No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rešetari.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In 1978 the applicant was employed by the Z.B. company of Zagreb. He worked as a driver in the company’s Nova Gradiška branch. After organisational changes within the company he was given notice of dismissal on 14 February 2000. Pursuant to the notice his employment was terminated on 20 November 2000.

On 27 November 2000 the applicant applied to the Croatian Employment Bureau’s Regional Office in Slavonski Brod (Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje, Područna služba Slavonski Brod, hereinafter “the Slavonski Brod Bureau”), for unemployment benefit.

On 6 December 2000 he was granted unemployment benefit of 900 Croatian kunas (HRK) per month for the period between 21 November 2000 and 10 July 2013, provided that no grounds for terminating payment or the applicant’s entitlement to payment arose before the end of the period. The applicant then received unemployment benefit on a regular basis until 31 March 2008.

On 29 March 2000 the applicant brought a civil action in the Nova Gradiška Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Novoj Gradiški) challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost salary.

On 11 January 2001 the applicant’s employer brought a counterclaim and asked the court to set 20 November 2000 as the day of the termination of his employment (sudski raskid ugovora o radu). On 5 October 2005 it also sought reimbursement of the severance pay the applicant had received.

On 23 January 2007 the Nova Gradiška Municipal Court ruled that the applicant’s dismissal from work had been unlawful and that his employment had never been terminated. It ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and awarded him compensation for lost salary. At the same time it ordered the applicant to reimburse the severance pay he had received, and dismissed the remainder of the employer’s counterclaim.

On 15 February 2008 the Slavonski Brod County Court (Županijski sud u Slavonskom Brodu) reversed the first-instance judgment in the part ordering the applicant’s reinstatement and decided that his employment had been terminated on 23 January 2007. It also awarded the applicant damages. The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 March 2008.

On 30 April 2008 the applicant applied to the Slavonski Brod Bureau for unemployment benefit for the period after 23 January 2007.

On 2 June 2008 the Slavonski Brod Bureau rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that it had been lodged outside the time-limit from the termination of his employment on 23 January 2007, as provided by section 31 of the Job Placement and Unemployment Insurance Act (hereinafter “the Job Placement Act”).

The applicant appealed to the Central Service of the Croatian Employment Bureau (Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje, Središnja služba, hereinafter “the Central Bureau”). In particular, he contended that the time-limit for lodging the unemployment benefit claim should not have been calculated from 23 January 2007, given that the termination of his employment had only been established by the Slavonski Brod County Court judgment of 15 February 2008.

On 15 October 2008 the Central Bureau, acting as a second-instance administrative authority, dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Slavonski Brod Bureau. It also noted that the applicant himself had informed the Slavonski Brod Bureau of the outcome of the labour dispute, and had communicated with one of its officials on 27 March 2008 and 2 April 2008. He had also been informed of the consequences of the Slavonski Brod County Court judgment setting 23 January 2007 as the day of the termination of his employment.

In an administrative claim the applicant argued that he had only learned about the day of the termination of his employment after receiving the Slavonski Brod County Court’s judgment in March 2008, and that the time-limit for lodging the unemployment benefit claim should have been calculated from that date.

On 20 January 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s administrative claim and upheld the administrative authorities’ decisions.

A subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicant was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 4 April 2012. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 9 May 2012.

On 21 November 2008 the Slavonski Brod Bureau found that the applicant had not been due unemployment benefit from 21 November 2000 to 31 March 2008. Given that the applicant had already reimbursed part of the unduly received sum, it ordered him to reimburse the rest within 15 days of receipt of the decision at issue.

On 16 July 2013 the Central Bureau upheld the decision of the Slavonski Brod Bureau, save in the part concerning the start of the deadline for the applicant having to pay back the money. In particular, it ordered him to reimburse the funds within 15 days of the receipt of his compensation for lost salary.

On 12 September 2014 the Osijek Administrative Court dismissed an administrative claim by the applicant and upheld the administrative authorities’ decisions. It found that according to the civil courts’ rulings in the labour dispute the applicant had not been entitled to unemployment benefit for the period up to 23 January 2007. It further found that his unemployment benefit claim for the period after that day had already been dismissed in another set of proceedings.

A constitutional complaint by the applicant was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 17 July 2015.

In June 2008 the applicant applied to the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, hereinafter “the Fund”), to obtain an early retirement pension.

On 18 August 2008 the Fund granted him an early retirement pension of HRK 1,890.53 per month from 11 July 2008. The applicant has been receiving that pension since.


Violation of Article 12 - Right to marry (Article 12 - Found a family;Marry);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in 1963. In 2002 he was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. At the relevant time the applicant was serving his sentence in a prison.

On 1 February 2005, following a request submitted by the applicant’s wife in accordance with Article 107 of the Family Code, the local civil status registry dissolved their marriage. The applicant was sent a notification about the divorce.

Later in February 2005 the applicant and his new female partner, K., were prevented from marrying as the applicant had not obtained a divorce certificate, as required by Article 116 of the Family Code. That document could be obtained exclusively by the applicant at the relevant civil status registry.

The applicant requested that he be escorted to the registry in order to obtain the divorce certificate. His request was refused as the domestic law did not provide for the escorting of prisoners on such grounds.

On 16 June 2005 the prosecutor informed the applicant that under Article 116 of the Family Code he had the right to remarry after he had obtained a divorce certificate. However, this would be possible only after his release from prison.

On 17 August 2005 the Deputy Minister of Justice considered a complaint lodged by the applicant concerning the authorities’ failure to provide him with a divorce certificate for the purpose of remarriage. He stated that under domestic law it was not possible to carry out the relevant actions in prison; nor was it possible to issue a power of attorney for another person to act on behalf of the applicant in relation to that matter. The Deputy Minster informed the applicant that amendments to the domestic legislation had been prepared.

On 23 January 2006 and 20 July 2007 the Ombudsman’s Office informed the applicant that they were aware of that issue and that amendments to the domestic legislation had been prepared by the Ministry of Justice.

On 30 July 2007 the State Prison Department informed the applicant that he would be able to obtain a divorce certificate after his release from prison. The amendments to the domestic legislation had yet to be considered.

On 16 October 2008 the Ministry of Justice issued Order no. 1761/5 providing for a temporary procedure for registering divorces and issuing divorce certificates in prisons.

In December 2008 the applicant was personally informed of the procedure introduced by the Ministry of Justice.

On 6 February 2009, at the applicant’s request, he was provided with a divorce certificate in prison.

On 13 July 2009 the applicant and K. applied for the registration of their marriage. On 14 August 2009 the local civil status registry registered their marriage.


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Ljubljana.

On 2 September 2009 the applicant stopped her car on the road in front of a school to let her children get out of the car. At that time, during a regular control, police officer S. found that the applicant had failed to use the seat-belt. The next day, the applicant allegedly approached S. and started insulting her. S. asked the applicant to follow her to the police station but the applicant refused to do so. Then S. requested the applicant to present her identity card which the applicant also refused to do. On the same day, S. issued a penalty notice against the applicant for not using the seat-belt, indecent behaviour, failure to comply with a public official’s lawful order and failure to submit identity papers. The fine amounted to 991.12 euros (EUR).

On 22 October 2009 the applicant filed a request for judicial review in which she submitted that on 3 September 2009 she was at home and she was not the person that S. dealt with.

On 15 September 2010 the Ljubljana Local Court heard S. According to the applicant, she was not informed of the hearing.

On 16 September 2010 the Local Court rejected the request for judicial review on the basis of S.’s statement. Moreover, it held that the applicant had failed to submit any evidence in support of her application.

On 11 October 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal challenging the Local Court’s findings of fact. Moreover, she complained that she had not been heard.

On 2 November 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal as inadmissible.


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Examination of the case);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Nazran, the Republic of Ingushetia. She is the mother of Ms Zarema Gaysanova, who was born in 1969.

The applicant’s property at 7 Second Darvina Lane in Kalinin, a village in the Leninskiy district of Grozny in the Chechen Republic, comprised a house, shed and courtyard. At the material time, it was under reconstruction after being heavily damaged during one of the Chechen military campaigns. Her daughter Zarema, who worked for the Grozny office of the Refugees’ Council, a Dutch NGO, regularly stayed at the property for various periods.

The applicant did not witness her daughter’s abduction. Her account of the events is based on information obtained from her neighbours in Kalinin.

On 31 October 2009, while Ms Zarema Gaysanova was at the applicant’s property on Second Darvina Lane, the law-enforcement authorities launched a special operation in the village, aimed at eliminating members of illegal armed groups. During the operation a man hid in the applicant’s property, which was blocked and shelled until it caught fire. As the house was burning down, Ms Gaysanova was pushed into a UAZ vehicle and taken away. After the house burnt to the ground, law-enforcement officers recovered a man’s body. Shortly thereafter the Chechen President, Mr Ramzan Kadyrov, and the Chechen Minister of the Interior, Mr Ruslan Alkhanov, arrived at the property. Mr Kadyrov, among other things, gave an interview to the local media, saying that a member of illegal armed groups had been “liquidated” in the applicant’s house.

