Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Novosibirsk.

On 8 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and placed in pre-trial detention pursuant to an order of the Berdsk District Court of the Novosibirsk Region (“the Berdsk District Court”).

Between 3 June 2003 and 12 May 2004 the Berdsk District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions. On the latter date it ordered that he remain in detention until 12 August 2004. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the absence of any grounds to change that particular preventive measure.

On 11 August 2004 the Berdsk District Court convicted the applicant as charged and he was sentenced to imprisonment. It also ordered that he remain in detention until his conviction became final.

On 15 December 2004 the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the applicant’s conviction and sent his case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. Its decision stated that the preventive measure applied to him “should remain unchanged”.

In an interlocutory hearing on 9 March 2005 the Berdsk District Court examined a request by the applicant for release pending trial, subject to him either giving an undertaking not to leave a specified place or the application of a different preventive measure. He argued, in particular, that the Novosibirsk Regional Court’s brief indication in its decision of 15 December 2004 that the preventive measure applied to him should remain unchanged could not serve as a sufficient legal basis for his continued detention. In this connection, the Berdsk District Court noted that the Novosibirsk Regional Court’s decision, in so far as it had concerned the preventive measure, had been lawful as it had been taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of national law. It further did not consider it possible to release the applicant pending trial on account of the seriousness of charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of Russia, with the result that he might abscond if at liberty or put pressure on witnesses. The court thus ordered that his detention be extended until 15 June 2005.

On 6 April 2005 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 9 March 2005 on appeal. It stated that the Berdsk District Court, in convicting the applicant on 11 August 2004, had indicated that he should remain in detention until that judgment became final. It further noted that when quashing the conviction, it itself had stated that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unchanged, and that then, in accordance with Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code, the Berdsk District Court had extended the applicant’s detention for three months. It thus concluded that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was lawful, wellfounded and based on a court order.

On 8 June 2005 the Berdsk District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 15 September 2005. He requested his release, stating that he had been in custody for a long time and that his health had deteriorated. The court held that there were no grounds to change the preventive measure applied to him. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of Russia, with the result that he might abscond or influence witnesses if released.

On 5 September 2005 the Berdsk District Court ordered that the applicant remain in detention until 15 December 2005. He asked the court to change the preventive measure, referring to the poor state of his health and the fact that he had already been kept in detention for a long time. He further argued that he would not abscond, given that his family lived in Berdsk and owned property nearby. The court stated that because the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious offence, had pleaded not guilty, was a foreign national and was not registered within the territory of Russia, he might seek to evade justice. It also stated that the extension of his detention was necessary, in view of the fact that an expert examination in his case was being carried out in Moscow at the time.

On 14 December 2005 the Berdsk District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 15 March 2006. He asked to be released, arguing that he had a child and family in the Novosibirsk Region as well as property nearby where he could be registered. He had also already spent a long time in detention and his state of health had deteriorated. The court gave reasons similar to those indicated in its decision of 5 September 2005.

On 15 March 2006 the Berdsk District Court ordered the applicant’s release, subject to him giving an undertaking not to leave a specified place. The court noted that he had been kept in detention for a long time, and that his wife and child lived in Novosibirsk, where the latter went to school. It also took into account the fact that they were Russian nationals, and that there was therefore a possibility, and a place, for the applicant to live in the Novosibirsk Region pending trial. The court further noted that the results of the expert examination carried out in Moscow had since been received. It also referred to the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record, had positive references from his place of residence and place of work and needed medical treatment as his health had deteriorated.

On 19 May 2006 the Berdsk District Court acquitted the applicant. In the operative part of its judgment it stated that he had a right to “rehabilitation” (реабилитация) and that it was open to him to claim compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

On 21 August 2006 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the acquittal on appeal.

After his acquittal the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the authorities in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk under Articles 131 and 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 136 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He claimed 10,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for the pecuniary damage resulting from his unlawful prosecution and detention, and RUB 120,761 for costs and expenses. He argued, in particular, that as a result of being prosecuted for an offence he had not committed he had been deprived of his liberty, which had caused him and his family suffering. Furthermore, he could not work and his health had deteriorated.

On 30 January 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage and awarded him RUB 500,000 (approximately 12,500 euros). In its reasoning the court firstly noted that under Article 5 of the Convention everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in breach of that provision should have the right to compensation. It further noted that by virtue of the Berdsk District Court’s judgment of 19 May 2006 the applicant had been acquitted and his right to “rehabilitation” had been recognised. On this basis the court found that he had been unlawfully prosecuted, unlawfully detained from 8 April 2003 to 15 March 2006 and, subsequently, unlawfully subjected to an undertaking not to leave a specified place. It further stated that, where a person’s right to rehabilitation had been recognised, the existence of non-pecuniary damage was presumed and it was only the amount to be awarded that had to be established. For these purposes the court took into account the suffering caused to the applicant and the fact that his health had deteriorated. It relied on Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Civil Code in this regard.

On the same date the Oktyabrskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses, on the grounds that it could not be examined within the civil proceedings but rather should be brought within criminal proceedings.

On 18 March 2008 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

Between 2003 and 2006, during the examination of the applicant’s case, he was on several occasions taken to the temporary detention facility of the Berdsk Office of the Interior (“the Berdsk IVS”) so that he could take part in the proceedings.

The applicant provided the following information concerning his detention in the IVS:

- between 6 and 15 April and 13 and 20 May 2003 he was held with one cellmate in cell no. 9, which measured less than 6 square metres and was equipped with two beds;

- between 5 and 12 August 2003 he was again held in cell no. 9, but this time with three cellmates;

- between 7 and 21 October 2003 and 3 and 10 February 2004 he was held with nine cellmates in cell no. 6, which measured around 16 square metres;

- between 11 and 18 May 2004 he was again held in cell no. 6, but this time with five cellmates;

- between 15 and 18 June 2004 he was held with nine cellmates in cell no. 4, which measured around 18 square metres and was equipped with six beds;

- between 15 and 20 July 2004 he was again held in cell no. 9, but this time with two cellmates;

- between 27 July and 13 August 2004 he was held with one cellmate in cell no. 11, which measured 5.75 square metres and was equipped with one bed;

- between 31 August and 7 September 2004 he was held with eleven cellmates in cell no. 8, which measured around 18 square metres and was equipped with six beds;

- between 3 and 18 March, 17 and 24 May, 7 and 10 June, 30 and 31 August and 13 and 20 December 2005, and between 14 and 15 March 2006, the applicant was again held in cell no. 8 with six, eight, five, two, six and eight cellmates respectively;

- between 31 August and 6 September 2005 the applicant was again held in cell no. 11, but this time with two cellmates.

None of the cells was equipped with a wash basin, which made basic hygiene procedures impossible. Detainees could take a shower only once every ten days. There was no partition between the lavatory and the rest of the room, which offered no privacy. The cells were infested with bedbugs and no pest control treatments were ever conducted. As there were no windows, there was no fresh air or daylight. The ventilation system was turned on very rarely, so the cells were stuffy and humid and in summer it was hard to breathe. The artificial lighting was insufficient, which affected detainees’ eyesight. The fact that there were no tables and chairs was humiliating as detainees had to eat, prepare for hearings and write complaints and applications while sitting on the floor. Food was served only once a day and the applicant was constantly hungry. Walks outside the cells were irregular and did not last for more than fifteen minutes.

According to the Government, they were unable to provide exact information about the cells the applicant was held in 2003 and part of 2004 or the number of inmates he was held with, as the relevant documents had been destroyed on the expiry of their storage period.

They did, however, provide the following information concerning the applicant’s detention in the Berdsk IVS in 2004 to 2006:

- between 11 and 18 May 2004 he was held with six inmates in cell no. 6, which measured 17.3 square metres;

- between 3 and 18 March, 17 and 24 May, 7 and 10 June and 13 and 20 December 2005, and between 14 and 15 March 2006, he was held with six to nine inmates in cell no. 8, which measured 18.3 square metres;

- between 30 August and 6 September 2005 he was held with two cellmates in cell no. 11, which measured 5.75 square metres.

The cells did not have windows but were ventilated. They contained no other furniture apart from beds. The number of cellmates exceeded the number of available beds. Each cell had a wall-mounted lavatory, but there was no partition to divide it from the rest of the cell. The cells were cleaned daily, and pest control treatments were conducted every three months.

