applicant also submitted that in December 2003, according to local custom, Luiza Mutayeva had been abducted for marriage by a man from Urus-Martan. She had only stayed with that man for two weeks. When the elders had come to the applicant to pay the bride-price and the family had learnt about Luiza's whereabouts, they had taken her back home.
39. The applicant's husband and daughter Madina, questioned on 28 April 2004, gave similar descriptions of the circumstances of Luiza Mutayeva's abduction.
40. B.A., the applicant's neighbour, interviewed as a witness on 28 June 2004, submitted that he had learnt from the applicant that at about 3 a.m. on 19 January 2004 about fifteen armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms had abducted Luiza Mutayeva from her parents' house in Assinovskaya. The intruders had arrived in a convoy of vehicles, including a Gazel minivan, several UAZ and VAZ-2107 and VAZ-2109 vehicles.
41. The applicant's neighbour, L.V., interviewed as a witness on an unspecified date, stated that during the night of 18-19 January 2004 she had heard several vehicles in the street. On 20 January 2004 she had learnt from the applicant about the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva by armed men in camouflage uniforms.
42. Ms L.G., interviewed as a witness on an unspecified date, submitted that she had learnt from fellow residents in Assinovskaya that on 19 January 2004 Luiza Mutayeva had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms, who had arrived in a GAZ minivan and several UAZ and VAZ vehicles without number plates. Similar submissions had been made by the applicant's neighbours and acquaintances Kh.A., S.M., Kh.G., T.D., Kh.M., A.B., A.M., A.A., I.M., M.M., A.At., D.M., Kh.Yu., P.T., M.Me., L.A., A.Am., R.A., M.Kh., M.S, M.D., Z.B., M.T., B.B., Kh.D., F.D., R.Kh., A.Al., Kh.G., T.K., B.A., S.A., A.S., L.Ts., S.Am., M.T., Sh.A., R.Ts., M.A., B.Ts., who were interviewed as witnesses on unspecified dates.
43. According to replies from the Operational and Search Bureau of the North Caucasus operational department of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation in the South Federal Circuit (“Оперативно-Розыскное Бюро Северо-Кавказского управления Главного управления МВД РФ по Южному федеральному округу”) and the FSB department in the Chechen Republic, those authorities had not arrested Luiza Mutayeva and had no compromising materials on her.
44. On 1 May 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 was instructed to verify the following information: whether federal troops had carried out a special operation in Assinovskaya on 19 January 2004; whether they had arrested Luiza Mutayeva, and whether the military units stationed in the Achkhoy-Martan district and the Khankala settlement were equipped with GAZ minivans, UAZ, VAZ-2109 and VAZ-2107 vehicles. According to the military prosecutor's reply dated 22 June 2004, federal forces had not carried out any special operations in the village of Assinovskaya on 19 January 2004 and had not arrested Luiza Mutayeva. The military forces in question were equipped with GAZ minivans, UAZ and VAZ-2107 and VAZ-2109 vehicles. However, in the absence of information about their number plates it was impossible to establish which military unit owned the vehicles mentioned in the district prosecutor's office' request for information.
45. On 1 May 2004 heads of unspecified remand prisons in Stavropol, Nalchik, Chernokozovo, Nazran and Pyatigorsk were requested to provide information as to whether Luiza Mutayeva had been detained in those facilities. No relevant information was provided by those persons.
46. On 3 May 2004 the district prosecutor's office requested the military commander's office of the Achkhoy-Martan district, the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, the Ministry of the Interior internal troops office in the North Caucasus Circuit, FSB departments in the Chechen Republic, Ingushetiya, North Ossetia-Alania and Dagestan, and the ROVD and police offices of the Dagestan and Kabardino-Balkariya Republics, to find out whether those State authorities had carried out special operations in Assinovskaya on 19 January 2004 and had arrested Luiza Mutayeva. No relevant information had been received from those State bodies.
47. The investigation in criminal case no. 49516 had been suspended on numerous occasions for failure to identify the culprits and reopened to check the information obtained as a result of operational and search measures.
48. The investigation in case no. 49516 is pending.
49. Despite a specific request by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal file no. 49516, providing only copies of the following documents:
letter of 20 April 2004 by the Achkhoy-Martan deputy prosecutor, addressed to the head of the ROVD and requesting the latter to verify the information on the abduction of Luiza Mutayeva, submitted by the Memorial NGO on an unspecified date;
a report by a police officer of the ROVD, dated 25 April 2004 to the effect that there were indications that a crime had been committed against Luiza Mutayeva;
records of interviews with the applicant, her husband and her daughter Madina, dated 28 April 2004 and a record of an interview with B.A., dated 28 June 2004;
a reply from the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 dated 22 June 2004;
replies from various State authorities to the effect they had not carried out special operations in Assinovskaya on 19 January 2004, had not arrested Luiza Mutayeva, had not held her in detention and had no compromising materials on her or information on her whereabouts.
50. The Government submitted 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 on personal data concerning witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings.
51. For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 40464/02, §§ 67-69, 10 May 2007).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 13
2
3
5


ITEMID: 001-95048
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2009
DOCNAME: ERKUS v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Ersin Erkuş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Izmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Çetinkaya, a lawyer practising in Izmir.