The applicant has had no news of her daughter since her disappearance.

In reply to the Court’s request for information of 27 November 2009, the Government stated that the criminal case file concerning Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s disappearance (see paragraph 19 et seq. below) contained information suggesting that on 31 October 2009 a special operation had been conducted in Kalinin. However, there was no indication that the applicant’s daughter had been arrested in the course of that operation.

In observations of 16 September 2010, the Government also submitted that the operation carried out on 31 October 2009 by the lawenforcement authorities was also called “operational-search activities” (оперативно-розыскные мероприятия). In conducting them, they had blocked Mr A.Kh., a member of illegal armed groups, into 7 Second Darvina Lane and had “eliminated” him. Ms Zarema Gaysanova had not been seen or arrested during these events and her body had never been found.

On 31 October 2009 the press office of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (Министерство внутренних дел Чеченской республики) (hereinafter “the Chechen MVD”) published information on its official website concerning the special operation conducted in Kalinin. The relevant part of the press release reads as follows:

“Today, in the course of a special operation in a house in the Leninskiy district of Grozny, [MVD] officers located and liquidated a member of illegal armed groups. [In response to] the officers’ request to surrender his weapons the criminal offered armed resistance. The criminal was hiding in a house which, in the ensuing fight, was set on fire ... The criminal was liquidated.

According to the Minister of the Interior, Ruslan Alkhanov, the fighting continued for fifteen minutes ...

The special operation aimed at liquidating the member of illegal armed groups was conducted under the command of the President of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov ... At the moment a group of investigators is working at the crime scene ...”

The online press release was accompanied by a video. It showed, from different angles, a redbrick house under reconstruction burning down with several dozen armed men wearing khaki green and black and blue camouflage uniforms surrounding it, pointing their guns and moving around. It also showed some firemen extinguishing the fire, a fire engine and several other vehicles parked nearby and a number of armed men in camouflage uniforms and plain-clothed men gathered in the vicinity. The applicant furnished the Court with a recording of the video. She identified the burning building as her house at 7 Second Darvina Lane in Kalinin.

On 31 October 2009 an investigator from the Leninskiy inter-district investigation department of the investigation committee at the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic (Ленинский межрайонный отдел следственного комитета по Чеченской Республике) (hereinafter “the Leninskiy investigation department” or “the investigation department”) reported to his superiors that at 3.30 p.m. he had been informed about the “liquidation” of Mr A.Kh., a member of illegal armed groups, at 7 Second Darvina Lane in the Leninskiy district of Grozny. Mr A.Kh. had been surrounded at the address at about 3 p.m.

Between 4 p.m. and 6.45 p.m. the investigator, with the assistance of an expert and in the presence of three attesting witnesses, examined the crime scene.

On 7 November 2009 the investigation department informed the Minister of the Interior that at about 3 p.m. on 31 October 2009 the lawenforcement authorities had surrounded Mr A.Kh. at 7 Second Darvina Lane in the Leninskiy district of Grozny. He had offered armed resistance to the law-enforcement officers and had been “liquidated” as a result of the ensuing fight. The Minister was asked to examine the circumstances of Mr A.Kh.’s “liquidation” and to inform the investigators of any decisions taken.

On 10 November 2009 the investigation department refused to institute criminal proceedings into Mr A.Kh.’s death, on the grounds that he had resisted arrest and the law-enforcement officers had acted in selfdefence. The decision referred to statements by five residents of Second Darvina Lane, including the applicant. They stated, among other things, that Ms Zarema Gaysanova and her brother Ibragim had lived at 7 Second Darvina Lane and that the house had been under reconstruction. At about 3 p.m. on 31 October 2009 police officers had sealed off the area, including the applicant’s house. They had opened fire and the house had burnt down. The applicant submitted that at about 6 p.m. that evening she had received a call from her neighbour, Mr R.M. He had told her that a special operation had been carried out in the village, during which a man had entered her property. Her house had been burnt down and her daughter had been pushed into a UAZ vehicle and taken to an unknown destination. The decision did not specify which law-enforcement agencies had carried out the operation.

At the Court’s request, on 10 and 21 December 2009 the Government submitted information and 160 pages of documents from case file no. 66094 opened into Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s disappearance and containing details of the proceedings between 1 November and 5 December 2009.

Following the Court’s subsequent request to submit an entire copy of case file no. 66094 at the communication stage, the Government furnished a further 608 pages of documents containing details of the proceedings between 1 November 2009 and 11 May 2010. The documents were unnumbered and contained new documents relating to the period 1 November to 5 December 2009, which had not been submitted in December 2009. A significant number of documents, including witness statements such as those by the applicant’s neighbours from Second Darvina Lane, were only partially submitted, in that only the pages containing their names and addresses were provided. Some of the documents were illegible.

On 17 December 2013 the Government submitted additional observations on the merits of the case along with an 1872-page “... copy of the criminal case-file not including the questioning records of several [police] servicemen containing classified personal data. However, these servicemen did not provide any information of importance to the investigation ...”

On 1 November 2009 the applicant provided a statement to police captain Mr A.D. at the Leninskiy district department of the interior (Ленинский районный отдел внутренних дел) (hereinafter “the Leninskiy ROVD”). She stated that on 31 October 2009 she had received a telephone call from her neighbour Mr R.M., who had told her that as a result of a special operation conducted on Second Darvina Lane, her house had been burnt down and her daughter had been taken away in a UAZ vehicle. There had been no news of her daughter since.

On 3 November 2009 the acting Leninskiy district prosecutor forwarded the applicant’s abduction complaint of 1 November 2009 to the investigation department, instructing it to examine it.

In observations of 17 December 2013 the Government stated that “the authorities became aware of Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s disappearance on 5 November 2009”.

On 8 November 2009 the Leninskiy investigation department extended the time-limit for examining the applicant’s complaint to 15 November 2009. The decision stated that the investigators had interviewed the applicant and sent various queries to the Leninskiy ROVD, and that further steps were to be taken such as a crime scene examination and witness identification and questioning, including of the applicant’s neighbour Mr R.M. and the officers who had conducted the special operation on 31 October 2009.

On 10 November 2009 the Leninskiy ROVD forwarded the applicant’s abduction complaint to the Leninskiy investigation department. According to the applicant, in the complaint to the ROVD and explanatory letter, both of which were dated 1 November 2009, the date had been subsequently changed to 9 November 2009.

On 16 November 2009 the Leninskiy investigation department opened a criminal investigation into Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction). The case file was given the number 66094. The decision stated that from the applicant’s complaint lodged on 5 November 2009 it appeared that at about 5.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms driving a UAZ vehicle had abducted Ms Zarema Gaysanova from 7 Second Darvina Lane in the Leninskiy district of Grozny and had taken her to an unknown destination. Later that day (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 10 December 2010) the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings.

The authorities questioned a significant number of witnesses after the investigation was opened. These included the applicant’s neighbours, the workers who had carried out the reconstruction work on the applicant’s house, several police officers from the Argun department of the interior (Аргунский отдел внутренних дел) (hereinafter “the Argun OVD”), who had participated in the special operation, the firemen who had put out the house fire, Ms Gaysanova’s colleagues and the applicant’s relatives in Nazran.

On 9 November 2009 the investigators questioned the applicant, who stated that before being abducted her daughter had lived at 7 Second Darvina Lane, which had been under reconstruction. She had worked for the Grozny office of the Dutch Refugees’ Council. The applicant’s son Ibragim had stayed with Zarema on several occasions. Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on 31 October 2009 the applicant’ neighbour, Mr R.M., had told her over the telephone that at about 3.30 p.m. that day the law-enforcement authorities had conducted a special operation in the village. In the course of the operation a man had rushed into the applicant’s courtyard, her house had been burnt to the ground and her daughter had been forced into a UAZ vehicle and taken to an unknown destination.

On 10 December 2009 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated, among other things, that between 10 p.m. and 11 a.m. on 31 October 2009 she had spoken to her daughter on the telephone about the reroofing of the house, which was being done by workers that day. She had tried to call her after lunch, but there had been no answer. At about 6.40 p.m. her neighbour Mr R.M. had told her over the telephone that officers of the police or the military forces had carried out a special operation in the village, during which her house had been burnt down and a man’s body had been recovered from the ruins. During the operation the officers had stopped residents from leaving their houses. Mr R.M. had seen through a window several officers in camouflage uniforms armed with assault rifles pushing a woman wearing a well-worn pink dressing gown into a UAZ vehicle and driving away. He had recognised the woman as Ms Zarema Gaysanova by what she had been wearing. The applicant said that another neighbour, Ms Z.S., had told her that one of the men in camouflage uniform who had been in her house during the operation had asked over his portable radio “whether the others had shown the body to the woman”. At that very moment she had heard a woman scream. The man had asked his colleagues if they had put the woman into the car, which they had confirmed. After that, the man had told Ms Z.S. that “they had killed the devil”, that she could now relax and that they were leaving. While at Ms Z.S.’ house, the man in camouflage had asked her numerous questions about the Gaysanov family and their connections and occupations. The applicant also submitted that Mr R.M. lived in Moscow and on 31 October 2009 he had come to Kalinin to visit his brother, Mr A.M.