Detainees were each provided with bedding, towels, crockery and cutlery. Shaving items were made available upon request at least twice a week. Detainees were taken for a daily walk of a minimum of one hour in a yard measuring 48.8 square metres. Hot meals were provided three times a day.

On 30 August 2005 a group of police officers of the Berdsk Office of the Interior accompanied by an officer of the Berdsk IVS entered the applicants’ cell to inspect it.

According to the applicant, the police officers ordered him and his cellmates to stay crouched down with their hands on the back of their heads and started checking their personal belongings and sleeping places. One of the officers threw a pillow on the floor and the applicant moved to pick it up. An officer tried to then kick him in the head, but as he tried to cover himself with his arms, he kicked him in the arm. The officers insulted and threatened him.

On the same date the applicant complained about the above incident to the Berdsk prosecutor’s office and the Department of Internal Security of the Department of the Interior of the Novosibirsk Region.

On 6 September 2005 an investigator of the Berdsk prosecutor’s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the incident. The decision stated, in particular, that according to the statements given by the police officers and the head of the Berdsk IVS, no physical force had been used against the applicant. Detainee N., who according to the applicant had remained in the cell and had witnessed the incident, submitted that when the police officers had started the inspection he had left the cell and waited in the corridor. He had heard the applicant arguing with the police officers. When he had re-entered the cell after the inspection, the applicant had told him about the incident and had said that he would be making a complaint. However, N. had not seen him be kicked in the arm. His statement was confirmed by Sh., an officer of the Berdsk IVS who was on duty on 30 August 2005, who stated that N. had been outside the cell during the inspection. The investigator concluded that there was no evidence that an offence had been committed. The decision stated that it could be appealed against to a higher prosecutor or a court.

The Berdsk prosecutor’s office informed the applicant of the decision by letter on 27 September 2005. According to the applicant, he was not informed of the decision.

Nevertheless, the applicant complained about the decision to a higher prosecutor.

On 26 October 2005 the prosecutor of Berdsk dismissed the complaint and upheld the decision.

The applicant did not appeal against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings to a court.


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, § 12-41, 24 May 2011).

The applicants or their close relatives participated in demonstrations and were injured or killed by gunfire during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest, Brașov and Vișina which led to the fall of the communist regime.

In 1990 the military prosecutor’s offices from several cities opened criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators, including the applicants’ injury or their close relatives’ death during these events. The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). In a number of cases the prosecutor decided between 1991 and 1996 not to open an investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. These cases were further examined in the main criminal investigation file irrespective of a formal decision ordering re-opening, applicants being questioned by the prosecutor and raising civil claims, according to the circumstances of each case.

The most important procedural steps were described in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41), and also in Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania (nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§ 6-15, 12 April 2016). Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are shown below.

On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor’s office closed the main investigation, finding that the complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty, and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the occurrences could not be classified as offences and some were res judicatae (see Anamaria-Loredana Orășanu and Others v. Romania [Committee], no. 43629/13, § 11, 7 November 2017).

The decision of 14 October 2015 was annulled by a Prosecutor General’s decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. It was noted that the investigation in file no. 11/P/2014 was incomplete and that the facts could not be established based on the evidence gathered up to that date.

On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the initiation in rem of a criminal investigation for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same circumstances of fact. Up to February 2017 further steps were taken in gathering information from domestic authorities, the prosecutor’s office contacting 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of events, planning the hearing of military officers and other participants in the events, verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio/video recordings broadcast by radio and television.

At the date of the latest information available to the Court (submitted by the parties on 13 April 2017 and 19 May 2017), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.


Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant, Ms Faruk Rooma Alam, is a Pakistani national who was born in 1982 and lives in Denmark. She was represented before the Court by Ms Karoline Normann, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen.

summarised as follows.

The applicant stated that she entered Denmark in 1984, when she was approximately 2 years old, to join her father, who already lived there. It is not known when her mother and siblings arrived.

The applicant was registered with the Danish National Register (folkeregisteret) as from 18 January 1986. On 2 February 2001 she was granted a permanent residence permit.

The applicant went to school and studied to be a datamathematician.

In 1999, when the applicant was 16 years old, her parents arranged her marriage to F, a Pakistani national, in Pakistan.

In May 1999, F entered Denmark on a tourist visa. After 3 months, he returned to Pakistan. During the subsequent years they visited each other in Denmark and Pakistan.

On 27 November 2000, the applicant gave birth in Denmark to their son, M, a Pakistani national.

On 1 March 2004, the applicant gave birth in Denmark to their daughter, I, a Pakistani national.

The applicant maintained that F was violent and that in 2006, when she had been in Pakistan to attend her brother’s wedding, she and the children had been locked up for days by F and his family, in order to keep her in Pakistan. She had managed to escape, but F had found them and kidnapped M. With assistance from the Danish Embassy, the applicant and I had returned to Denmark. After some time, F had agreed that M be returned to the applicant in Denmark. Thereafter the applicant did not return to Pakistan and the spouses had no contact. They divorced in 2006 or 2007. In 2008 the applicant was granted sole custody of M and I.

In Denmark the applicant lived with her children, her mother and a brother.

On 31 August 2011 she was convicted of social security fraud and given a six-month suspended sentence.

On 14 September 2012 the applicant was detained and charged with, inter alia, murder.

On 17 December 2013, she was convicted by a City Court (retten i Roskilde) of murder, attempted aggravated robbery and arson under Articles 237, 288 in conjunction with 21, and 180 of the Penal Code. She was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The City Court found it established, among other things, that the applicant had had a relationship with a Pakistani man who later married N, for which reason the applicant, who was 30 years old at the time, planned to murder N. With the help of her 19-year-old nephew and his 17-year-old friend, they watched the spouses’ apartment and, when they were certain that N was alone, they entered, masked, armed with a meat tenderiser and carrying petrol. Then they searched in vain for valuables, poured petrol over N and set her alight. She burned to death, and the apartment burned out, thereby also endangering the lives of the other inhabitants of the residential building.

By the same judgment, the applicant was expelled from Denmark with a life-long ban on returning. Before the City Court, the Aliens Board (Udlændingestyrelsen) gave a statement about the applicant’s situation, including, inter alia, that she had stayed legally in Denmark for approximately 27 years, that she spoke Danish, English, German, Pashto, Urdu and Punjabi, and that her mother and five siblings lived in Denmark. Moreover, since the children’s residence permits were dependent on the applicant living in Denmark, expulsion might have consequences for them.

Before the City Court, the applicant stated that most of her family in Denmark had obtained Danish nationality. Her father, who had died in 2003, had been married before, and she had half-siblings in Pakistan from that marriage. Her mother went often to Pakistan and owned a house there. Her children, at that time aged 9 and 13, had been placed with her sister and her husband since the applicant’s arrest. She was afraid that their father, F, would kidnap them and take them to Pakistan. He had obtained a Spanish passport. The children spoke Danish, and M also spoke a little Pashto in order to be able to talk to his maternal grandmother.

In respect of the expulsion order the City Court stated:

“[The applicant] who is 30 years old, entered Denmark ... when she was one and a half years old. She has had all her upbringing, schooling and education in this country. Her mother and most of her siblings live in Denmark and are Danish citizens. Moreover, her children, who are 9 and 13 years old, live in Denmark. However, [the applicant] has maintained what must be considered a real attachment to Pakistan and Pakistani culture. With her mother she speaks only Pashto, and her family is integrated as a central part of her network. She has previously been to Pakistan, where she has two half-sisters, and her mother often goes to Pakistan, where she owns a house. Against this background, and having regard to the fact that [the applicant] is punished with life imprisonment for attempted aggravated robbery, murder and arson, and since the above-stated about the risk of double punishment and persecution and considerations for the applicant’s children cannot lead to another decision, expulsion will not breach Article 8 of the Convention or Denmark’s international obligations otherwise, see section 26, subsection 2, of the Aliens Act. Against this background there are 12 votes in favour of granting the expulsion request with a lifelong ban on returning by virtue of section 49, subsection 1, in conjunction with section 22, no. 6 and section 32, subsection 2, no. 5.”

The applicant appealed against the judgment to the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret) before which she explained, among other things, that her children had visited her in prison once or twice a week. F had requested custody of the children and that case was pending before the City Court. He had attempted, in vain, to obtain a residence permit in Denmark.