On 20 August 2002 the applicant, who was seventeen years old at the time, and three other persons were arrested by officers from the Narlıdere police station in Izmir on suspicion of having been involved in a theft. According to the arrest report, during their arrest the arrestees cut themselves with pieces of glass which they had on them in protest at their arrest. The arrest report was not signed by the applicant or the other arrestees.
On the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted a graze of 1x2 cm on his left shoulder blade. The doctor also noted that the applicant was not fully conscious.
On 21 August 2002 the applicant was once again examined by a doctor, who noted that there were incisions on the applicant’s abdomen and two superficial grazes of 1 cm on his left shoulder blade and left shoulder. According to the medical report, the applicant stated to the doctor that the incisions had occurred when he had cut himself. He further stated he had been hit on the head. Noting that the applicant was not fully conscious, the doctor referred the applicant to a hospital for a neurological consultation.
On the same day the applicant underwent a neurological examination, following which the director of the Izmir branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute informed the police that no objective neuropathological finding had been observed on the applicant and that there had not been any trace of trauma on the applicant’s head. The director further informed that there was a graze of 1 cm on the applicant’s left shoulder. The applicant was subsequently detained within the context of the criminal proceedings brought against him, which resulted in his acquittal on 12 May 2003.
Meanwhile, on 14 October 2002 the applicant submitted to the Izmir public prosecutor’s office that he had been beaten while in police custody. He claimed that the police officers had thrown him on to the floor and kicked him. He had also been hit on the head. In support of his allegations, the applicants referred to the grazes found on his left shoulder blade and left shoulder. The applicant noted that one police officer, İ.S., had rescued him from another officer who had been beating him. On an unspecified date one of the other arrestees, S.A., also made a formal allegation of ill-treatment.
On 13 March 2003 the Izmir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Izmir Criminal Court of First Instance, charging eight police officers with inflicting ill-treatment upon the applicant and S.A.
During the trial, the Izmir Criminal Court heard the complainants, the accused and certain witnesses, including S.A.’s brother, who noted that S.A. had been under the influence of drugs and had not been ill-treated when he had seen him in the police station. A certain O.Y. submitted that he was a friend of the applicant and that he had not observed that any illtreatment had been inflicted on the applicant when he had gone to the police station. Finally, İ.S. stated before the court that he had not been in the police station on 20 August 2002. The court also took the medical reports of 20 and 21 August 2002 into consideration.
On 23 December 2003 the Izmir Criminal Court acquitted the police officers, holding that there was insufficient evidence against them. The court noted that the complainants’ statements had been contradictory and that the witness statements did not correspond to the complainants’ allegations.
The applicant appealed. On 23 May 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.


ITEMID: 001-59689
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: BGR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2001
DOCNAME: CASE OF STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA
IMPORTANCE: 1
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objection dismissed;Violation of Art. 11;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: Elisabeth Palm
TEXT: 9. The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (“the applicant association” or “Ilinden”) is an association based in south-western Bulgaria (in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia).
Mr Boris Stankov is a Bulgarian citizen, born in 1926 and living in Petrich. At the relevant time he was the chairman of a branch of the applicant association.
10. The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden was founded on 14 April 1990. Its aims, according to its statute and programme, were to “unite all Macedonians in Bulgaria on a regional and cultural basis” and to achieve “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. Sections 8 and 9 of the statute stated that the organisation would not infringe the territorial integrity of Bulgaria and that it “would not use violent, brutal, inhuman or unlawful means”.
According to the applicants’ submissions before the Court, the main activity of the applicant association was the organisation of celebrations to commemorate historical events of importance for Macedonians in Bulgaria. Over an unspecified period it published a newspaper.
11. In 1990 Ilinden applied for, but was refused, registration. In the proceedings for registration the Blagoevgrad Regional Court and the Supreme Court examined the statute of the association, its programme and other written evidence.
12. In their decisions of July and November 1990 and March 1991 the courts found that the applicant association’s aims were directed against the unity of the nation, that it advocated national and ethnic hatred, and that it was dangerous for the territorial integrity of Bulgaria. Therefore, its registration would be contrary to Articles 3, 8 and 52 § 3 of the Constitution of 1971, as in force at the time. In particular, the aims of the association included, inter alia, the “political development of Macedonia” and the establishment of a “united, independent Macedonian State”. Moreover, in its appeal to the Supreme Court the association had stated that “the Macedonian people would not accept Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian rule”. The formal declaration in the applicant association’s statute that it would not infringe the territorial integrity of Bulgaria, appeared inconsistent with the remaining material.
13. The judgment of the Supreme Court of 11 March 1991 stated, inter alia:
“[T]he lower courts correctly established that the aims of the [applicant association] under its statute and programme were directed against the unity of the nation ... [The material in the case] demonstrates that the [applicant association] seeks to disseminate the ideas of Macedonianism among the Bulgarian population, especially in a particular geographical area. [Those ideas] presuppose the ‘denationalisation’ of the Bulgarian population and its conversion into a Macedonian population ... It follows that the [applicant association] is directed against the unity of the nation and is therefore prohibited under Article 35 § 3 of the [1971] Constitution ...”