Between February and May 2010 the investigators also questioned construction workers Mr A.Yu.Zh., Mr A.A.D., Mr A.V.L., Mr B.I.B and Mr A.Yu.A., all of whom confirmed that since the end of 2009 they had been doing repair work on the applicant’s house where Ms Zarema Gaysanova, and occasionally her brother Ibragim, had lived. All of the workers stated that the last time they had seen Ms Gaysanova was on 31 October 2009 and that they had learnt of the special operation that evening. When they had arrived at the applicant’s house at about 11 a.m. on 1 November 2009, there had been a large group of law-enforcement officers inspecting the property and the surrounding area. The officers had asked them questions about the owners of the house and whether they knew anything about their connections and habits. According to the workers, they had learnt of Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s abduction from the police officers. When questioned again by the investigators, some of the workers changed their initial statements and told them that they had learnt of the abduction from the applicant.

Between February and May 2010 the investigators also questioned seven police officers from the Argun OVD, all of whom stated that at about 4.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 ten officers from their police station had been sent to 7 Second Darvina Lane following a tip-off that Mr A.Kh., a member of illegal armed groups, had been hiding there. On arrival, some of them had surrounded the house while others had waited in a neighbouring courtyard. Officers of other law-enforcement agencies had also participated in the operation. Mr A.Kh. had been asked to surrender; in response he had opened fire. A grenade had exploded in the yard and there had then been intensive gunfire and the house had been stormed. The building had caught fire and firemen had subsequently put it out. The burnt remains of a man had been found among the ruins. All of the police officers denied having seen Ms Zarema Gaysanova or having any knowledge of her abduction.

On 27 April 2010 the investigators questioned taxi driver Mr Yu.A.B. He stated that at about 12 noon on 31 October 2009 he had picked up Ms Zarema Gaysanova to take her shopping and had seen some workers, including Mr A.M.D., repairing the roof. He had taken her back home at around 1 p.m. That evening he had met Mr A.M.B., who had told him about the special operation on Second Darvina Lane. At about 8.30 p.m. Mr Yu.A.B. had called Ms Zarema Gaysanova, but her mobile telephone had been switched off.

On 28 April 2010 the investigators questioned another construction worker, Mr A.M.B., who stated that after lunch on 31 October 2009 Ms Zarema Gaysanova had returned home with a taxi driver, Mr Yu.A.B. After he had left, they had talked in the shed over a cup of tea, and at about 3.10 p.m. she had gone in the house and he had carried on working. About ten minutes later he had heard heavy footsteps in the courtyard and had seen seven unmasked men in camouflage uniforms, all armed with assault rifles. One of them had asked him in Chechen “Where has he gone?” to which the witness had replied “Who are you talking about? I am working here”. Shortly thereafter something had exploded inside the house and there had then been intensive gunfire. The witness had heard someone shout in Chechen “Throw grenades, protect our men!” The officers had been shooting at the house and the witness had shouted “Why are you shooting at the house? There is a woman inside!”, but no one had paid any attention. After the shooting had stopped, the witness had managed to make his way outside the courtyard, where he had seen officers sealing off the area, ready for a further shootout. An officer at the gate had ordered him to leave. Several moments later the witness had called Ms Gaysanova on her mobile telephone, but there had been no answer.

On various dates between November 2009 and May 2010 the investigators questioned a number of the applicant’s neighbours. Most of them confirmed that a special operation had taken place on Second Darvina Lane on 31 October 2009 and that the area had been sealed off by the security forces, but denied having seen Ms Zarema Gaysanova being taken away. Ms T.Kh.A., who lived at 12 Second Darvina Lane, was questioned on 11 May 2010. She stated that at about 3.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 she had seen a large group of men on the street armed with assault rifles and wearing camouflage uniforms, and a UAZ vehicle. One of the officers had ordered her to get back inside the house and close the door. Shortly thereafter she had heard intensive gunfire and had seen number 7 burning down. Sometime later, police officers had come to her house to ask, among other things, whether she had known Ms Gaysanova.

On 1 December 2010 (the date on the document appears to be incorrect, see paragraphs 59, 64 and 94) the investigators questioned the Chechen President Mr Kadyrov, who stated that “many” special operations had been conducted in the Chechen Republic around that time and that the heads of the law-enforcement agencies reported the results to him. As to the special operation conducted on 31 October 2009 to eliminate a member of illegal armed groups, Mr A.Kh., he had arrived at the scene at the end of the operation and had seen a burning house and firemen trying to put out the fire. The Minister of the Interior Mr Alkhanov had reported the results of the operation to him. Mr Kadyrov said he had not seen anyone at the scene and had no information about Ms Zarema Gaysanova being detained or abducted.

On various dates in February 2011 the investigators questioned four of the applicant’s neighbours, whose statements did not provide any new information.

On 28 February 2011 the investigators questioned forensic expert Mr Ma.Ma., who stated that he had participated in the crime scene examination shortly after the special operation on 31 October 2009 but had not seen any senior law-enforcement officials or Ms Gaysanova there, and was unable to name any of the other people who had participated in the crime scene examination that day.

On 6 March 2011 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who reiterated her previous statements (see paragraphs 29 and 30 above). She added that on 9 November 2009 at the premises of the Chechen investigation department she had spoken to investigator Mr Tam., who had been in charge of the investigation into her daughter’s disappearance and had told her “your daughter Ms Zarema Gaysanova is alive but we have no access to her”.

On various dates in March 2011 the investigators questioned three ambulance workers who had arrived at the scene on 31 October 2009. Their statements did not provide any new information.

On 23 and 28 April 2011 the investigators questioned the deputy chief of the Argun OVD, Mr M.Dzh. and one of his officers, Mr L.Ba. They both stated that Special Task Unit “Terek” of the Argun OVD (отряд милиции специального назначения) had participated in the operation on 31 October 2009.

On 13 June 2011 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated that her daughter had been unmarried at the time of her abduction and that at some point in 1986 she had married someone called Mr Yandiyev but had divorced him six months later.

On 14 June 2011 the investigators again questioned Mr A.M.B., who reiterated his previous statement (see paragraph 34 above).

On 14 June 2011 the investigators questioned the investigator Mr Tam., who stated that in November 2009 he had told the applicant that her daughter had been alive just to calm her down (see paragraph 39 above).

On 3 August 2011 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated that her daughter had not fallen out with anyone or received any threats and had not been in involved in a blood feud.

On 29 June 2012 the investigators questioned the head of the Argun town administration, Mr I.T., who stated that he had not participated in the special operation on 31 October 2009 and nor had his security service or guards.

On 28 June 2013 the investigators again questioned the Chechen President Mr Kadyrov, who reiterated his previous statement (see paragraph 36 above).

In the course of the investigation, the authorities primarily took the following steps. They (i) carried out an examination of the crime scene on several occasions, (ii) made requests for information to various law-enforcement agencies and detention centres concerning Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s possible arrest or detention in the Chechen Republic and neighbouring regions, and the existence of pending criminal proceedings against her or her possible involvement with members of illegal armed groups, (iii) verified whether she had left the Chechen Republic by plane or train, (iv) published a search announcement in the regional media, and (v) traced the location of her mobile telephone between 21 and 31 October 2009.

On 4 December 2009 the deputy head of the Chechen investigation department issued orders for the investigators in criminal case no. 66094 instructing them to, amongst other things, verify the law-enforcement agencies’ conduct of the special operation on 31 October 2009 and question its participants concerning the details.

On 5 December 2009 the investigators wrote to the chief of the Leninskiy ROVD, asking him to take disciplinary measures against the officers who had failed to comply with the investigators’ instructions and take the steps requested in criminal case no. 66094.

On 11 December 2009 the investigators obtained a joint operational report (оперативная сводка) from the Chechen MVD concerning the events of 31 October 2009. The relevant part of the document reads as follows:

Leninskiy District. Military clash.

At 6.15 p.m. on 31 October 2009 the [MVD] front desk was informed ... that at 3.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 in a deserted half-ruined house at 7 Second Darvina Lane, Grozny ... officers from the Argun [OVD], Leninskiy [ROVD], 8th company of the 2nd regiment of the [MVD] traffic police and the head of the Argun town administration’s security service had blocked a member of illegal armed groups, who had offered armed resistance during his apprehension and had been liquidated ...