By judgment of 4 September 2014, the High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to 16 years’ imprisonment. Adhering to the reasons set out by the City Court, it upheld the expulsion order.

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Højesteret) was refused on 13 January 2015.

On 6 March 2015, the applicant married a Danish citizen.

By judgment of 29 June 2015, F’s request for custody of M and I was refused. From that judgment it appeared that the applicant had consented to her children being officially placed with her sister and her husband. The children were well-adjusted. They had not seen F for seven years. In the period from 2007 to 2012 he had not contacted them at all. They wanted to live with their mother, together with their aunt and uncle (with whom they lived). They did not want to live with their father in Pakistan. Even if the father had the possibility to move to Denmark, they did not want to live with him. They did not want contact with him.

The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion were recently set out in detail in Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016.

Article 38 of the Penal Code sets out that release on parole may take place at the expiry of two-third of the term of imprisonment, or in special circumstances, take place earlier, provided that the prisoner has served at least half of the sentence, and this constitutes a period of at least two months. If a sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed, leave on parole can only take place after the prisoner has served at least twelve years (Article 41).


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

The applicants were born in 1970, 1973, 1999, 2001 and 2007 respectively. The Court has not been informed of their current place of residence.

The first and second applicants, a married couple, arrived in Bulgaria in 1997. Their three children, the remaining applicants, were born in that country. All members of the family were granted permanent resident permits. In 2005 the first applicant bought a flat in Sofia, where the family lived.

On 29 May 2008 the head of the National Security Service issued an order withdrawing the first applicant’s residence permit, ordering his expulsion and imposing a ten-year ban on his reentering Bulgaria, on the ground that his presence in the country represented a “serious threat to national security”. Factual grounds justifying the order were not indicated; it was merely noted that it was based on “proposal no. B849”.

That proposal, drawn up by the National Security Service on 27 May 2008 and initially classified, was declassified on 22 February 2016 and has been submitted by the Government. It stated that, according to intelligence data, the first applicant was the leader of an international terrorist group, working towards the aiding and financing of Chechen extremist and separatist organisations. It also stated that he was being searched on the territory of the Russian Federation and that his actions lowered the prestige and the interests of the Bulgarian State. The document claimed, in addition, that the first applicant had been implicated in extortion, drug trafficking, smuggling, money laundering and other criminal activities. No evidence was provided to substantiate those claims, even though the document referred to some specific facts. It was stated, for example, that in 2006 the applicant and another person had attempted to smuggle into Bulgaria a “highly toxic substance”, and that, also in 2006, he had threatened the seller of an expensive property in Varna forcing him to choose as a buyer a person close to the applicant.

On 12 June 2008 the first applicant applied for judicial review of the expulsion order. He disputed the allegation that he represented “a serious threat to national security”. He pointed out that his family was living in Bulgaria and that his children had been born in the country, and claimed that the proposed separation of his family was “unjustified”.

During the ensuing proceedings the applicant and his representative were shown proposal no. B849 and they presented evidence seeking to disprove some of the allegations it contained. In particular, the first applicant presented certificates issued by the Bulgarian and the Russian authorities stating that he had no convictions in the two countries and explained that in February 2008 he had travelled to Russia, where, as he claimed, he would have been arrested had he indeed been searched by the authorities of that country. In addition, in his written submissions the first applicant’s representative pointed out that the allegations made in the proposal were not substantiated by any evidence, and that they could not justify a conclusion that the applicant represented a threat to national security. In his oral pleadings he pointed out once again that the first applicant had “created his family” in Bulgaria.

In a final judgment of 20 December 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the application for judicial review. After summarizing the claims made in proposal no. B849, it held briefly that it was bound by them. Thus, in its view

“it should be concluded that the presence and the activity of the [first applicant] amount to a serious threat to national security and to the international prestige of the Republic of Bulgaria.”

In a decision of 29 May 2008 the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Migration Directorate ordered the first applicant’s detention pending expulsion. That decision was quashed in a judgment of the Sofia Administrative Court of 17 July 2008. In another decision dated 28 August 2008 the head of the National Security Service ordered once again the applicant’s detention. That decision was quashed as well, in a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 27 November 2009. The first applicant effectively remained in detention from 10 September 2008 to the date of his expulsion, 3 September 2009.

The other applicants remained for several more years in Bulgaria, but left in November 2015.


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Cres Salisbury East, Australia.

On 19 March 1985 the applicant sustained injuries in a traffic accident caused by the vehicles owned by the Danilo Bošković A.D. - Grdelica and Srbijatrans – Niš, both State/socially-owned companies (the debtors).

On 23 November 2001 and 1 July 2008 the First Municipal Court in Belgrade rendered two separate judgments ordering the debtors to pay the applicant certain sums as compensation for the sustained damages.

Due to the debtors’ failure to fulfil their obligations from these decisions, the applicant submitted enforcement requests. On 7 October 2005 and 18 October 2010, respectively, the First Municipal Court in Belgrade issued enforcement orders to that effect. The enforcement proceedings are still pending and the above decisions remain unenforced.


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

Between 1986 and 1987 the applicants took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis.

Considering these benefits insufficient, the applicants together with other 482 people, sued the Russian Ministry of Finance for additional compensation corresponding to non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation.

On different dates in January and April 2011 the Nalchik Town Court of Kabardino-Balkaria (“the Town Court”) allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant, including the applicants, compensation ranging between 1,200,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 1,600,000 for nonpecuniary damage.

No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory ten-day time-limit. The judgments became final but have never been executed.

On different dates the Town Court granted the defendant authority’s request to extend the time-limit for appeal on the grounds that the authorities had not received a copy of the judgment in due course. Subsequently the regional Supreme Court quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law.


Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant, Mr Fikret Cimendag, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and is currently detained in Thorberg Prison in Krauchtal, Canton of Bern.

The applicant entered Switzerland in 1993. From 2003 onwards he had a relationship with A., another Turkish national living in Switzerland. The couple’s relationship was marked by conflict, and the applicant repeatedly threatened and also committed major assaults against A. Numerous criminal proceedings were instituted but subsequently closed because A. withdrew her accusation or refused to institute criminal proceedings.

On 15 January 2010 the applicant was however found guilty by the appeal court of the Canton of Basel-Stadt (Appelationsgericht des Kantons Basel-Stadt, “the appeal court”) of endangering A.’s life by pushing her into the Rhine and of raping her. He was sentenced to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment, of which fourteen months suspended for four years. It was planned that the applicant would serve the prison sentence from April 2011 onwards.

On 13 September 2010 the Migration Office of Basel-Stadt ordered the expulsion of the applicant from Swiss territory. It is unknown whether that decision became final.

On 17 February 2011 the criminal court of the Canton of Basel-Stadt (Strafgericht des Kantons Basel-Stadt, “the criminal court”) sentenced the applicant for threatening behaviour towards A. to twelve months imprisonment. Since the applicant was sentenced during the probation period under the former conviction of 15 January 2010, the criminal court decided that the previously suspended fourteen months’ imprisonment was to be enforced as well.

The applicant was sentenced on the basis of the following event. On 12 November 2010, during an appointment with his psychiatrist, who had been treating him since 2002, the applicant had declared that he was planning to take revenge on his ex-girlfriend, A., whom he considered to be the cause of all his problems. He had stated that he would find her, rape her and kill her, and that he did not care if he were sentenced again. As later stated by the psychiatrist, this was not the first time that the applicant had expressed feelings of revenge against A. This time, however the psychiatrist had had the impression that the applicant was very determined to accomplish those acts, especially because at the end of the session the applicant had thanked him “for everything” and refused to make another appointment. Fearing for A.’s life, the psychiatrist had therefore sought authorisation from the Health Department of the Canton of Basel-Stadt to be released from his duty of professional confidentiality, and subsequently informed the police. The same day the police informed A. about the applicant’s threats. Anxious about what could happen to her, she made a criminal complaint against the applicant for threatening behaviour.

During the proceedings before the criminal court, the applicant denied that he had threatened to kill A. He stated that his psychiatrist had misunderstood him and that he had effectively said that he was going to kill himself. Partly contradicting himself, the applicant also claimed that he “had not meant seriously” what he had said. In defence of the applicant, his representative further submitted that the applicant had made those statements to his psychiatrist, who was acting under professional confidentiality. He could not have anticipated that his psychiatrist was going to inform the police, and he had therefore not acted with the intention to threaten his ex-girlfriend.