14. The parties do not dispute, it seems, that during the relevant period the applicant association underwent changes of leadership and that there was internal conflict. Its local branches or separate factions differed in their views and activities.
15. The applicant association held a meeting for the first time on 22 April 1990 at the Rozhen Monastery, at the grave of Yane Sandanski.
16. On 20 April 1991 the applicant association organised a commemoration meeting at the Rozhen Monastery. The participants adopted a declaration addressed to the President and Parliament, which stated, inter alia:
“1. Our rights as a minority, of which we have been deprived, should be guaranteed to us in accordance with the international agreements on minorities.
[We demand:]
2. The introduction of the [study of] the Macedonian language, history and culture in all educational institutions in Pirin Macedonia.
3. The right to radio and television broadcasts in the Macedonian language ...
...
5. That an end be put to the assimilation process and the destruction of the Macedonian culture.
6. The right to publish in the Macedonian language ...
7. ... that the Macedonian Church should be independent ...
8. That all Bulgarian political parties on the territory of Pirin Macedonia should be dissolved or renamed Macedonian; they should defend the national rights of the Macedonian people.
...
14. The complete cultural, economic and political autonomy of Pirin Macedonia and the withdrawal of the Bulgarian occupation armies from Pirin Macedonia ...
...
16. Should the Bulgarian government not respond positively to our demands, Ilinden shall appeal to the United Nations Organisation, the [Conference on] Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Parliament, the Great Powers, in the interest of peace in the Balkans and in Europe and with a view to avoiding military conflicts due to the emerging nationalism in Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Albania, with the following demands: annulment of the separatist military union of 20 February 1912 between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece, withdrawal of the invaders from the occupied territories, ... unification of Macedonia under the auspices of the United Nations and with the protection of the Great Powers ...”
17. According to a police report, drawn up in 1998 by the director of the police in the region and submitted to the Court by the Government, “fierce anti-Bulgarian declarations” had been made at the meetings of 22 April 1990 and 20 April 1991. In particular, on 22 April 1990 a declaration requesting the recognition of a Macedonian minority and cultural autonomy had been read out. The report did not mention any incident at that meeting.
As explained in the report, on 20 April 1991 about 300 to 350 Ilinden supporters had gathered during the official commemoration of the death of Yane Sandanski, which had been attended by 4,000 participants. Members of Ilinden, standing on a separate platform, had allegedly hissed and booed the police, labelled the Bulgarians “barbarians”, “conquerors” and “enslavers” and called on them to leave and “free” the region from their presence. The report further stated that a “shocking” incident had occurred: Mr B., a prominent politician, had been splashed with beer on his face. The police had allegedly prevented any further clashes.
The report concluded:
“... the events organised by Ilinden are provocative. There is a real risk of incidents. For that reason, since 1992 the municipalities in the region normally refuse to allow such events to proceed. With a view to protecting the law, the assistance of the prosecuting authorities and of the police is normally sought.”
18. The applicants submitted copies of photographs, written testimonies and statements of persons who claimed that on several occasions between 1990 and 1994 there had been police actions and acts of private individuals obstructing the activities of the applicant association.
They also submitted copies of newspaper articles accusing Ilinden of misappropriating Bulgarian national symbols, describing its leaders as uneducated, mentally ill or traitors, and denying the existence of a Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. The applicants alleged that those articles reflected public opinion in Bulgaria, as manipulated by the authorities.
19. In July 1994 Mr Stankov, as chairman of the Petrich branch of the applicant association, requested the mayor of Petrich to authorise a meeting in the area of Samuilova krepost, to be held on 31 July 1994 in commemoration of a historical event. On 13 July 1994 permission was refused by the mayor, but no reasons were given. The applicant association appealed to the Petrich District Court which dismissed the appeal on 16 July 1994. The District Court found that since the applicant association had been banned, there were well-founded fears that the demonstration would endanger public order and the rights and freedoms of others.
On 28 July 1994 Mr Ivanov, the representative of the applicant association, and another person were issued with written warnings by the police to stay away from the official traditional fair at Samuilova krepost. The warnings stated that they were based on the applicable law.
20. Despite the refusal of the authorities, on 31 July 1994 some members of the applicant association (120-150 according to the applicants’ assessment) attempted to approach the historical site of Samuilova krepost but the police, who according to the applicants were heavily armed, blocked their way.
In the Government’s submission, the allegation that the area had been sealed off was “manifestly ill-founded”.
21. On 10 April 1995 the applicant association requested the mayor of Sandanski to authorise a meeting to be held on 22 April 1995 at the grave of Yane Sandanski at the Rozhen Monastery, on the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of his death.
This was refused on 14 April 1995 as the applicant association was not duly registered by the courts. On 15 April 1995 the applicant association appealed to the Sandanski District Court stating, inter alia, that the Macedonian people had been deprived of their right to their own cultural life in violation of international law. The District Court never examined the appeal.
22. On 22 April 1995 the municipality of Sandanski held an official ceremony to mark the anniversary of Yane Sandanski’s death. The event took place at his grave at the Rozhen Monastery. The ceremony commenced at about 10 a.m.