Present [during the operation were]: Minister of the Interior Mr R. Alkhanov and deputy Minister of the Interior Mr R.L.E, chief of Grozny criminal police Mr Sh., chief of the department of the interior Mr Ir., chief of criminal police at the department of the interior Mr Is., chief of public security police at the department of the interior Mr Ba. and his deputy Mr Bu., acting chief of the criminal investigation directorate at the department of the interior Mr M.,. an investigator from the Leninskiy investigation department Mr A.,. the [entire] operational investigation group of the [MVD], the operational investigation group of the department of the interior, the Leninskiy district [of Grozny] operational investigation group of the Temporary Alignment of Departments at the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation in the North Caucasus Region ...”

On 11 January 2010 the applicant’s lawyer requested that the investigators take a number of steps. These included obtaining copies of the video footage of the special operation and questioning the officials who had been in charge and its participants, the applicant’s neighbours Mr R.M., Ms Z.G and Ms Zh.S, and the construction workers who had carried out the work on the applicant’s house on Second Darvina Lane. On 12 January 2010 the investigators granted the request.

On 27 January 2010 the head of the Chechen investigation department wrote to the Chechen Minister of the Interior stating, amongst other things:

“... [within the framework of the investigation of criminal case no. 66094], on 24 December 2009 the Chechen prosecutor organised a meeting on officers from the Leninskiy ROVD in Grozny and servicemen from operational-search unit no. 2 of the Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit (the ORB-2) collaborating with the investigation to solve the crime and prosecute the perpetrators.

However, officers from the Leninskiy ROVD in Grozny have not been providing operational support ... repeated requests for information to the chief of the Leninskiy ROVD [have met with] formal and incomplete replies ... [even though] in reply to the repeated request of 6 December 2009 it was stated that the police officers had examined the crime scene again and had found burnt passports, one for use in Russia (internal) and another (foreign) one for use abroad. However, at the time of writing this evidence and the relevant documents have not been provided to the investigators of the criminal case ...

[As] to our request of 9 December 2009 concerning the identities of the servicemen who participated in the special operation and the conclusions of the internal inquiry, on 18 December 2009 a formal reply was given ... which did not contain any meaningful information; the information and documents requested were not submitted.

On 23 December 2009 we sent another request for information concerning the officers who participated in the special operation and the conclusions of the internal inquiry. To the present date no reply has been given.

[As] to our repeated requests of 11 and 28 December 2009 concerning the identities of the officers who participated in the special operation ... no reply has been given. Officers from the Argun OVD Mr M.B., Mr D.V., Mr I.G and Mr R.Akh, who participated in the operation and whose identities were established by the investigators, refused to give statements to the investigation ...

Thus, at the time of writing the investigation either does not have information concerning the persons who participated in the special operation (their names, service positions and ranks) or documents confirming its lawfulness.

In connection with the above, you are requested to personally supervise execution of the requests in the criminal case and provide full and timely replies to the requests for information and operational steps. You are also requested to order an internal inquiry in connection with the violations of criminal procedure law by your subordinates in the [relevant] police departments ...”

On 28 January 2010 the investigators requested the chief of the Argun OVD to provide, amongst other things, the following information:

“... according to the reply received by the investigation in criminal case no. 66094 to its request for information of 15 December 2009, the following [eleven] officers from the criminal search division of the Argun OVD participated in the special operation on 31 October 2009: Mr Sh.Ya., Mr K.S., Mr M.B., Mr A.P., Mr D.V., Mr Dz.M., Mr E.A., Mr R.A., Mr R.Akh., Mr Kh.O. and Mr A.Ma.

Based on this information, you are requested to ensure these officers [attend] the Chechen investigation committee at 9 Garazhnaya Street, Grozny to be questioned as witnesses. You are also requested to forward me documents confirming the lawfulness of the special operation ... the order to conduct the operation and a copy of the results of the internal inquiry carried out into the matter ...”

On 2 February 2010 the acting chief of the Argun OVD replied to the investigators that they had no information concerning Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s abduction and that the officers mentioned in the request of 28 January 2010 had been instructed to give statements to the investigators. In an additional letter of the same date, the Argun OVD informed the investigators that no internal inquiries had been carried out in connection with the special operation conducted on 31 October 2009 as “there were no violations of the law and no officers from the Argun OVD had been injured”.

On 14 February 2010 the applicant repeated the request for the officials in charge of the special operation on 31 October 2009 to be questioned. On 18 February 2010 the investigators replied that they would question them as soon as they had established their identities.

On 24 February 2010 the applicant requested that the investigators question, amongst others, Chechen President Mr Kadyrov, as he had information on the special operation. On 26 February 2010 the investigators granted the request.

On 5 April 2010 the investigators reported to their superiors that they had been unable to interview Mr Kadyrov, who had been in charge of the special operation on 31 October 2009.

On 22 April 2010 the applicant complained to the Chechen investigation department that Mr Kadyrov had not been questioned and that the investigators had failed to take the procedural steps ordered on 26 February 2010. On 26 April 2010 the investigators refused to allow the complaint stating, amongst other things, that according to fourteen other witnesses who had been present during the special operation, Mr Kadyrov had not been there.

On 22 April 2010 the applicant’s lawyer reiterated his request for the investigators to take a number of steps such as obtaining copies of the video footage of the special operation, identifying and questioning all of the participants, asking the drivers of the UAZ vehicles whether they had seen Ms Zarema Gaysanova being forced into one of them, and questioning the Chechen Minister of the Interior Mr Alkhanov concerning the law-enforcement agencies who had participated in the operation and the firemen who had put out the house fire afterwards. On 26 April 2010 the investigators granted the request.

On an unspecified date in April 2010 senior operational-search officer Mr P.G. provided the investigators with an information statement on the operational-search measures taken in the criminal case. The relevant part reads as follows:

“... It has been established by operational-search measures that at about 3.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 servicemen from the Argun OVD, the 8th company of the 2nd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the Argun town administration security service conducted a special operation, as a result of which an active member of illegal armed groups Mr A.Kh. was found. He resisted arrest and ... was eliminated as a result ... It has also been established that in this household Mr A.Kh. had lived with his wife, Zarema Gaysanova, whose whereabouts after the special operation remain unknown ...”

On 9 July 2010 the Chechen deputy prosecutor criticised the investigation into Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s disappearance and ordered the investigators to take a number of remedial measures:

“... On 16 June 2010 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators ... An examination of the case file has demonstrated that this decision was unfounded and premature; it was taken prior to all the investigative steps being taken...

... the criminal case has been investigated by several investigators for seven months, however, an effective investigation has not been carried out, the whereabouts of the abducted Ms Z. Gaysanova have not been established, and sufficiently effective steps to identify the culprits have not been taken ...

Up to the present date the servicemen of the law-enforcement agencies who took part in the special operation ... have not all been identified and questioned.

From the operational statement of the Chechnya MVD of 31 October 2009 it appears that servicemen of the 8th company of the 2nd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the Argun town administration security service participated in the liquidation of Mr A.Kh., but [they] have not been identified and questioned.

The requests of the applicant, Ms L. Gaysanova, for access to the investigation file have been granted, but her representatives have not been provided [it] ...

In addition, the applicant’s representative requested that the investigators take certain investigative steps such as seizure and examination of the video footage posted on the Chechen Ministry of the Interior’s website concerning the special operation... identifying the person who filmed the operation ... those steps have not been taken.

In violation of Article 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no measures have been taken to identify the perpetrators for a long time ...

... In addition, the investigation has not taken sufficient steps to identify key witness Mr R.M. who, according to the applicant, called her to say that Z. Gaysanova had been taken away by the unidentified servicemen who had participated in the special operation against A.Kh. Mr R.M. has not been questioned about those circumstances. In addition, the brother of the abducted Ms Gaysanova, Mr I. Gaysanov, has not been identified and questioned.

Based on the above, the decision to suspend the investigation in criminal case no. 66094 is unlawful and should therefore be overruled ...”

On 23 August 2010 the Chechen deputy prosecutor again criticised the investigation into Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s disappearance and pointed out that the steps ordered on 9 July 2010 had not been taken and the orders given had not been complied with. He ordered that the decision to suspend the investigation of 16 June 2010 be overruled as unlawful and the proceedings be resumed.

On 10 December 2010 the investigators granted the applicant’s request of 22 April 2010 to have Mr Kadyrov questioned (see paragraph 36 above). The applicant was informed on 13 December 2010.

On 28 March 2011 the investigators collected blood samples from the applicant for genetic testing with the samples in the regional DNA database. On 4 April 2011 the experts reported that there had been no matches.

On 7 April 2011 the applicant’s lawyer requested the investigators to join the investigation into Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s disappearance with the investigation into the disappearance of Mr Rizvan Aziyev (see Khava Aziyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 30237/10, 23 April 2015) for the following reasons:

“... your department investigating criminal case no. 66094 ... initiated in connection with [Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s] abduction during a special operation on Second Darvina Lane in Grozny ... presumably by representatives of the law-enforcement agencies.