In its judgment of 17 February 2011 the criminal court however found that the applicant had fulfilled all the elements of threatening behaviour as established in Article 180 § 1 of the Swiss Criminal Code ( “the SCC”, see paragraph 12 below). On the one hand, it was not necessary for the applicant to have made the threat directly to A; it was sufficient that she had become aware of it. On the other hand, the criminal court held that the applicant could have anticipated, in the light of the seriousness of his threats and his general behaviour during the session with the psychiatrist, that his psychiatrist would take action to prevent him from carrying them out; even more so as his psychiatrist knew his former criminal record and had been treating him for many years. The criminal court found that it must have been clear to the applicant that his psychiatrist, especially as a doctor, would give more weigh to the health of a third person than to his duty of professional confidentiality. Furthermore, at a later time, when the applicant’s sister informed him that the police were looking for him, he had immediately known the reason for it. He had hence anticipated his psychiatrist’s acts and acted with the intention of threatening his ex-girlfriend. He therefore fulfilled all the elements of threatening behaviour according to Article 180 § 1 of the SCC.

The applicant appealed against this decision. He claimed in particular that he had not acted with the intention of threatening A. He could not have anticipated that his psychiatrist would be released from his duty of professional confidentiality and would subsequently inform the police, who would in their turn inform A. He had therefore not fulfilled the subjective elements of threatening behaviour as established in Article 180 § 1 of the SCC.

On 28 November 2011 the appeal court endorsed the decision of the criminal court. It established that during questioning the applicant had never stated that he was relying on the psychiatrist’s duty of professional confidentiality. He had only disputed that he had ever said that he was planning to rape and kill A. The appeal court further held that from the applicant’s decisive behaviour on that day in not making another appointment and saying goodbye to his psychiatrist in a dramatic manner, it could even be concluded that he wanted his psychiatrist to do something. Even if the applicant had wished to provoke his psychiatrist into taking action other than seeking an intervention by the police, the psychiatrist would have been obliged to be released from the duty of professional confidentiality in any event, and A. would have come to know about the threats anyway. The appeal court therefore concluded that the applicant had intended to threaten A. and that he was guilty under Article 180 § 1 of the SCC.

On an appeal by the applicant, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal court’s decision on 5 March 2012. It reasoned that in the given circumstances the applicant could have predicted that the psychiatrist would give more weight to A.’s life higher than to his duty of professional confidentiality. In behaving as he did that day the applicant had at least regarded this as possible and accepted that the threats would come to be known by A. The applicant had therefore been correctly sentenced.

Articles 12, 180 § 1 and 321 of the SCC, as in force at the relevant time, read as follows:

“ 1. Unless the law expressly provides otherwise, a person is only liable to prosecution for a felony or misdemeanour if he commits it wilfully.

A person commits a felony or misdemeanour wilfully if he carries out the act in the knowledge of what he is doing and in accordance with his will. A person is acting wilfully as soon as he regards the realisation of the act as being possible and accepts this.

A person commits a felony or misdemeanour through negligence if he fails to consider or disregards the consequences of his conduct due to a culpable lack of care. A lack of care is culpable if the person fails to exercise the care that is incumbent on him in the circumstances and is commensurate with his personal capabilities. “

“ 1. Any person who places another in a state of fear and alarm by making a serious threat is liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty ...”

“ 1. Any person who in his capacity as a member of the clergy, lawyer, defence lawyer, notary, patent attorney, auditor subject to a duty of confidentiality under the Code of Obligations, doctor, dentist, pharmacist, midwife, psychologist or as an auxiliary to any of the foregoing persons discloses confidential information that has been confided to him in his professional capacity or which has come to his knowledge in the practice of his profession is liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years, or to a monetary penalty ...

No offence is committed if the person disclosing the information does so with the consent of the person to whom the information pertains or on the basis of written authorisation issued in response to his application by a superior authority or supervisory authority ...”

Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Health Act of the Canton of Basel-Stadt (hereinafter “the Health Act”) as in force at the relevant time read as follows:

“ ... 2. In well-grounded cases the competent body can release a person from the duties of confidentiality provided in Article 321 (1) and (2) of the Swiss Criminal Code. “

“ ... 3. Information can be provided to the authorities of investigation and prosecution, also upon their own request, if if there is a suspicion that one of the following crimes might be committed (“Verdacht auf Erfüllung einer der folgenenden Straftatbestände”):

a) homicide;

b) grave bodily assault ...

j) criminal acts against the sexual integrity of a person ...”


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Substantive aspect)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Manisa.

On 17 August 1999 the applicant’s daughter, Nesrin Delibaş, lost her life following the collapse of the building where she resided in Düzce as the result of an earthquake (see M. Özel and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, § 16, 17 November 2015 for further details regarding that earthquake). According to official records, fourteen other people lost their lives as a result of the collapse of the same building.

Shortly after the incident, criminal proceedings were brought against the contractor (H.E.) and the architect (S.D.) of the building in question. On 27 August and 31 August 1999 H.E. and S.D. were questioned by the police and the Düzce public prosecutor, respectively. They denied all accusations in respect of the collapse of the building.

During an expert examination of the remains of the building on 26 August 1999, certain problems were noted with the building’s reinforcing rods. It was also noted that the metal brackets had not been properly fastened to the girders. Apart from H.E. and S.D., against whom charges had already been brought in connection with the collapse of the building, the experts also identified the involvement of T.A., a civil engineer, and İ.Ö., the Head of Technical Services of the Municipality of Düzce (“the Municipality”), in the preparation and authorisation of the respective construction project.

On 31 August 1999 the police questioned İ.Ö., the Head of Technical Services of the Municipality. He denied all accusations in respect of the collapse of the building.

According to another report dated 7 September 1999, the expert examination of the collapsed building revealed that the granulometry of the concrete used in the building was very poor, that the concrete contained a very high proportion of pebbles, that the water-to-cement ratio in the concrete mix was not appropriate and had resulted in the formation of pores in the concrete, and that the ironwork had worked loose from the concrete because the metal brackets had corroded.

On 14 September 1999 the applicant asked to join the proceedings as a civil party. He added that he wished to lodge a criminal complaint against all individuals who had been involved in the construction of the defective building in their different capacities, including the public officials who had authorised its construction and occupation.

On 23 September 1999 the Düzce public prosecutor disjoined the investigation against the Head of Technical Services of the Municipality (İ.Ö.) from those against H.E. and S.D. in view of the special judicial procedures that had to be followed in respect of the prosecution of civil servants under the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Public Officials (Law no. 4483).

On 24 September 1999 the Düzce public prosecutor’s office filed a bill of indictment with the Düzce Assize Court against H.E. and S.D. in respect of the deaths caused by the collapse of the building in question on 17 August 1999. The public prosecutor accused them of endangering the lives of others by carelessness, negligence or inexperience under Article 383 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code in force at the material time (Law no. 765), emphasising in particular the structural shortcomings in the building noted by the experts (see paragraph 7 and 9 above).

At the hearing held on 21 October 1999 the applicant requested the investigation of all municipal officials who had authorised the construction and occupation of the building despite its failure to comply with the relevant technical regulations. Over the course of the criminal proceedings, the applicant repeated this request at least ten times.

According to an expert report added to the criminal case file on 29 April 2001, the following people had responsibility for all private construction undertaken within the municipal boundaries: (i) the contractor, who was responsible for the realisation of the project in compliance with the technical and work safety standards; (ii) the project engineer, who was responsible for all technical aspects of the project, including compliance with all relevant rules and regulations; (iii) the municipal representative, who was responsible for examining the calculations and the plan prepared by the project manager, verifying the compatibility of the project with the regulations in force, and authorising the project; and (iv) the technical implementation officer, who was in charge of inspecting the construction work on behalf of the Municipality. On this basis, the experts concluded that H.E. and S.D. bore 25% and 37.5% responsibility for the collapse of the building. The experts stated that they could not, however, offer opinions on the responsibility of anyone other than the two defendants in the case (H.E. and S.D.).