The applicants submitted that a group of their supporters who had travelled to the Rozhen Monastery on 22 April 1995 had been ordered by the police to leave their cars in the nearby town of Melnik and had been transported to the monastery by local buses. There they had been allowed to visit the grave, to lay a wreath and to light candles. However, they had not been allowed to bring to the site the placards, banners and musical instruments which they were carrying, or to make speeches at the grave. The police had allegedly taken away the ribbon attached to the wreath. The participants had then celebrated the event, without music, near the monastery but away from the grave.
23. In July 1995, as in previous years, the applicant association again requested authorisation to hold a commemorative meeting on 30 July 1995 at Samuilova krepost, the historical site in the vicinity of Petrich. On 14 July 1995 the mayor of Petrich refused the request without giving any reason. Upon the applicant association’s appeal the refusal was upheld by judgment of the Petrich District Court of 18 July 1995. The District Court found that the “holding of a commemorative meeting of Ilinden on 30 July 1995 at Samuilova krepost would endanger public order”.
24. On 8 April 1997 the applicant association informed the mayor of Sandanski and the local police that they were organising a meeting to be held on 20 April 1997 at the Rozhen Monastery to commemorate the death of Yane Sandanski. It stated in a letter to the mayor that Yane Sandanski, who is considered in Bulgaria as a Bulgarian national hero, was in fact a “Macedonian fighter for the national independence of Macedonia from Turkish rule and against the Bulgarian oppressors”.
On 11 April 1997 the mayor refused to grant permission. He stated that permission for the commemoration of the same historical event had been requested on 4 April 1997 by the director of the local high school. The mayor further explained that the commemoration would be organised jointly by the school and the municipality and that “every [person], individually, could come”.
25. On 15 April 1997 Ilinden appealed to the Sandanski District Court against the mayor’s refusal stating, inter alia, that the mayor had not allowed them, “as a separate ethnic community”, to organise a meeting at the tomb of their national hero.
On 17 April 1997 the President of the District Court issued an order refusing to examine the appeal on the merits as it had been submitted on behalf of an unregistered organisation.
26. The date on which that order was notified to the applicant association is unclear. The applicants initially denied having received a response to their appeal, but in later submissions to the Commission stated that on 5 May 1997 they had become aware of the order of 17 April 1997.
27. As the defects in the appeal were not remedied within the statutory seven-day time-limit, on 5 May 1997 the President of the District Court ordered the discontinuance of the proceedings. That order was notified to the applicant association on 13 August 1997.
28. The applicants claimed that on 20 April 1997 the police had prevented a group of their supporters from approaching the Rozhen Monastery and that two persons had been ill-treated. They submitted that on 20 April 1997 only thirteen students and two teachers from the local high school had arrived at the Rozhen Monastery. The students had laid a wreath in the presence of the police and had left two minutes later.
29. On 14 July 1997 Mr Stankov, as chairman of the association’s branch in Petrich, requested authorisation for a commemorative meeting to be held on 2 August 1997 at Samuilova krepost, in the outskirts of Petrich. On 17 July 1997 the mayor refused the request, stating that the applicant association was not “a legitimate organisation”.
30. On 20 July 1997 the applicant association appealed to the District Court against the refusal of the mayor stating, inter alia, that there was no legal provision prohibiting meetings of organisations which were not “legitimate” and that the planned public event would be peaceful and would not endanger public order.
By decision of 1 August 1997 the District Court dismissed the appeal on the merits. It found that the applicant association was not duly registered “in accordance with the laws of the country” and that it had not been shown that the persons who had acted on its behalf actually represented it. As a result, it had been unclear who had organised the event and who would be responsible for order during the meeting under the terms of sections 9 and 10 of the Meetings and Marches Act. The District Court concluded that the lack of clarity as regards the organisers of a public event endangered public order and the rights and freedoms of others.
31. The applicants submitted that on 2 August 1997 the police had not allowed a group of supporters of the applicant association to reach the historical site in the vicinity of Petrich.
32. The parties made submissions and presented copies of documents concerning the activities of the applicant association.
It appears that some of the documents relied upon by the Government concern statements of persons adhering to a faction or a branch of the applicant association. Those groups apparently differed in their views and activities.
33. The Government relied on the declaration of 20 April 1991 (see paragraph 16 above), on the police report concerning the meetings of 1990 and 1991 (see paragraph 17 above) and on other material.
The Government submitted that during meetings, in letters to institutions or in statements to the media, persons associated with the applicant association and its supporters had made declarations to the effect that they wanted the Bulgarians to leave the region of Pirin Macedonia and stated that there could be “no peace in the Balkans unless the Bulgarians, the Greeks and all others recognise the national rights of the Macedonian people and no democracy in any Balkan country without such recognition”.
34. The Government submitted copies of several issues of Vestnik za Makedonzite v Balgaria i Po Sveta and Makedonska poshta, pamphlets published by one of the factions linked to the applicant association, and copies of press material. These contain information, inter alia, about a “secret” private meeting of a faction of the applicant association held on 28 September 1997. The meeting allegedly declared that on 10 August 1998 the region of Pirin Macedonia would become “politically, economically and culturally autonomous” or independent. That was so because on that day, eighty-five years after the Bucharest Treaty of 1913, the States Parties to it were allegedly under obligation to withdraw from the “enslaved” Macedonian territories.
Makedonska poshta further invited all Macedonians to a march in Sofia on 3 August 1998. The invitation stressed that the participants should not carry arms.