On the same date, 31 October 2009, at about 5.50 p.m. by his house at 23 Mumayeva Street in the village of Staraya Sunzha, unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms abducted Mr Rizvan Aziyev, who was born in 1979.

In connection with this, the Leninskiy investigation department ... opened criminal case no. 66093, which is also being investigated by your department.

One of the investigation’s theories in criminal case no. 66094 is that Mr A.Kh. had lived with Zarema Gaysanova, and this served as the reason for [her] abduction and questioning by unidentified representatives of the law-enforcement agencies in order to obtain information about him and his activities.

Mr Rizvan Aziyev, who was abducted the same day, is the brother of Ms Khava Aziyeva, Mr A.Kh’s official wife.

Both abductions therefore took place on the date of the special operation on 31 October 2009 to eliminate Mr A.Kh., and both of the people abducted had obvious connections with him. Ms Gaysanova, in whose house Mr A.Kh. had been killed, was presumably his cohabitee, and Rizvan Aziyev was the brother of Mr A.Kh.’s wife.

In connection with this, there are grounds to presume that the abductions of Ms Gaysanova and Mr Aziyev, who had been connected to Mr A.Kh., had been perpetrated by the same people ...”

On 8 April 2011 the investigators refused the above request as groundless.

On 21 and 22 April 2011 the investigators checked the detainee registration log of the Leninskiy ROVD temporary detention ward. There was no indication that Ms Zarema Gaysanova had been detained on the premises.

On 14 June 2011 the investigators obtained two DVDs from the Chechen MVD information centre containing the video footage of the special operation on 31 October 2009 and incorporated them into the investigation file as evidence.

On 3 July 2012 the investigators in charge of criminal case no. 66094 informed the head of the Chechen investigation department that they needed to question the Chechen President Mr Kadyrov again, but were unable to do so as he was too busy. They eventually questioned him on 28 June 2013 (see paragraph 47 above).

On 22 July 2013 an operational-search officer from the criminal search division of Grozny OVD, Mr R.D., provided the investigators with an information statement on the operational-search steps taken in the criminal case. The relevant part reads as follows:

“... It has been established by operational-search measures that at about 3.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 servicemen from the Argun OVD, the 8th company of the 2nd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the Argun town administration security service conducted a special operation, as a result of which an active member of illegal armed groups, Mr A.Kh., was found. He resisted arrest and [was] therefore eliminated ... It has also been established that in that household Mr A.Kh. had lived with his wife, Zarema Gaysanova, whose whereabouts after the special operation remain unknown ...

Ms Zarema Gaysanova was not officially married ...

Two theories were proposed within the framework of the operational-search activities:

Zarema Gaysanova was detained by servicemen of the law-enforcement agencies owing to her possible involvement in illegal armed groups;

Zarema Gaysanova was hiding from the police to avoid prosecution for being a member of illegal armed groups ...”

On an unspecified date in 2011 the investigators established that on 31 October 2009 Ms Zarema Gaysanova had had various telephone conversations, one of which had been with Mr A.Kh., who had subsequently been killed during the special operation.

On 5 December 2009 the Leninskiy investigation department issued a formal warning (представление) to the chief of the Leninskiy ROVD. It stated that the police department had not carried out any of the investigative steps ordered by the investigators, and had thereby hampered the investigation and precluded it from establishing the circumstances of Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s abduction. The chief was instructed to take the necessary steps to remedy the shortcomings and to consider taking disciplinary action against those responsible for the inactivity. On 9 December 2009 the investigators issued a further order to the police department, stressing that their earlier instructions had not been complied with and urging the chief of the Leninskiy ROVD to oversee the matter.

On 7 December 2009 the investigation in case no. 66094 was transferred to investigation department no. 2 (Serious Crimes) of the investigation committee at the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic (следственный комитет по Чеченской Республике) (hereinafter “investigation department no. 2”).

On 9 December 2009 it was decided that the investigation was to be conducted by a group of investigators because there was evidence to suggest that members of the security forces had been involved in Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s abduction. The group was to consist of investigators from the Leninskiy investigation department, investigation department no. 2 and officers from the Leninskiy ROVD.

On 11 January 2010 the investigators requested that the time-limit for the investigation in case no. 66094 be extended owing to the number of investigative steps to be taken. The document stated that the investigation had been severely hampered by the persistent refusal of the lawenforcement authorities involved in the operation on 31 October 2009 to provide information about the officers who had participated.

On 27 January 2010 the investigators requested the Minister of the Interior to personally oversee execution of the requests they had addressed to his subordinates in connection with the investigation in case no. 66094. The letter stressed that the Leninskiy ROVD, the Argun OVD, the 8th company of the 2nd regiment of the MVD traffic police and the Minister himself had persistently disregarded the investigators’ repeated requests for information concerning the officers who had participated in the special operation on 31 October 2009. Moreover, officers Mr M.A.B, Mr D.R.V, Mr I.D.G. and Mr R.Z.A. from the Argun OVD, who it had been established had taken part in the operation, had blatantly refused to be questioned. The Minister was asked to look into the matter and take disciplinary action in connection with this.

On 16 June 2010 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 31 August 2010 then suspended again on 30 September 2010. The proceedings were resumed each time following criticism from the supervising prosecutor (see paragraphs 62 and 63 above).

On 11 August 2010 the applicant requested access to the investigation file. On 13 August 2010 the investigators refused her request as she was not entitled to familiarise herself with the contents of the file until completion of the investigation. The applicant appealed (see paragraph 93 below).

On 1 December 2010 the investigation was resumed but suspended the next day. The applicant’s lawyer appealed and on 26 January 2011 the proceedings were resumed.

On 31 March 2011 the investigation was again suspended. It was resumed on 14 April 2011 for failure to take a number of steps.

On 15 July 2011 the investigation was again resumed but suspended on 15 August 2011.

On 31 May 2012 the investigation was again resumed owing to the need to take a number of steps such as questioning the head of the Argun town administration on his security guards’ participation in the special operation on 31 October 2009 (see paragraph 45 above). On an unspecified date in June 2012 the proceedings were suspended.

On 20 June 2012 the investigation was resumed then suspended again on 4 July 2012.

On 26 June 2013 the investigation was resumed owing to the need to take a number of steps such as questioning the Chechen President Mr Kadyrov and the applicant’s neighbour Mr R.M. and verifying whether Ms Zarema Gaysanova had left Russia.

On 10 July 2013 the investigation was suspended again. It appears from the documents submitted that it is pending.

On 6 November 2009 the applicant provided a statement to local human rights lawyers from the United Mobile Group (Объедененная Мобильная Группа) (hereinafter “the UMG”). She stated that at about 6.30 p.m. on 31 October 2009 she had received a call from her neighbour Mr R.M. who had informed her, amongst other things, that a special operation had taken place in their neighbourhood and her house had been burnt down as a result, that the armed men who had carried out the operation had taken away her daughter and that a man’s body had been found among the ruins by the firemen. At about 9 p.m. that evening the applicant had gone to the Leninskiy ROVD, where investigator Mr Timur G. had taken a statement from her about the abduction. The chief of the Leninskiy ROVD, who had introduced himself as Mr Imran, had then told her that the man’s body found among the ruins had belonged to Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s husband and that he had no information about who had carried out the special operation. On 1 November 2009 the applicant had lodged an official written abduction complaint with the Leninskiy ROVD. On the same date she had spoken to several of her neighbours, including Ms Z.S., all of whom had told her that on 31 October 2009 a large group of armed men had carried out a special operation in the vicinity of her house, there had been a shooting and her house had been burnt down. Afterwards, a man’s body had been discovered. The Chechen President Mr Kadyrov and Minister of the Interior Mr Alkhanov had arrived at the scene and had given interviews that an illegal armed fighter had been eliminated in the applicant’s house.

On 20 January 2010 the applicant provided another statement to the UMG lawyers. She reiterated her previous statement and added that on the morning of 1 November 2009 she had been told by two men in darkcoloured VAZ-2109 cars with blacked out windows that they had been guarding the ruins of her house for the crime scene examination. More representatives of law-enforcement agencies had then arrived at the scene. The applicant provided the lawyers with the names and telephone numbers of the workers who had worked on her house prior to the events of 31 October 2009, Mr A. Y. Zh., Mr A.Dzh, Mr I.Dzh, Mr B.B. and brothers Mr Al.A. and Mr Ar.A.

On 27 March 2010 the applicant provided another statement to the UMG lawyers. She stressed that on the evening of 31 October 2009 she had complained about her daughter’s abduction in person at the Leninskiy ROVD and on 1 November 2009 had lodged a written complaint with the police department, having gone there with three of her relatives, Mr N.G., Ms Zh.G and Mr A.G. The following day she had lodged abduction complaints with the Leninskiy district and Chechen investigation departments, as well as the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office and Chechen prosecutor’s office. On 9 November 2009 she had given a statement concerning the abduction to Mr Magomed T., an investigator from the Leninskiy district investigation department.