On 21 June 2001 the Düzce Assize Court held that the statutory period during which H.E. and S.D. could be held criminally liable in connection with a collapse of the building had started running in 1985 – when the last official licence for the building was obtained – and had already expired by the date of the earthquake. The case was accordingly discontinued for having become timebarred. The applicant appealed.

On 21 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. It held that the statutory time-limit was to be calculated from the date on which the building collapsed, that is to say from 17 August 1999, the date on which the offence in question had been committed.

On 14 August 2003 an additional indictment was filed against T.A., the civil engineer who had taken part in the construction of the building in question (see paragraph 7 above). It was noted in the indictment that T.A. had obtained licences to secure the illegal extension of the building subsequent to its construction.

On 11 December 2003 the Düzce Assize Court convicted H.E., S.D. and T.A. as charged and sentenced each of them to 10 months’ imprisonment and a fine, but decided to suspend execution of the sentences under Section 6 of the Execution of Sentences Act (Law no. 647). The applicant appealed against this judgment and once again requested an investigation into the responsibility of the relevant municipal officials in relation to the collapse of the building.

On 6 July 2004 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the firstinstance court’s judgment, this time as the court had not taken any decision as regards the applicant’s request to join the proceedings as a civil party in respect of the case subsequently brought against T.A.

On 5 October 2004 the Düzce Assize Court commissioned a new expert report from the Yıldız Technical University in Istanbul. The expert report subsequently released on 21 April 2005 found that the building in question had collapsed on account of the structural problems noted in the earlier expert reports, as well as its illegal extension subsequent to its construction. It was also stated in the report that the defendants jointly bore 75% of the responsibility for the collapse of the building. The remaining 25% responsibility lay with the Municipality officials on account of their failure to duly inspect the building before issuing it with the necessary permits for occupation.

On 7 June 2005 the Düzce Assize Court convicted H.E., S.D. and T.A. as charged, and sentenced each of them, once again, to 10 months’ imprisonment and a fine. Execution of the sentences was suspended pursuant to Article 51 § 1 of the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237). Relying on the findings of the later expert report as regards the responsibility of the municipal officials for the collapse of the building, it also decided that a criminal complaint should be filed against the relevant officials with the Düzce public prosecutor’s office. The defendant H.E lodged an appeal against this judgment.

On 5 December 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment for the third time. It found that the assize court had failed to evaluate the case in the light of the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) which had entered into force on 1 June 2005.

On 21 February 2007 the Düzce Assize Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings in respect of all three of the defendants as the prosecution of the offence in question had become time-barred.

On 23 October 2007 the Court of Cassation held firstly that the decision of the first-instance court, in so far as it concerned S.E. and T.A., was null and void, since the earlier judgment of 7 June 2005 had already become final in their regard as they had not lodged an appeal. It then went on to uphold the decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of H.E. only.

On 16 August 2000 the applicant, along with his wife and other daughter, instituted compensation proceedings before the Sakarya Administrative Court against the the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı), the Düzce governor’s office and the Municipality of Düzce, in respect of the death of their daughter Nesrin Delibaş. The applicant and his wife each claimed 2,000 Turkish liras (TRY) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Their daughter claimed TRY 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage only.

On 29 December 2005 the Sakarya Administrative Court commissioned an expert report to determine responsibility on the part of the administration for the collapse of the building.

As regards the findings in the reports adduced to the criminal case file, the experts noted that the quality of the concrete used in the construction and certain structural elements of the building had been below the required standard. The building had, moreover, been illegally extended after its construction. The municipal officials had failed to duly inspect the building during its construction phase or before issuing the necessary permit for its occupation. They had also failed to carry out a soil survey in the area and to identify the potential “disaster zones” in the event of an earthquake, with a view to limiting the height of buildings in such areas. The experts concluded that, in view of such failures, the Municipality had been 50% responsible for the collapse of the building in question. On the other hand, it found that the other two defendants had not been at fault.

Relying on that expert report, on 27 June 2007 the Sakarya Administrative Court partially accepted the applicant’s claims against the Municipality, and awarded him TRY 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage in accordance with his request, plus interest. It also awarded his wife and daughter TRY 1,000 and TRY 500, respectively, in respect of nonpecuniary damage. It rejected their claims in respect of pecuniary damage as being unfounded.

On 14 September 2007 the applicant and his family received a total of TRY 11,371.80 (approximately 6,455 euros (EUR) at the material time) from the Municipality as compensation. In the meantime, the Municipality appealed against the judgment of the Sakarya Administrative Court.

On 23 May 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the lower administrative court.


VAN BEUKERING AND HET PAROOL B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The first applicant, Ms Barbara van Beukering, is a Netherlands national born in 1966 and resident in Amsterdam. She was, at the relevant time, the chief editor of the newspaper Het Parool.

The second applicant, Het Parool B.V., is a limited liability company under Netherlands law with its seat in Amsterdam. It publishes the newspaper Het Parool.

Het Parool is a newspaper focusing on news relevant to the Amsterdam region. Its readership is likewise to be found mostly in the Amsterdam region, although nationwide circulation is claimed for it.

The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr J.P. van den Brink, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.

In 2007 the public-service television broadcaster NPS aired a series of five television documentaries entitled Vrije Radicalen (Free Radicals), each episode being devoted to a young person who had made radical choices that set them apart from mainstream society. One episode focused on R.P., a young man born in 1988. It mentioned his lifestyle as an active member of a street gang and as a performer of rap music and his troubled relationship with his mother. R.P. himself was shown recognisably and his name was mentioned. The episode was broadcast twice, in November 2007 and June 2008, and was available for downloading from the internet free of charge until late 2009.

In 2009 a video clip was published on YouTube that showed R.P. performing rap music in memory of a fellow rapper who had been killed in a fight. This video clip was, apparently, removed on an unknown date.

In 2009 R.P. was admitted to a shelter for the homeless in Amsterdam. On 15 June 2009 R.P. was warned that he would have to leave because of his aggressive behaviour. He drew a knife and stabbed three staff members, killing one and inflicting serious injury on the two others.

On 19 September 2009, shortly before the trial of R.P. was to open, Het Parool published an article with the heading “Rap artist with a short temper” (Rapper met een kort lontje) announcing that R.P. was due to appear in court on charges related to the above-mentioned stabbing. The article described R.P.’s personal circumstances and background. The information was taken from the documentary described above. The article, which did not state R.P.’s full surname, was accompanied by a portrait image of R.P., a still picture likewise taken from the documentary. The picture was taken at an angle, showing a prominent scar – stated in the article to have resulted from a fight – next to one of R.P.’s eyes. The article and the portrait image were published both in the newspaper itself and on its internet web site.

The portrait image was removed from the newspaper’s web site on 30 December 2009. The text of the article remains online to this day.

On 12 June 2012 R.P. was convicted on appeal of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter and of lesser additional crimes. He was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment and placed at the disposal of the Government (terbeschikkingstelling, “TBS order”) with confinement in a custodial clinic (bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege).

The trial was covered by other newspapers, television news broadcasters and internet web sites. Some included a drawing stated to be of R.P. in court; others used still pictures copied from the documentary before it was taken offline.

On 28 December 2009 R.P., through his lawyer, wrote to the first applicant demanding removal of the portrait image from the newspaper’s web site and payment of 5,000 euros (EUR). Relying on section 21 of the Copyright Act (Auteurswet; see below), he stated that his reasonable interests were affected by the publication: he was recognised in the remand prison where he was being held and feared that he would not be able to find a job after his release.

R.P. summoned the applicants before the Amsterdam Regional Court (rechtbank), seeking a declaration that the publication of his portrait image in the newspaper on 19 September 2009 and on the newspaper’s web site from 19 September 2009 until 30 December 2009 was unlawful; an order requiring the applicants to ensure that the portrait image no longer be available on the internet at all; and compensation for non-pecuniary damage in an amount of EUR 10,000.

On 29 December 2010 the Regional Court gave judgment dismissing R.P.’s claims. It held that since the portrait image was appropriate to the newspaper article and had been published in a television documentary in which R.P. had cooperated of his own volition, there was no unlawful interference with R.P.’s rights. R.P. appealed.