35. A handwritten poster, allegedly issued by followers of the applicant association in Petrich, called for a boycott of the 1994 parliamentary election “to prevent the establishment of legitimate Bulgarian authorities in the region” of Pirin Macedonia. The document further called for a united Macedonian State and for “an international invasion” by the Security Council of the United Nations “according to the model of Grenada, Kuwait and Haiti”.
36. An appeal for a boycott of the 1997 election stated that the Macedonians should abstain from voting in protest against the lack of recognition of their rights as a minority.
37. In a declaration published in the press in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the leaders of a faction linked to the applicant association criticised the Bulgarian authorities for their refusal to recognise the Macedonian language and the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria and appealed to various international organisations to exert pressure on the Bulgarian authorities in this respect.
38. The Government submitted a copy of a “memorandum” addressed to the United Nations, signed by activists of the applicant association or a faction of it, dated 1 July 1997. It contains a short overview of historical events, complaints about the attitude of the Bulgarian authorities and the following main demands: collective minority rights, access to Bulgarian State archives, the return of confiscated material, the revision of the way Bulgarian history is seen, the revision of international treaties of 1912 and 1913, the dissolution of the “political police”, the dissolution of nationalistic and violent parties and organisations, the registration of Ilinden as the legitimate organisation of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, radio broadcasts in Macedonian, an investigation into violations committed against Macedonians and economic assistance.
The document also stated:
“... being conscious of the contemporary economic and political realities in the Balkans, Europe and the world, we are not acting through confrontation, tension or violence. Our way to achieve enjoyment of our rights as a Macedonian ethnic minority in Bulgaria and in Pirin Macedonia, where our ethnic and historical roots lie, is through peaceful means and negotiations ...
Our peaceful and lawful means ... are to the advantage of the authorities who ... deny the existence of a Macedonian minority. Our democratic ways are to our detriment: the authorities can afford political, economic and psychological pressure, and arms.”
39. Before the Court the Government relied on a judgment of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court of 29 February 2000 in a case concerning the constitutionality of a political party, the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-PIRIN: Party for Economic Development and Integration of the Population (“UMOIPIRIN”), which had been registered by the competent courts in 1999. The Constitutional Court found that that party’s aims were directed against the territorial integrity of the country and that therefore it was unconstitutional.
40. The Constitutional Court noted that UMOIPIRIN could be regarded as a successor to or a continuation of the applicant association. On that basis the Constitutional Court relied extensively on submissions about the history and the activities of the applicant association in the assessment of the question whether UMOIPIRIN was constitutional.
In particular, the Constitutional Court took note of the demands made in the declaration of the applicant association of 20 April 1991 (see paragraph 16 above). It also observed that maps of the region, depicting parts of Bulgarian and Greek territory as Macedonian, had been published by the association and that there had been repeated calls for autonomy and even secession. The Constitutional Court further noted that representatives of the applicant association had made offensive remarks about the Bulgarian nation.
41. The Constitutional Court thus found that the applicant association and UMOIPIRIN considered the region of Pirin as a territory which was only temporarily under Bulgarian control and would soon become independent. Their activities were therefore directed against the territorial integrity of the country and were as such prohibited under Article 44 § 2 of the 1991 Constitution. The prohibition was in conformity with Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, there being no doubt that an activity against the territorial integrity of the country endangered its national security.
The judgment was adopted by nine votes to three. The dissenting judges gave separate opinions which have not been published.
42. In support of this allegation the Government have submitted copies of two documents.
43. The first is a copy of an article from the Kontinent daily newspaper, dated 1/2 March 1997. The newspaper stated that a Mr D.P.K. had been arrested in Petrich for having threatened police officers with blowing up their homes, as they had impeded his business. During the arrest the police had allegedly discovered explosives in Mr D.P.K.’s home. The short article went on to recall that Mr D.P.K. was allegedly a leader of Ilinden and a “Macedonian activist”.
44. The second document appears to be a photocopy of a flyer announcing the founding of an organisation and inviting those interested to join. The document bears no signature. It dates allegedly from 1995 and appears to have been typed on a typewriter.
The flyer explained that the newly created United Macedonian Organisation Nova did not wish to replace Ilinden. It criticised certain leaders of the applicant association.
The flyer further stated that the new organisation would form armed groups with the aim of “helping the Republic of Macedonia to survive”.
45. The Government have not provided any comment or additional information on the contents of the two documents submitted by them.
46. During the hearing before the Court, in response to a question put to her, the Government’s Agent declared that no criminal proceedings relevant to the present case had ever been brought against members of the applicant association.
47. The Government stressed that knowledge of the historical context and of the current situation in Bulgaria and in the Balkans was essential for the understanding of the issues in the present case. Their explanation may be summarised as follows.
“Historically, the Bulgarian nation consolidated within several geographical regions, one of them being the geographical region of Macedonia. In 1878, when Bulgaria was partially liberated from Turkish dominance, the Berlin Peace Treaty left the region of Macedonia within the borders of Turkey. Between 1878 and 1913 the Bulgarian population of Macedonia organised five unsuccessful uprisings seeking liberation from Turkish rule and union with Bulgaria. There followed massive refugee migrations from the region to the Bulgarian motherland. Hundreds of thousands of Macedonian Bulgarians settled in Bulgaria.