On 26 May 2010 the UMG lawyers took a statement from one of Ms Gaysanova’s colleagues from the Dutch Refugee Council, Mr D.K., who stated that on 31 October 2009, after the events at the applicant’s house, he had taken the applicant to the Leninskiy ROVD in Grozny. She had been crying, saying that her daughter had gone missing and her house had been burnt down.

On 25 May 2010 the UMG lawyers took a statement from the applicant’s relatives, Ms Zh.G., Mr N.G. and Mr T.G., whose accounts of the events of 31 October 2009 were similar to that of the applicant. In addition, the witnesses stated that on 1 November 2009 a crime scene examination group consisting of several forensic experts had gone through the ruins of the applicant’s burnt house. All of the witnesses confirmed that on 1 November 2009 they and the applicant had gone to the Leninskiy ROVD, where the applicant had given a written statement concerning her daughter’s abduction to the policeman on duty.

On 29 April 2010 the applicant requested the Leninskiy district investigation department in Grozny to initiate a criminal investigation into possible forgery, claiming that the date of her abduction complaint (see paragraph 22 above) had been unlawfully changed from 1 to 9 November 2009 (see paragraph 26 above). In reply to her request, on 7 June 2010 the department refused her request, as it was impossible to establish when the correction had been made to the document. The refusal was subsequently overruled but adopted again on four occasions. The last refusal to initiate criminal proceedings into the matter was taken on 12 December 2011.

On two occasions, 30 April and 30 August 2010, the applicant complained to the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny that the investigators had refused to grant her access to the case file concerning the investigation into her daughter’s disappearance. On 11 May and 5 October 2010 the court allowed her complaints.

On 10 December 2010 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny rejected a complaint by the applicant made on 19 November 2010 concerning the investigators’ refusal to question Mr Kadyrov due to his absence from the crime scene, in spite of widespread media coverage to the contrary (see paragraph 13 above). The court held that on 9 December 2010 the refusal had already been overruled by the deputy head of the Chechen investigation department.

On 17 January 2011 the applicant’s lawyers complained to the head of the Chechen investigation department that the investigation into Ms Zarema Gaysanova’s abduction had been suspended unlawfully, requesting that the proceedings be resumed and a number of steps be taken. In particular, they pointed out the following:

“... according to the criminal case file, the investigators have been verifying the theory that representatives of power structures were involved in Zarema Gaysanova’s abduction. The investigation established that the following servicemen had participated in the special operation (according to the operational information note of 31 October 2009, volume 2, page 49 of the case file):

the Argun department of the interior (OVD)

the Leninskiy district department of the interior in Grozny (ROVD)

the 8th regiment of the 2nd Regiment of the Chechen traffic police

the head of the Argun town administration security service

Also, from the same document it follows that the crime scene had been visited by senior officials of the Chechen law-enforcement agencies and operational investigation groups:

Chechen Minister of the Interior, Mr A.;

Chechen deputy Minister of the Interior, Mr E;

chief of the Grozny department of the interior (the Grozny OVD), Mr T.;

chief of the criminal search division of the Grozny OVD, Mr Sh.;

[the entire] operational investigation group of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior;

operational investigation group of the Grozny OVD; and

operational investigation group of the Leninskiy ROVD.

From the video footage made by the press office of the Chechen MVD, which has been incorporated into the case file, it is noticeable that a large number of representatives of the law-enforcement agencies participated in the special operation. However, as at today’s date, not all of the servicemen from the Argun OVD who participated in the special operation have been identified and questioned. At the same time, the statements given by the servicemen who had been questioned by the investigation, are very alike, almost copies of, the reports given by these servicemen to the chief of the Argun OVD. In addition, the servicemen from the other regiments have not been identified and questioned by the investigation. The persons in charge of the operation have not been questioned either, even though from the video of the special operation it appears that next to the applicant’s house were the Minister of the Interior and a group of officers from the Chechen MVD.

In addition, the supervising prosecutor’s orders (of 9 July and 23 August 2010) have not been complied with ...

... according to the evidence examination report of 28 September 2010 (pages 248 and 249 of the file) ... the video footage of the special operation on 31 October 2009 cannot be found on the Chechen MVD website. However, the investigators could examine the video footage presented by the applicant’s lawyers (see ... request of 22 April 2010, volume 5, pages 40-41) which was made from the video posted on the MVD website. This examination has not been carried out. It is necessary to examine this footage with the assistance of the police in order to identify the participants of the special operation on 31 October 2009 ...”

On 24 January 2011 the investigators refused to grant the request, but on 26 January 2011 the deputy head of the Chechen investigation department overruled that refusal and ordered that the request be granted.

On 19 April 2011 the applicant’s lawyers requested that the investigators take a number of steps including questioning the head of the Argun town administration, an examination of the video footage of the special operation of 31 October 2009, establishing which vehicles had been used during the operation and questioning the senior police officials and other officers who had participated. The applicant’s request also contained the following:

“... from the replies of the acting head of the Chechen MVD headquarters to the investigators’ requests it appears that ... the applicant’s complaint concerning her daughter’s abduction, which was received by the police department on 9 November 2009 at 7.10 p.m., stated that Zarema Gaysanova had left herself in an unknown destination and that the police had not received any complaints about her being abducted by unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms driving around in UAZ vehicles. At the same time, in [the actual] complaint lodged by the applicant with the police department stated that Zarema Gaysanova had been abducted by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms right after the special operation conducted on 31 October 2009 (see volume 1, page 26 of the investigation file). In connection with this it is necessary to question the acting head of the Chechen MVD headquarters to find out why he had provided false information to the investigators and what information they have concerning Zarema Gaysanova’s departure on her own to an unknown destination...

... It is also necessary to find out ... whether Zarema Gaysanova was the wife of [the man eliminated during the special operation] Mr A.Kh. and to question officer G., who had prepared a report to this end (no. 4912) concerning the sources of that information ...”

On 25 April 2011 the investigators granted the request in part, but did not specify which steps would be taken.

On 23 May 2011 the applicant’s lawyers requested that the investigators examine the video footage of the special operation which could be found in the archives section of the Chechen MVD official website and question the persons who had filmed the events. The lawyers provided the link to the footage and stated that the video contained clear images of the participants in the special operation. On 26 May 2011 the investigators informed the applicant that they would grant this request but did not specify when and to what extent.

On 25 May 2011 the applicant’s lawyers requested that the investigators question the Chechen Minister of the Interior Mr Alkhanov, as video footage of the special operation attested to his presence during the events, and ask him about the other participants in the operation. On 3 June 2011 the applicant was informed that the request had been granted.

On 24 August 2011 the applicant’s lawyers wrote to the investigators to say that Ms Zarema Gaysanova had been a user of an online social networking site, Odnoklassniki («Одноклассники»). The last visit to her account had been on 3 November 2009, after her abduction. In this connection, the lawyers requested that the investigators find out, amongst other things, the account activity since 31 October 2009. On 26 August 2011 the investigators informed the applicant that they had granted her request. It appears from the documents submited that the requested action was not taken.

On 29 July 2011 the investigators refused to grant the applicant’s request of 28 July 2011 for access to the case file, stating that it had been lodged by her lawyer and not by the applicant herself.

On 27 April 2012 the applicant’s lawyer again requested the investigators to grant him permission to access the investigation file, stressing that he had been representing the applicant in accordance with the criminal procedure law and forms of authority. His request was granted the same day.


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

The applicants were born in 1983, 1973, 1983, 1986, 1984 and 1984. Mr Yaşar Çalışkan lives in Ankara. The other applicants live in Samsun. According to the applicants’ submissions, which were not contested by the Government, at the time of the lodging of the application, they were serving the prison sentences arising out of their criminal convictions which gave rise to the present application.

On 17 and 18 June 2005 seventeen members of the Maoist Communist Party (hereinafter “the MKP”), an illegal organisation, were killed in a rural area within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Ovacık, near the city of Tunceli, by members of the security forces.

On 21 June 2005 a gathering was held in protest at the alleged unlawful killings of 17 and 18 June 2005 in Samsun. University students from the Samsun Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, including the applicants, gathered in front of the building of the Black Sea Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Association (Karadeniz Temel Haklar ve Özgürlükler Derneği) where a press statement was read out.

On 8 July 2005 one of the applicants, Mr Ahmet Doğan, attended another reading out of a press statement in Samsun. The press statement concerned the killings of 17 and 18 June 2005, the arrest of a number of persons subsequent to the reading out of the press statement on 21 June 2005 and the alleged unlawful killing of a detainee by the police.