On 20 March 2012 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) overturned the judgment of the Regional Court and held in favour of R.P. The Court of Appeal recognised that the case raised questions under both Article 8 of the Convention, in that it concerned R.P.’s right to respect for his private life, and Article 10, in that it concerned the applicants’ freedom of journalistic expression. Its reasoning included the following:

“3.10 Although it can be conceded to [the applicants] that the image does not contain details of [R.P.’s] private life [English in the original], strengthens the expressive power of the article and is relevant in itself, the Court of Appeal considers that publication of the image of his face with the article constitutes an interference with R.P.’s private life. It should be remembered in this connection that it appears from the article that R.P. is suspected of a (very serious) crime. The next question that needs an answer is whether, taking into account [the applicants’] freedom of expression, this interference constitutes an unlawful act vis-à-vis R.P.

3.11 The Court of Appeal takes the view that this is the case. It takes the view that R.P. is not required to suffer publication of the recognisable portrait with the article. It would have been possible for [the applicants] to publish a less recognisable portrait of R.P. without significantly detracting from the expressiveness of the article, for example by placing a black rectangle over the eyes. [The applicants] have argued in this connection that it has been held in other cases that this measure has an even more criminalising effect, but that does not apply in this case, because the article concerned the suspicion of a crime of violence and the impending trial thereof by a criminal court. The Court of Appeal takes the view that in publishing portraits of persons suspected of criminal acts reticence is, in principle, appropriate.

3.12 The circumstance that in 2007 R.P. gave his active cooperation to a documentary that was broadcast on television in 2007 and 2009 and could be viewed on the internet until the end of 2009 does not justify publishing a recognisable portrait together with the article about that documentary and the impending trial. R.P. has not, by cooperating in that documentary (and the rap clip published on YouTube), become a public figure to the extent that he must for that reason suffer his recognisable portrait to be published in the newspaper with nationwide coverage Het Parool and on the website www.hetparool.nl, the less so because he is thereby recognisably connected to a (very serious) crime. As held above, a less recognisable portrait could have limited the interference with his private life without doing any real harm to the expressiveness of the article. It makes no difference that portraits of R.P. (derived from the documentary and the rap clip) can still be found in the internet. What is important is that [the applicants] at the time published an image in the newspaper, which – unlike in the case of use of the internet – can be seen in one glance and without any further manipulations. The freedom [the applicants] have, in principle, to determine in accordance with their own views in what way they will inform the public of a newsworthy fact does not go so far that in the specific circumstances of the present case they were at liberty to publish a recognisable portrait of R.P. with the article.

3.13 Taking all circumstances into account, the Court of Appeal therefore finds that R.P.’s right to respect of his privacy outweighs [the applicants’] freedom of expression. The wrongful nature of [the applicants’] acts vis-à-vis R.P. is therefore established. ...”

The applicants were held jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay EUR 1,500 to R.P. in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law (cassatie) with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), arguing, as relevant to the case, that the Court of Appeal had overlooked R.P.’s own responsibility through having cooperated with the documentary and the rap clip, combined with his having stabbed one staff member of the homeless shelter to death and severely wounded two others, from which it followed, in their submission, that R.P. could not claim the same protection of his private life to which he would otherwise have been entitled. They submitted in addition that the Court of Appeal’s position was tantamount to an absolute prohibition of publication of a recognisable photograph of any criminal suspect who was not a public figure.

The Supreme Court gave judgment on 4 October 2013 dismissing the appeal. Its reasoning included the following:

“3.3.2 ... The Court of Appeal has rightly taken as its starting point that the question whether R.P.’s right to respect for his private life should weigh more heavily in the balance than [the applicants’’s judgment of 5 October 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BW9230, Netherlands Law Reports (Nederlandse Jurisprudentie) 2012/571).In the light of this standard, it does not reflect an incorrect understanding of the law that the Court of Appeal has held that publication of a recognisable portrait, taken from [the 2007 documentary], is not justified by the circumstance that R.P. has cooperated with the documentary about his person and the rap clip. Nor is the finding of the Court of Appeal that publication was wrongful vis-à-vis R.P. based on incomprehensible reasoning. As is shown by paragraph 3.12 of its judgment, the Court of Appeal has in so finding taken into account the nature and content of that documentary and the circumstance that it was made before the crimes were committed of which R.P. was suspected at the time the portrait was published. The Court of Appeal has, furthermore, taken into account that [the applicants] had other means at their disposal than complete recognisable publication of the image, which would not have harmed the expressiveness of the publication and would have constituted a lesser interference with R.P.’s right to respect for his private life. The Court of Appeal has thus expressed the view that publishing the unmodified image was neithernor proportionate to the aim pursued, namely informing the public. This finding does not amount to an absolute prohibition as suggested in the ground of appeal.”

Section 21 of the Copyright Act provides as follows:

“If a portrait has been made without having been commissioned by the person portrayed or for that person’s benefit, then the person to whom the copyright to that portrait belongs shall not be allowed to publish it in so far as a reasonable interest of the person portrayed, or after that person’s death, one of that person’s surviving kin weighs against publication.”

In its judgment of 5 October 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BW9230, Netherlands Law Reports 2012/571 (Peter R. de Vries/Koos H.), the Supreme Court, citing Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012, and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012, gave its approval to reasoning of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal summarised in the following terms:

’s portrait.”

The Appendix to the Recommendation Rec(2003)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2003 at the 848th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) contains the following principle of particular interest to the present case:

“The provision of information about suspects, accused or convicted persons or other parties to criminal proceedings should respect their right to protection of privacy in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention. Particular protection should be given to parties who are minors or other vulnerable persons, as well as to victims, to witnesses and to the families of suspects, accused and convicted. In all cases, particular consideration should be given to the harmful effect which the disclosure of information enabling their identification may have on the persons referred to in this Principle.”


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Síofra O’Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Turkey.

The applicant’s parents, who are of Turkish origin, were living in Austria when the applicant was born. They divorced in 1992 and his father was awarded sole custody. In the same year, his grandparents, who had been looking after him while his father had been working, moved to Turkey and took the applicant and his sister with them. The applicant’s mother also returned to Turkey, but founded a new family and did not keep in touch with him. The applicant lived in Turkey from 1992 until 1998, attending school there for three years. In 1998, when he was eight years old, he and his sister moved back to Austria to live with their father again. For that purpose, the applicant was granted a residence permit by the Austrian authorities.

On 30 December 2004, at the age of 14, the applicant, together with four of his friends, assaulted a man. He jumped on the victim from behind, while his friends beat and kicked the man, causing him serious injuries. They also stole money and cigarettes from their victim. On 20 January 2005 the applicant attempted to shoplift. On 29 August 2005 he drove a moped without the owner’s consent.

On 8 November 2005 the applicant and his friends stole an item from a man. Between 15 and 30 January 2006 the applicant and a group of his friends partly attempted and partly succeeded in stealing the handbags of nine elderly women through threats or the use of force. The applicant was 15 years old at that time. He had ripped the handbags from some of the victims; grabbed one of the women from behind, holding her mouth and dragging her to the ground; hit another one on the head and pushed his knee into her back so that she would fall down; and had also beaten some of them. Two of the women were seriously injured as a result.

On 13 March 2006 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Straflandesgericht – hereinafter, “the Criminal Court”) convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery, attempted theft and unauthorised use of a motor vehicle (see paragraph 7 above). He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, which was suspended for a probationary period of three years. The Criminal Court considered as mitigating factors that the applicant had no previous criminal record, that he had confessed to his crimes and that he had shown willingness to afford redress to the victim. Aggravating factors were that he had committed several offences, specifically a crime and two misdemeanours. In its reasoning of the judgment, the Criminal Court noted that the applicant had been notorious for excessive acts of violence and had had to change schools several times already. It observed that the applicant had virtually no age-appropriate capacity of reflection, and attested that he had an enormous tendency to act aggressively, which he used as his strategy for problem-solving.

On 31 May 2006 the Criminal Court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery as a member of a criminal organisation and theft (see paragraph 8 above). He was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment. The probationary period of his previous criminal conviction of 13 March 2006 was prolonged to five years in total. The Criminal Court considered the applicant’s confession to be a mitigating factor, but the repeated commission of offences as an aggravating factor. It argued in its reasoning that the applicant had taken a leading role in the robberies. The applicant and his friends had deliberately targeted elderly women because they had expected they would not resist. Moreover, the Criminal Court found that the applicant had been one of the main perpetrators, which is why there was no leeway to pronounce a more lenient sentence than two and a half years’ imprisonment.