In 1934 the so-called ‘Macedonian nation’ was proclaimed for the first time by a resolution of the Communist International. Before that no reliable historical source had ever mentioned any Slavic population in the region other than the Bulgarian population. After the Second World War the Communist power in Yugoslavia proclaimed the concept of a separate Macedonian nation. A separate language and alphabet were created and imposed by decree of 2 August 1944. A massive assimilation campaign accompanied by brutalities was launched in Yugoslavia. For a short period of time the Bulgarian Communist Party – inspired by the idea of creating a Bulgarian-Yugoslav federation – also initiated a campaign of forcible imposition of a ‘Macedonian’ identity on the population in the region of Pirin Macedonia. In the 1946 and 1956 censuses individuals living in that region were forced to declare themselves ‘Macedonians’. The campaign was abandoned in 1963, partly due to the refusal of the population to change their identity.
In those parts of the geographical region of Macedonia which were in Yugoslavia the realities of the bi-polar cold-war world – where the relations between Yugoslavia and the socialist block dominated by the USSR were tense – exacerbated the population’s feeling of doom and exasperation and their fear that unification with Bulgaria proper would never be possible. The forcible imposition of a Macedonian identity by the Tito regime also played a decisive role.
Therefore, even if a process of formation of a new nation has taken place, it was limited to the territory of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
In the 1992 census, only 3,019 Bulgarian citizens identified themselves as Macedonians and indicated Macedonian as their mother tongue. Another 7,784 declared themselves Macedonians in the geographical sense, while allegedly indicating their Bulgarian national conscience and mother tongue.
Individuals considering themselves Macedonians are far from being discriminated against in Bulgaria. They have their own cultural and educational organisation, Svetlina. There are books and newspapers in the ‘Macedonian language’.”
48. The provisions of the Constitution of July 1991 concerning freedom of assembly read as follows:
“1. Everyone shall have the right to peaceful and unarmed assembly at meetings and marches.
2. The procedure for organising and holding meetings and marches shall be provided for by act of Parliament.
3. Permission shall not be required for meetings to be held indoors.”
“Organisations whose activities are directed against the sovereignty or the territorial integrity of the country or against the unity of the nation, or aim at stirring up racial, national, ethnic or religious hatred, or at violating the rights and freedoms of others, as well as organisations creating secret or paramilitary structures, or which seek to achieve their aims through violence, shall be prohibited.”
49. The legal requirements for the organisation of meetings are set out in the Meetings and Marches Act of 1990. Its relevant provisions are as follows:
“Meetings and marches may be organised by individuals, associations, political or other public organisations.”
“Every organiser [of] or participant [in a march or a meeting] shall be responsible for damage caused through his or her fault during the [event].”
“Where a meeting is to be held outdoors the organisers shall notify in writing the [respective] People’s Council or mayor’s office not later than forty-eight hours before the beginning [of the meeting] and shall indicate the [name of] the organiser, the aim [of the meeting], and the place and time of the meeting.”
“The organisers of the meeting shall take the measures necessary to ensure order during the event.”
“(1) The meeting shall be presided over by a president.
(2) The participants shall abide by the instructions of the president concerning the preservation of [public] order ...”
50. Prohibitions against meetings are also regulated by the Meetings and Marches Act:
“(1) Where the time or the place of the meeting, or the itinerary of the march, would create a situation endangering public order or traffic safety, the President of the Executive Committee of the People’s Council, or the mayor, respectively, shall propose their modification.
(2) The President of the Executive Committee of the People’s Council, or the mayor, shall be competent to prohibit the holding of a meeting, demonstration or march, where reliable information exists that:
1. it aims at the violent overturning of Constitutional public order or is directed against the territorial integrity of the country;
2. it would endanger public order in the local community;
...
4. it would breach the rights and freedoms of others.
(3) The prohibition shall be imposed by a written reasoned act not later than twenty-four hours following the notification.
(4) The organiser of the meeting, demonstration or march may appeal to the Executive Committee of the People’s Council against the prohibition referred to in the preceding paragraph. The Executive Committee shall decide within twenty-four hours.
(5) Where the Executive Committee of the People’s Council has not decided within [that] time-limit, the march, demonstration or meeting may proceed.
(6) If the appeal is dismissed the dispute shall be referred to the relevant district court which shall decide within five days. That court’s decision shall be final.”
51. The Meetings and Marches Act was adopted in 1990, when the Constitution of 1971 was in force. Under the Constitution of 1971 the executive local State organs were the executive committees of the people’s councils in each district. The mayors referred to in some of the provisions of the Meetings and Marches Act were representatives of the executive committee acting in villages and towns which were under the jurisdiction of the respective people’s councils.
The 1991 Constitution abolished the executive committees and established the post of mayor, elected by direct universal suffrage, as the “organ of the executive power in the municipality” (Article 139).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 11


ITEMID: 001-58132
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: SWE
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 1998
DOCNAME: CASE OF PAULSEN-MEDALEN AND SVENSSON v. SWEDEN
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
JUDGES: R. Pekkanen
TEXT: 7. The first applicant, Ms Anne-Marie Paulsen-Medalen, born in 1958 and unmarried, lives at Västra Frölunda, a suburb of Gothenburg. The second applicant, Mr Sven-Erik Svensson, born in 1957, lives at Partille, another suburb of Gothenburg. The first applicant is the mother of two children, P. and J.; the second applicant is J.’s father.