On 21 February 2007 the Ankara public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against twenty-three people, including the applicants, charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the MKP, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). According to the indictment, during the gathering of 21 June 2005, slogans such as “Long live revolutionary solidarity” (“Yaşasın devrimci dayanışma”), “We have paid a price. We will make them pay a price.” (“Bedel ödedik, bedel ödeteceğiz.”), “Murderer State” (“Katil devlet”), “Revolutionary martyrs are immortal” (“Devrim şehitleri ölümsüzdür.”), “Martyrs are immortal” (“Şehit namırın”), were chanted and the applicants participated in the gathering. The public prosecutor further noted that Mr Ahmet Doğan had participated in the gathering of 8 June 2005, during which the following slogans had been chanted: “No emancipation alone, either all of us or none of us.” (“Kurtuluş yok tek başına, ya hep beraber ya hiçbirimiz.)”, “Arrests, provocations and coercion cannot discourage us.” (“Tutuklamalar, provakasyonlar, baskılar bizi yıldıramaz.”), “We will resist and succeed” (“Direne direne kazanacağız.”), “We have paid a price; we will make them pay a price.” “Bedel ödedik, bedel ödeteceğiz”).

On 31 March 2009 the Ankara Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to ten months’ imprisonment pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, except for Mr Ahmet Doğan, who was sentenced to twenty months’ imprisonment. As regards the gathering of 21 June 2005, the assize court found it established that the slogan “Martyrs are immortal” had been chanted by Mr Kürşad Arslan, Ms Dilek Kömpe, Mr Olcay Bayraktar and Mr Ahmet Doğan and that the slogans “The murderer state will pay the price”, “Revolutionary martyrs are immortal” and “Long live revolutionary solidarity” had been chanted by Mr Yaşar Çalışkan, Mr Kürşad Arslan and Ms Dilek Kömpe. The court also found it established that all the applicants except for Mr Olcay Bayraktar had chanted the slogan “We have paid a price; we will make them pay a price” and that Mr Ahmet Doğan had carried a banner bearing the slogan “Ovacık Martyrs are immortal”. As regards the gathering of 8 July 2005, the court noted that Mr Ahmet Doğan had chanted the slogans “Arrests, provocations and coercion cannot discourage us.”, “We will resist and succeed” and “We have paid a price; we will make them pay a price.” during that public gathering.

In its judgment, the Ankara Assize Court referred to Article 10 of the Convention as well as to the Court’s judgment in the case of Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) ([GC], no. 26682/95, ECHR 1999IV) and the report of the European Commission of Human Rights in the case of Karataş v. Turkey (no. 23168/94, Commission’s report of 11 December 1997). The court held that by chanting the above-mentioned slogans the applicants had not exercised their democratic rights but had glorified terror by adopting the style of discourse of terror organisations and that they had not distanced themselves from violence. In the court’s view, by chanting those slogans the applicants had not intended to find a solution to a problem but had praised and glorified the source of the problem, that is to say, the terrorist organisations concerned. Hence, the applicants had incited terror. The Ankara Assize Court concluded that chanting the slogans in question could not be considered as falling within the scope of the right to freedom of expression.

On 8 July 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 31 March 2009 in so far as it concerned the applicants’ conviction.

On unspecified dates the applicants served their prison sentences.


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano

The applicant, Ms Vidosava Kaluđerović-Brajović, is a Montenegrin national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Podgorica. She was represented before the Court by Ms D. Kisjelica, a lawyer practising in Herceg Novi.

The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Pažin.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:

On 9 June 2005 the Commission for Restitution and Compensation (Komisija za povraćaj i obeštećenje Opštine Podgorica; hereinafter “the Commission”) awarded the applicant and her co-claimants a total amount of EUR 1,285,765.75 as compensation for the property which had been expropriated from their relatives in 1950 and 1962. The applicant herself was awarded 1/24 of the total amount, that is EUR 53,573.57. The decision specified that the amount was to be paid within 15 days as of the date when the decision became final.

On 9 November 2005 the Ministry of Finance (Ministarstvo finansija) declared the Commission’s decision null and void (oglašeno je ništavim).

On 2 February 2006 the Administrative Court (Upravni sud) quashed the decision of the Ministry of Finance. In so doing, the court held, inter alia, that the Commission’s decision properly (pravilno) specified the applicant and her co-claimants as being entitled to the compensation and awarded them the relevant amounts accordingly.

On 17 November 2005 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica declared that it lacked competence (oglašava se nenadležnim) to decide on the applicant’s request for enforcement of the Commission’s decision dated 9 June 2005, relying on sections 268 and 269 of the General Administrative Proceedings Act as well as on section 37 of the Restitution of Expropriated Property Rights and Compensation Act (see paragraphs 3031 and 20 below).

On 20 December 2005 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica upheld the said decision of the Court of First Instance.

On 29 June 2007 the Court of First Instance once again declared that it lacked competence to decide on the applicant’s renewed request for enforcement.

In March 2006 the Compensation Fund started paying the awarded amount to the applicant in instalments pursuant to the relevant legislation (see paragraphs 17 and 23 below). By April 2011 the applicant had received EUR 10,307.25 in total.

On 21 December 2007 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant, upon her enquiry, that the frequency of payment was regulated by the relevant statutory provisions and that the Ministry had no competence to make any changes in that regard.

On 18 September 2006 the applicant, upon her own request, was issued with bonds (obveznice), the value of which was EUR 50,002. In September 2009 she returned the bonds and had her right to pecuniary compensation re-established.

By April 2011 some of the applicant’s co-claimants, X and Y, had passed away and the compensation awarded to them had been transferred to and divided amongst their heirs. In particular, X’s five heirs inherited between EUR 6,122.69 and EUR 24,490.77, and out of these sums they received between EUR 3,024 and EUR 11,633.10, respectively, in pecuniary compensation and the remainder of the respective amounts in bonds. Y’s four heirs each inherited EUR 13,393.39, out of which they received by April 2011 EUR 6,777.43 in pecuniary compensation.

As submitted by the Government, there were 10,700 requests for restitution and/or compensation in total. The Compensation Fund received 1,118 final decisions in favour of compensation, the total value of which amounted to EUR 185,691,379.35. Of this sum more than EUR 19,000,000 was paid in money, and additional EUR 90,000,000 in bonds. The bonds worth EUR 87,701,528, that is 46.89% of the entire compensation awarded, were used on the market pursuant to section 25 of the relevant legislation (see paragraphs 18 and 24 below).

As submitted by the applicant 0.5% of the respondent State’s GDP in 2005 was EUR 8,450,000 and in 2006 it was EUR 9,145,000.

Section 4 (2) of this Act, which entered into force on 8 April 2004, provides that the General Administrative Proceedings Act applies to proceedings concerning restitution and/or compensation, unless otherwise provided by this Act.

Section 22 (1) states that a “former owner, who has no right to restitution of the property rights [in integrum], can have, in accordance with this law, the right to: (a) pecuniary compensation (obeštećenje novčanim sredstvima), which shall be paid from the Compensation Fund to applicants in proportion to the amount of all the claims registered, within 30 days as of the expiration of the time-limit envisaged for submitting requests and, after that, every six months, according to the availability of funds in the Compensation Fund, until the amounts due are fully paid; or (b) compensation in bonds (obeštećenje obveznicama)”.

Section 25 provides, inter alia, that the bonds can be sold or used for purchase of the stocks, shares and other property of the State and State funds. The owner of these bonds is entitled to return them to the Compensation Fund within eighteen months as of the date when they were obtained, and request that the right to pecuniary compensation be re-established. The owner of the bonds that have expired also has the right to return them and to seek re-establishment of pecuniary compensation. The Compensation Fund shall issue relevant decisions recognising the right to pecuniary compensation corresponding to the value of the unused bonds.

Section 34 provides that the Commission for Restitution and Compensation is to decide on restitution/compensation requests and determine, inter alia, the time-period within which the compensation is to be paid (rok za obeštećenje).

Section 37 provides that decisions on pecuniary compensation and compensation in bonds are to be enforced by the Compensation Fund. The same provision also provides that enforcements (prinudno izvršenje) shall be carried out in accordance with the Enforcement Procedure Act.

Section 44 further provides, inter alia, that the Compensation Fund, a legal entity, shall be established by the Government, and that its organisation and functioning is to be regulated by a Government decree.

The Restitution and Compensation Act was amended in 2007, the relevant changes being as follows.

While Section 22 (1) still provides for the right to pecuniary compensation from the Compensation Fund in proportion to the amount of all the claims, it has now been amended so as to also provide, inter alia, that the total annual amount of compensation cannot be higher than 0.5% of the Montenegrin GDP in the previous year, that the compensation is to be paid to claimants in annual instalments according to the funds available in the Compensation Fund, and that the periodicity of the payments is to be established by the Government.

Section 25 provides that the bonds can also be used for paying taxes. They can be returned to the Compensation Fund within 36 months as of the day when they were obtained and their owners can seek that their pecuniary compensation be re-established.