On 7 August 2006 the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) imposed a ten-year exclusion order (Aufenthaltsverbot) on the applicant pursuant to section 60(1) and (2)(1), section 63(1) and (2), and section 66 of the Aliens Police Act (Fremdenpolizeigesetz). It found that even though most of his family lived in Austria, the applicant’s expulsion was justified because of the severity of his offences in order to protect public order and security.

The applicant appealed. He argued that he had committed the criminal offences as a juvenile delinquent who had had the wrong friends. The authorities had not properly taken into account his interests, given that his father, paternal grandparents, siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters all lived in Austria. Because of his young age he would not be able to live in Turkey by himself.

On 16 March 2007 the Vienna Security Authority (Sicherheitsdirektion) partly granted his appeal and limited the exclusion order to eight years.

On 30 April 2007 the applicant was released from prison because of his good conduct after having served half of his sentence.

On 11 December 2007 the Administrative Court set aside the Vienna Security Authority’s decision of 16 March 2007 for lack of jurisdiction and held that the Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat – hereinafter, “the IAP”) was the competent authority to examine the appeal.

On 21 July 2008, following an oral hearing, the Vienna IAP partly granted and partly dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It confirmed the legality of the exclusion order, but limited it to five years. It considered that the robberies in particular had been serious offences which demonstrated the applicant’s severe disrespect for the well-being and property of others. The victims had been mostly elderly, fragile women, who had been physically weaker than him and his friends. Two of the women had been severely injured. The applicant had been one of the main perpetrators. His tendency towards violence and aggression was remarkable and appeared to have even increased between the first and the second conviction. The IAP further took into consideration that the applicant had only been 14 and 15 years old at the time of the offences, and therefore had still been in the process of reaching maturity. This was however put into perspective by the fact that he had not offended only once, but multiple times, and in a particularly brutal manner.

The IAP proceeded to examine whether it could be assumed that the applicant still posed a threat to public order and safety. His probation officer (Bewährungshelfer) testified that the applicant had developed a sense of justice after his conviction and that cooperation with him had worked well. The applicant had worked as an apprentice during his time in prison. After his release, he had participated in several training programmes and was looking for a job. The IAP noted furthermore that the applicant had not reoffended in over a year since his release from prison. It came to the conclusion, however, that the relatively short time since his release was not enough to prove that he was not a danger to society anymore.

The IAP then assessed whether the exclusion order violated the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention. It held at the outset that an expulsion of “second-generation migrants” such as the applicant was subject to stricter criteria than an expulsion of other foreigners. Referring to the Court’s judgments in the cases Boultif v. Switzerland (no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001IX), Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC] no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006XII) and Maslov v. Austria ([GC] no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008), it found that – in contrast to Maslov – the applicant had repeatedly committed serious crimes of a violent nature. Because of his family and his social integration in Austria, the exclusion order constituted an interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. However, he had almost reached the age of majority at the time the exclusion order had been issued. Economic integration could not be observed as he was unemployed at the time. He spoke Turkish and had last visited Turkey in 2001. His mother still lived in Turkey; he had no contact with her at the time but could get in touch with her. The serious nature of the offences and the resulting public interest in his expulsion therefore outweighed the applicant’s interest in remaining in the country. However, because of his young age, the IAP concluded that a five-year exclusion order would be sufficient.

On 30 September and 16 December 2008 respectively, the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court declined to hear prior appeals by the applicant against the IAP’s decision.

On 8 September and 17 November 2009 and on 4 January 2010 the applicant was informed of the possibility to leave the country voluntarily. As he did not leave, he was expelled to Turkey on 10 February 2010. He was nineteen years old at that time.

The five-year exclusion order against the applicant, which had been pronounced in the IAP’s decision of 21 July 2008, expired in July 2013.


Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicant, Mr Ali Keskin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Erzurum. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Bedirhanoğlu, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

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

On 21 August 2006 the applicant found his seven-year-old son, A.K., injured.

On 14 August 2008 the Oltu public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Oltu Assize Court, accusing N.K., the applicant’s former wife, of assaulting A.K. and murdering the couple’s first child, M.K. The applicant joined the criminal proceedings against N.K. as a civil party.

On 4 March 2010, after evaluating the medical reports, witness statements and the public prosecutor’s written opinion, the Oltu Assize Court acquitted N.K. of the charges against her.

On 25 May 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Assize Court. This decision was deposited with the registry of the Assize Court on 21 June 2011. The president of the court noted on the judgment that the intervening party should be notified. According to the information in the case file, the judgment was not served on the applicant. On 6 January 2012 he obtained a copy from the registry of the first-instance court.


Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Josep Casadevall;Síofra O’Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant, Mr Igor Gennadyevich Ustyugov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk. He is represented before the Court by Ms L.Y. Solonik, a lawyer practising in Dnipropetrovsk.

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms N. Sevostianova, of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

On 26 April 2000 the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk convicted the applicant of, among other crimes, robbery and extortion and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.

On 17 May 2000 the applicant was taken to the Synelnykivska Prison no. 94 (Синельниківська виправна колонія №94, hereafter “the prison”).

On 6 June 2000 the decision of 26 April 2000 was upheld by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court.

On 22 February 2002 the Synelnykivskyy District Court, Dnipropetrovsk Region, reclassified the offences according to the new Criminal Code, 2001, and reduced the term of the applicant’s imprisonment by one month.

In his application form of 7 July 2004 the applicant stated that he had shared 60-square-metre sleeping quarters with eighty other inmates. Sanitary conditions in the prison were poor, in that there was only one bathroom for each two cells. Thus 150 inmates had to share two water taps and four lavatory pans. The cells were infested with lice and the rations were meagre. The applicant was not given any clothes, any hygiene products or any cutlery by the prison authorities. Tuberculosis-infected inmates were not segregated from the general prison population. Nor were there any other measures in place to prevent the spread of the disease. In 2002 the applicant contracted tuberculosis and spent three months in the prison hospital.

According to the applicant, he was placed in a disciplinary cell where he remained for fifteen days (particular dates not specified), under constant video surveillance.

In 2004 the applicant suffered a heart attack and was moved to a prison hospital. After a short stay there, he was returned to the prison. On his readmission he was allegedly beaten up by prison guards.

The applicant, a Lutheran, stated that it had been impossible to practise his religion while it had been possible to practise other religions (the applicant mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestants (in particular, Pentecostals)).

The applicant finally stated that the prison authorities had given him letters from the Court with delays, had not dispatched his letters to the Court, had opened his correspondence and had withheld unspecified enclosed documents.

The Government submitted that between 2000 and September 2007 the applicant had been detained in three different detention units:

- 2000-03 – unit no. 9;

- 2004 – unit no. 10;

- 2005-September 2007 – high-security unit.

The sleeping quarters in units nos. 9 and 10 were 187 and 192 square metres and at the material time there were ninety-two and sixty-four detainees respectively. In each of the units there were nine hand basins and eight lavatory pans. Each detainee had a bed and a stool. There were tables, one bedside storage locker per two detainees and a television set. There was a dining room and a locker room. The premises had electricity and ventilation. Windows allowed access to fresh air and there was sufficient light.

In the high-security unit the applicant was detained in cell no. 1 (21 square metres). The cell had been designed for four persons. There were four beds, four chairs, four bedside storage lockers, a rubbish bin, two coat racks, a table and a television. The total space of the cells in the high-security unit was 166.5 square metres. In September 2007 there were 23 detainees there. There were eight washing facilities, including twelve lavatory pans and twelve hand basins as well as three showers.

The applicant had crockery and linens and was given food three times a day. The applicant had a special diet since previously he had had tuberculosis. The applicant also had daily walks. Once a week he could have a shower and received 200 grams of soap monthly for this purpose.

Since 1999 the applicant was subject to regular medical check-ups as he had previously suffered from tuberculosis. In August 2001 and between 11 March and 3 April 2002 the applicant was treated in the Dnipropetrovsk pre-trial detention centre hospital for a degenerative spinal disease and other spinal problems. In April 2002 he was diagnosed with a post-tuberculosis condition and between 2002 and April 2005 he received prophylactic treatment in spring and in autumn. In April 2005 it was established that the applicant had been completely cured of tuberculosis. In 2007 it was established that the applicant was disabled on account of his spinal problems.