8. The first applicant came into contact with the social authorities in 1984 while expecting her first child P. Following his birth, he and his mother stayed with her parents, then with the second applicant and, as from May 1985, with P.’s father. After the birth of her second son J. in 1986 the first applicant and her sons returned to her parents. In the summer of 1986 she moved to Högsbohöjd. Since 1989 she has been living at Västra Frölunda in order to be closer to her parents. During this period the social authorities provided on a regular basis the first applicant with financial support and assistance in the upbringing of her children.
9. On 8 February 1989, in the light of an investigation by the social authorities, the Chairperson of the Social District Council (sociala distriktsnämnden) in Frölunda-Styrsö decided to take the children immediately into care on a provisional basis. The children were placed at the Bö Children’s Home in Gothenburg.
10. The first applicant appealed against the decision to take the children provisionally into care. However, the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) and the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Gothenburg upheld the decision and the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) refused the applicant leave to appeal.
11. By judgment of 17 March 1989 the County Administrative Court ordered that the children P. and J. be taken into care pursuant to section 1 of the Act containing Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons 1980 (lag 1980:621 med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga – hereinafter “the 1980 Act”) on the ground that there were such deficiencies in the children’s care as to endanger their health and development.
12. The first applicant appealed against the judgment, initially in respect of both P. and J. She later withdrew the appeal in so far as it concerned P.
By judgment of 13 February 1990 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the care order with respect to J.
13. The first applicant sought to appeal against the above judgment but, on 22 March 1990, the Administrative Court of Appeal refused the appeal as being lodged out of time, which decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 3 July 1990.
14. J. and P. were placed with foster parents on 7 March and 18 April 1989 in separate homes. Initially no decision regarding the first applicant’s access to her children was taken but it appears that from March 1989 until March 1990 she was in fact able to visit her children in the foster homes once every second week for 2½ hours. Furthermore, she could see them in her own home twice per year for 2½ hours. The second applicant normally accompanied the first applicant during her visits in the foster homes.
15. On 19 March 1990, after the first applicant had contacted her present representative, Mrs Siv Westerberg, she requested the social authorities to confirm that no decision had been taken to restrict her right of access to her children.
16. On 20 March 1990 the Chairperson of the Social Council (stadsdelsnämnden) of Högsbo decided, pursuant to section 16 of the 1980 Act (see paragraph 29 below), to restrict the first applicant’s access to her children to a 2½ hours’ visit in the foster homes every second week.
On 27 March 1990, acting in her own capacity and on behalf of her children, the first applicant appealed against the above decision to the County Administrative Court. She maintained primarily that the decision had been unlawful in that the Chairperson of the Social Council had not been empowered to restrict access.
17. The County Administrative Court quashed the Chairperson’s decision in a judgment of 20 June 1990. On appeal by the Social Council that judgment was overturned on 6 July 1990 by the Administrative Court of Appeal. It considered that the Chairperson had been empowered to restrict access and referred the case back to the County Administrative Court for determination of the merits of the access restrictions.
The first applicant appealed against the Administrative Court of Appeal’s judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court which, on 5 November 1990, refused leave to appeal.
18. In the meantime, on 19 June 1990, the social authorities had decided to restrict the first applicant’s right to speak to J. on the telephone to two phone calls per week. Furthermore, on 3 July 1990, it had decided to maintain the restrictions on the first applicant’s access to her two sons to a 2½ hours’ visit every other week in the foster homes.
19. The above decisions were challenged before the County Administrative Court which, after holding a hearing on 28 September 1990, upheld them in a judgment of 3 October 1990.
20. On 8 October 1990 the first applicant appealed on her own and her sons’ behalf to the Administrative Court of Appeal which, following an oral hearing, rejected the appeal on 11 January 1991.
21. On 22 January 1991 the first applicant and the children, represented by their mother, applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, which was granted on 23 July 1991.
22. On 28 June 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments as regards the restrictions on access.
According to the Government, the Supreme Administrative Court’s delay in giving judgment appeared to have been due to the fact that it was awaiting the Strasbourg Court’s ruling in the case of Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden (judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226A) which raised similar issues in relation to restrictions on telephone communications between mother and child.
23. On 5 February 1991 Mrs Westerberg submitted the following request to the relevant authority on behalf of the second applicant:
“[The second applicant] requests access [to J.] every weekend from Friday 5 p.m. until Sunday 5 p.m. as from 15 February 1991. Access shall take place at [the second applicant’s] home at Partille without the presence of any other persons being required. [The second applicant] will bring and fetch [J.] in the foster home.
You are requested to notify me immediately, not later than within a week, of your acceptance of this access arrangement and to inform the foster parents thereof. If you consider that you cannot decide in this matter in your capacity as a civil servant I request that you refer it to the Social Council, to confirm that such a referral has taken place and to inform me when I may expect a decision from the Social Council.”