The Act entered into force on 18 August 2007.

Section 1 (2) provided, inter alia, that the provisions of this Act were applicable to the enforcement of administrative decisions ordering pecuniary compensation, unless the law provided for a competence of some other body for such enforcement.

Section 3 provided that the courts were responsible for enforcement unless otherwise provided by law.

Section 4 § 1 provided that enforcement proceedings were to be dealt with expeditiously.

Section 2 provides that [other] institutions and legal entities performing public functions (u vršenju javnih ovlašćenja) shall comply with this law when ruling in administrative matters.

Section 268 provides that administrative decisions shall, in principle, be enforced in an administrative manner (administrative enforcement).

Section 269 specifies that both pecuniary and non-pecuniary awards shall be enforced in an administrative manner.

Section 275 provides that administrative pecuniary awards shall be enforced by an administrative body responsible for the public revenue.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in 1971. He is currently detained in Iaşi Prison.

On 8 February 2012 the applicant was detained pending trial on charges of human trafficking and was placed in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility (Centrul de Reţinere şi Arestare Preventivă al Inspectoratului de Poliţie Judeţeană Bacău).

On 6 March 2012 he was transferred to Bacău Prison.

In his initial letters to the Court the applicant stated that in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility he had been forced to sleep on the floor because there had been more detainees than beds. He was forced to eat without cutlery and sitting on the floor because the cell was unfurnished. In addition, he was not provided with a blanket and had to share the room with smokers even though he was a non-smoker.

In the same letters he also stated that in Bacău Prison he had had to sleep in overcrowded, flooded and damp cells infested with bed bugs, without furniture and on very old, smelly and lumpy mattresses without any bed linen, blanket or pillow. He was forced to eat sitting on the floor and was not provided with a broom or any cleaning products. The bathroom pipes and lavatories were defective and he had been splashed with waste from the pipes located on the ceiling. The rooms smelled and he could not sleep at night on account of the constant noise made by some detainees and their conversations with the women inmates detained in the same prison. Furthermore, he was forced on many occasions to eat spoiled food because there was no refrigerator. There was no access to natural light, nor any ventilation or opportunity to air the cells. The food was insufficient and poorly cooked. He was not allowed more than one hour of outdoor exercise per day and his health was affected because he had to share the cell with smoking detainees, even though he was a non-smoker.

The applicant was detained in cell no. 3 of the Bacau Police Department’s detention facilities. The cell measured 12.82 sq. m and contained four beds. During the first day of his detention the applicant shared the cell with three other inmates. For the remainder of his time in police custody he shared his cell with two other inmates.

The applicant was assigned a bed, and was provided with a mattress, a blanket and a pillow. The cell was also fitted with a window which ensured natural ventilation and light, a radiator for heating the cell and with air-conditioning. No other furniture was available in the cell.

On 16 September 2013 the Service for the Coordination of Pre-trial Detention Centers attached to the Romanian Police Inspectorate informed the Government that it would have been impossible to have separated smokers and non-smokers in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility on account of the large number of smokers.

The applicant was detained in Bacău Prison from 6 March to 6 November 2012 and from 13 November 2012 to 2 April 2013.

The applicant was detained in several cells measuring 33.23, 32.09, 27.22, 35.81, 39.36, 18.52 and 27.05 sq. m, which he shared with a maximum number of six, two, fourteen, ten, ten, eight and eleven other detainees, respectively.

The cells had bathrooms, toilets and showers. They were fitted with windows for natural light and ventilation. The available furniture allowed the detainees to store their clothes and eat. The cells were also fitted with radiators, which were connected to the prison’s central heating system.

Every detainee was assigned a bed and was provided with a mattress, a blanket and a pillow.

In August 2012 the cells in which the applicant was detained were extensively renovated and repaired, and the water infiltration problem on the ceilings was fixed.

The cells were properly ventilated. The food was prepared according to the rules in force. Its quality and taste were tested daily by, inter alia, a representative assigned by the detainees.

The detainees were responsible for cleaning the cells using cleaning materials provided regularly by the prison authorities and given to the detainees against their signature. They also had access to running water.

The cells were disinfected regularly each trimester or as often as required, and the detainees were allowed a minimum of three hours’ outdoor exercise per day.

When he was transferred to Bacău Prison, the applicant declared that he was a non-smoker. However, having been informed by the prison authorities that, as a non-smoker, he could not buy cigarettes, he did not ask to be detained in a cell reserved for non-smokers. In addition, according to the information submitted by the prison authorities, supported by evidence, during his detention in Bacău Prison between 13 March 2012 and 18 March 2013 the applicant had regularly purchased cigarettes and lighters.

On 24 April 2012 and on an unspecified date the applicant brought two sets of criminal proceedings against some of the staff members and the medical personnel of the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility, claiming that they had not provided him with adequate medical care and had failed to correctly fulfil their professional duties. In addition, he claimed that on 20 February 2012 he had been hit and threatened by several State agents, including S.B., which resulted in him losing his eyesight.

By decisions of 28 June and 12 September 2012 the Bacău Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Cassation, respectively, discontinued the criminal proceedings. They held that the doctor and other medical and regular staff at the detention facility were constantly involved in examining and appropriately treating the detainees. In addition, according to the available medical reports, the applicant had not suffered any recent trauma in the eye region, but was suffering from severe eyesight problems which made it unlikely that even if he underwent surgery his eyesight would be restored. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the decisions before the domestic courts.

By an interlocutory judgment of 5 March 2012 the post-sentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint that the Bacău Police Department’s authorities had not allowed him to receive an electric television set. The applicant was advised to get a battery-powered one.

By an interlocutory judgment of 1 November 2012 the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaints that the Bacău Prison authorities had refused to allow him to receive chocolate from his wife and that they had forwarded several medical documents from his prison file to the Bacău Police Department without his consent. It held that according to the information provided by the prison authorities there was no evidence that the applicant had not been allowed to receive chocolate from his wife. In addition, Law no. 275/2006 did not provide that medical documents were confidential in so far as the criminal investigation bodies were concerned.

By an interlocutory judgment of 29 November 2012 the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint that his right to private life and information had been breached because the Bacău Prison authorities had unlawfully cut the power after 11 p.m. On the same date the applicant’s complaint that the Bacău Prison authorities had refused to provide him with copies of the requests he had lodged before them was also dismissed for lack of competence ratione materiae.

By an interlocutory judgment of 5 December 2012 the postsentencing judge allowed the applicant’s complaint that his right to correspondence had been breached in so far as the Bacău Prison authorities had retained some summonses issued in his name and a judgment delivered by the domestic courts in connection with criminal proceedings instituted against him. The judge ordered the Bacău Prison authorities to stop retaining the applicant’s correspondence and to give it to him.

By an interlocutory judgment of 14 January 2013 the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint that the Bacău Prison authorities had not allowed him to receive chocolate and prescribed medication from his wife. It held that there was no proof that his wife had brought him chocolate and that the prison authorities had denied it to him. The medication had been returned to his wife because she had brought him capsules instead of tablets as required by law. Moreover, the medication had to be given to the prison’s medical office and not directly to the applicant, and had to be managed separately.

By an interlocutory judgment of 11 February 2013 the postsentencing judge dismissed as inadmissible the complaint lodged by the applicant against the Bacau Prison authorities that the food received on a particular day had been insufficient and had not contained the correct ingredients.

By an interlocutory judgment of 19 February 2013 the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaints that the Bacău Prison authorities had turned off the electricity after 11 p.m., thereby breaching his statutory right to watch television as long as the national television station was being broadcast, and had failed to ensure that he could sleep eight hours a night without disturbance from other detainees. The judge held that the prison authorities did not have a legal duty to keep the electricity on and to allow him to watch television after 11 p.m. In addition, they could not force every detainee to sleep at night. Silence could be enforced by punishments imposed by the prison’s disciplinary commission.

By an interlocutory judgment of 11 March 2013 the post-sentencing judge dismissed as time-barred the applicant’s complaint against the Bacău Prison authorities for failing to commit him to a psychiatric unit following a recommendation of the Jilava Prison Hospital.

The applicant challenged some of the interlocutory judgments delivered by the post-sentencing judge before the domestic courts, but subsequently withdrew his challenge. There is no evidence in the file that he appealed against any of the interlocutory judgments before the domestic courts.

On 7 March 2012 the Târgu-Ocna Prison Hospital informed the Bacău Prison authorities that they would accept the applicant after a psychiatrist from the Bacău Emergency County Hospital recommended the applicant’s hospitalization.

On 9 September 2013 the Bacău Prison authorities informed the Government and submitted documents attesting that the applicant had bought items from the prison shops at least three times between 5 November and 6 December 2012.

On the same date the Bacău Prison authorities also informed the Government that the applicant’s request of 19 March 2013 that he be categorised as a vulnerable detainee had been allowed and he had been transferred to a cell reserved for vulnerable detainees.