According to the applicant’s personal records, he was placed in a disciplinary cell in July and August 1999 (eleven days total), May 2001 (ten days), October 2001 (ten days), February and October 2002 (ten days total), June 2003 (ten days) and June 2006 (five days).

The Government further submitted that the prison was visited by various Christian priests. There were religious services three times a week.

The relevant part of the European Prison Rules provides as following:

“18.1 The accommodation provided for prisoners, and in particular all sleeping accommodation, shall respect human dignity and, as far as possible, privacy, and meet the requirements of health and hygiene, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation.”

The relevant part of the Commentary provides as following:

“The CPT, by commenting on conditions and space available in prisons in various countries has begun to indicate some minimum standards. These are considered to be 4m2 for prisoners in shared accommodation and 6m2 for a prison cell. These minima are, related however, to wider analyses of specific prison systems, including studies of how much time prisoners actually spend in their cells. These minima should not be regarded as the norm. Although the CPT has never laid down such a norm directly, indications are that it would consider 9 to 10 m2 as a desirable size for a cell for one prisoner. This is an area in which the CPT could make an ongoing contribution that would build on what has already been laid down in this regard. What is required is a detailed examination of what size of cell is acceptable for the accommodation of various numbers of persons. Attention needs to be paid to the number of hours that prisoners spend locked in the cells, when determining appropriate sizes. Even for prisoners who spend a large amount of time out of their cells, there must be a clear minimum space, which meets standards of human dignity.”

In its Guidance the ICRC outlined the following principles:

“Shared or dormitory accommodation: 3.4 m2 per person, including where bunk beds are used.

As previously mentioned, space alone is a limited measure of the quality of life and conditions of detention. As such, it is merely a starting point when evaluating the conditions in which detainees are held. Space norms cannot be specified separately from the total environment. The appropriateness of the ICRC’s recommended specifications in any given situation will depend on a number of other factors including:

the specific individual needs of, for example, sick, old or young prisoners, women and/or people with disabilities;

the physical condition of the buildings;

the amount of time spent in the accommodation area;

the frequency and extent of opportunities to take physical exercise, work and be involved in other activities outside the accommodation area;

the number of people in the accommodation area (to allow a degree of privacy and avoid isolation);

the amount of natural light and the adequacy of the ventilation;

other activities being undertaken in the accommodation area (e.g. cooking, washing, drying);

other services available (e.g. toilets and showers); and >>the extent of supervision provided.”


CASE OF IALAMOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

The applicant was born in 1986 and lived in Chisinau.

On 6 April 2009 he was arrested on a charge of murder. Later he was also charged with several counts of theft.

The applicant was held in pre-trial detention until 21 January 2011, when he was acquitted of the murder charges but convicted for theft and sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment. In view of the duration of his pre-trial detention, he was immediately released.

During the trial the applicant’s detention was extended periodically. One of the extensions concerned the period between 1 and 30 September 2009. On 28 September 2009, two days before the expiry of that period, the prosecutor in charge of the case applied for another extension. The applicant argued in his submissions, inter alia, that such an order was not allowed because the prosecutor had failed to comply with the provisions of Article 186 § 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is that such an application had to be lodged at the latest five days before the expiry of the detention period. Nevertheless, the prosecutor’s application was accepted by the court on 29 September 2009 and the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged by twenty-five days. An appeal by the applicant was later dismissed by the Court of Appeal without any consideration being given to his argument set out above.


CASE OF MAMMADLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix.

Tahirov v. Azerbaijan (no. 31953/11, §§ 6-22, 11 June 2015) and Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (no. 2204/11, §§ 6-20, 22 October 2015).

The applicants stood as candidates in the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010 and applied for registration as candidates in various single–mandate electoral constituencies (see Appendix).

The respective Constituency Electoral Commissions (“ConECs”) on various dates (see Appendix) refused the applicants’ requests for registration as a candidate after the ConEC working groups had found that some of the supporting voter signatures submitted by the applicants were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures had numbered fewer than 450, a minimum required by law. Signatures were found to be invalid on several grounds in each case.

None of the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 30750/11, were invited to the ConEC meetings where decisions to refuse their requests for registration were taken. In each case, despite the requirements of the law, all the relevant working group documents and the ConEC decision itself were made available to the applicants belatedly or never made available to them.

Each applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) against the ConEC decisions. The points raised in their complaints were similar to those made by the applicants in Tahirov (cited above, §§ 13-14) and Annagi Hajibeyli (cited above, §§ 11-12).

On various dates, the CEC also rejected the applicants’ complaints (see Appendix), after another examination of the signature sheets by members of its own working group, which had found in each case that large numbers of signatures were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures were below the minimum required by law.

None of the applicants were invited to attend the relevant CEC or working group meetings. Moreover, in each case, all the relevant CEC documents were only made available to the applicants after the CEC decision had been taken.

On various dates, each of the applicants lodged an appeal with the Baku Court of Appeal against the decisions of the electoral commissions. They reiterated the complaints they had made before the CEC concerning the ConEC decisions and procedures. They also raised a number of other points similar to those raised by the applicants in Tahirov (cited above, § 19) and Annagi Hajibeyli (cited above, § 17).

On various dates (see Appendix), the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by the applicants, finding that their arguments were irrelevant or unsubstantiated and that there were no grounds for quashing the decisions of the CEC.

The applicants lodged cassation appeals with the Supreme Court, reiterating their previous complaints and arguing that the Baku Court of Appeal had not carried out a fair examination of the cases and had delivered unreasoned judgments.

On various dates (see Appendix), the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals as unsubstantiated, without examining their arguments in detail, and found no grounds to doubt the findings of the electoral commissions or of the Baku Court of Appeal.

In addition to the applicants in the present cases, at the material time Mr Intigam Aliyev, the applicants’ representative in applications nos. 2326/11, 8055/11 and 30750/11, was representing a total of twentyseven applicants in cases concerning the 2010 parliamentary elections and a number of applicants in other cases before the Court.

On 8 August 2014 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr I. Aliyev, which are the subject of a separate application brought by him before the Court (application no. 68762/14). On 8 and 9 August 2014 the investigation authorities seized a large number of documents from Mr I. Aliyev’s office including all the case files relating to the pending proceedings before the Court, which were in Mr Aliyev’s possession and which concerned over 100 applications in total. The files relating to applications nos. 2326/11, 8055/11 and 30750/11 were also seized in their entirety. The facts relating to the seizure and the relevant proceedings are described in more detail in Annagi Hajibeyli (cited above, §§ 21-28).

On 25 October 2014 the investigation authorities returned a number of the case files concerning the applications lodged before the Court, including the file relating to applications nos. 2326/11, 8055/11 and30750/11, to Mr Aliyev’s lawyer.


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on charge;Information on reasons for arrest);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

The applicant was born in 1981 and, according to the latest information available to the Court, lives in Aksaray.

On 2 April 2011 the applicant, who had been living in Turkey since 2008, was taken into custody in the context of an investigation into murder by a person or persons unknown. He was placed in the Yedikule Security Directorate in Istanbul.

On 4 April 2011 the applicant delivered his witness statement before a criminal court in relation to the aforementioned investigation. However, he was not released after delivering the statement; instead he continued to be detained in the Yedikule Security Directorate for having outstayed his visa.

On 5 April 2011 the applicant was transferred to Şehit Tevfik Fikret Erciyes police station in Fatih, Istanbul (“Fatih police station”), where he was placed in a custodial cell for the next five days.

On 10 April 2011 the applicant was sent to Kumkapı Removal Centre with a view to being deported. According to the applicant’s account, Kumkapı Removal Centre was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention. He had to share a dormitory measuring approximately 3035 sq. m with twenty-four to forty-five other people and the overcrowding of the centre resulted in hygiene problems. The building was infested with insects and the quality and quantity of the food provided was also fairly poor. Moreover, there was no provision for outdoor exercise.

On 12 April 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for refugee status.

On 27 April 2011 he claimed asylum from the Ministry of the Interior.

On 29 April 2011 the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in the province of Aksaray as an asylum seeker and he was released from Kumkapı Removal Centre on the same day. It appears that the applicant was subsequently permitted to reside in Konya.

According to the latest information provided to the Court, the applicant’s applications for asylum and refugee status are still pending before the domestic authorities and the UNHCR respectively.