24. On 11 February 1991 the Chief of the Social Services of District 10, Högsbo, Gothenburg (stadsdelsförvaltningen 10, Högsbo, Göteborgs Stad) informed the second applicant as follows:
“... I must point out that the Act containing Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons applies in respect of children taken into public care. As you are aware, its provisions regarding access apply only in respect of the custody holder or in respect of those who have taken care of the child. Accordingly, it is only the mother [the first applicant] who is covered by these provisions. Of course, a natural father is important for the child who, having regard to what is in his or her best interests, has a right of access to his or her parent. According to section 11 of [the 1990 Act], it is the social authorities, in this case the foster home department at Tynnered District [familjehemsverksamheten i stadsdels-förvaltningen Tynnered], which must decide on [J.’s] personal circumstances in the foster home. [The second applicant] is welcome to discuss the question of access with [the secretary responsible for foster home care].
... I should like to recall that it concerns a child who, because of his need of care, has been placed in a foster home by court order. It cannot be considered to be in the interest of a child to be removed from his or her home every weekend, especially not in a situation such as that of [J.]. Not even in divorce cases is it normal that access be granted with such short intervals; such cases often do not even concern children with any special need for care being provided in their home.
In effect, what you suggest is that a non-custody holder should be granted access going beyond what the custody holder has been granted.”
25. The second applicant did not pursue the matter but appears to have contacted the social authorities at Frölunda to enquire about his access to J. On 6 October 1995 the authorities replied:
“A right of access to a child for a person other than the custody holder does not exist under domestic law. It is however appropriate that a child also meets his or her relatives.
...
The County Administrative Court has decided that [J.’s] access to his mother should be limited to two visits a year, which may be increased to the extent agreed by [J.]. His access to other relatives should be considered in light of this. As regards [the second applicant’s] request to meet [J.] it could be said that [the second applicant] participates in the regular access arranged every other week. Admittedly, [J.] has not appeared more than a few times during the last year but the aim is that [J.] attend more frequently in the future. This means that [the second applicant] will meet [J.] on the same conditions as the mother [the first applicant].”
26. It does not appear that the second applicant has taken any further initiative to establish access to his son J.
27. On 12 November 1990 Mrs Westerberg had submitted a request by the maternal grandparents to the Högsbo Social District Council for the children P. and J. to stay with them every weekend.
On 14 November 1990 the Council informed Mrs Westerberg that the question regarding the grandparents’ access to their grandchildren was not regulated in the law. The request could, nevertheless, be examined in the context of the social authorities’ general powers to decide on the personal conditions of the children. Decisions made under these general powers were not subject to any review. The grandparents were advised to contact the social authority responsible for the foster home to discuss the possibilities of access although the access requested did not appear to be consistent with the children’s needs.
By letter of 22 November 1992 the grandparents insisted on having a formal decision on the subject. On 4 December 1992 the Social District Council decided that the request did not call for any further action.
28. During the proceedings in the present case the Act containing Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons 1980 (the 1980 Act) was replaced by a new Act containing Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons 1990 (lagen 1990:52 med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga – “the 1990 Act”) which entailed certain amendments and additions to the 1980 Act. The 1990 Act entered into force on 1 July 1990. According to the transitional provisions a care order issued under the 1980 Act should be regarded as a care order under the corresponding provision in the 1990 Act. The same applied with respect to decisions on access.
29. Section 16 of the 1980 Act provided:
“If it is necessary in order to achieve the purposes of care measures taken under this Act, the Social Council may
1. decide how the right of access to the young person shall be exercised by a parent or other person who has custody of him, or
2. decide that the young person’s place of residence may not be disclosed to the parent or custodian.”
30. Section 14 of the 1990 Act, which replaced section 16 of the 1980 Act, is worded as follows:
“The Social Council is responsible for accommodating as far as possible the young person’s needs of contact with his parents or other person who has custody of him.
If it is necessary in order to achieve the purposes of care measures taken under this Act, the Social Council may
1. decide how the right of access to the young person shall be exercised by a parent or other person who has custody of him, or
2. decide that the young person’s place of residence may not be disclosed to the parent or custodian.
The Social Council shall reconsider at least once every three months whether such decision as referred to in the second paragraph continues to be needed.”
31. As at present there is no authoritative ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court as to whether a parent who is not custodian or does not enjoy access rights by a court order or agreement can request a decision of the Social Council in respect of access.
32. According to section 41 of the 1990 Act an appeal may be lodged with the County Administrative Court against a decision of the Social Council with respect to access. The County Administrative Court may review a decision by the Social Council in so far as its subject matter is covered by section 14 of the 1990 Act (or section 16 of the 1980 Act; see Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court, Regeringsrättens Årsbok 1984, 2/38).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 6
NON_VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-73262
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: SVN
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2006
DOCNAME: CASE OF RUPNIK v. SLOVENIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson;John Hedigan
TEXT: 5. The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Celje.
6. On 1 January 1998 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7. On 1 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,069,320 tolars (approximately 8,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 1 June 1999 and 2 December 2003 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
On 10 April 1999 he also requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 5 November 2001 the presiding judge was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was assigned to a new judge.
Of the five hearings held between 6 June 2001 and 15 December 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 May 2004.
8. On 5 May 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 13 July 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and dismissed the ZT’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 7 September 2005.
9. On 3 October 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
The proceedings are still pending.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 13
6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1