Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Bersenevka, Republic of Mordovia.

On 5 March 2009 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation in response to S.’s complaint that two policemen had extorted money from him by threatening to open a criminal case against him on charges of drug possession.

On 23 March 2009 the investigator received information implicating the applicant in said crime. On 30 March 2009 the investigating authorities established where the applicant was officially registered as living.

On 2 April 2009 the applicant was charged in absentia with kidnapping (Article 126 of the Russian Criminal Code) and extortion (Article 163 of the Russian Criminal Code). Noting that the applicant might abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice, the investigator considered that the applicant should sign an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and to abstain from improper behaviour.

On 3 April 2009 the applicant’s name was put on the list of wanted persons. It was not elucidated in the relevant decision whether any effort had been taken on the part of the investigating authorities to establish the applicant’s whereabouts. On the same day the police informed the investigating authorities of the addresses where the applicant and his father were registered.

On 6 May 2010 the investigating authorities established the applicant’s temporary address.

On 24 June 2010 the applicant voluntarily went to see the investigator. He was questioned and released on his own recognisance. The next interview was scheduled for 1 July 2010. On that day the applicant duly appeared at the prosecutor’s office where he was arrested. When questioned, he claimed that the authorities had had no grounds to put his name on the list of wanted persons. In particular, he submitted that the investigating authorities had failed to verify his whereabouts or to issue a request for him to appear for questioning.

The following day, 2 July 2010, the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 August 2010. In particular, the court noted as follows:

“... the court ... considers that, in view of the [applicant’s] character and the nature of the charges, if released, he might again abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. [The applicant] is charged with offences entailing a custodial sentence in excess of two years. As is apparent from the evidence submitted, he has absconded before and his name was put on the list of wanted persons. The court concludes that it is impossible to apply more lenient restrictions, such as release on bail.

The court considers that there were grounds for the [applicant’s] arrest. It follows from the evidence submitted to the court that [the applicant] could have committed the crime he is charged with. As regards the fact that on 24 June 2009 the applicant voluntarily appeared for questioning, the court does not consider it sufficient to dismiss the [investigating authorities’] request for the [applicant] to be remanded in custody. [The applicant] did not deny that even though his name was on the list of wanted persons, he did not appear for [questioning] for two months.”

On 3 July 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the court order of 2 July 2010. He addressed it to the Moscow City Court. On an unspecified date the City Court forwarded it to the District Court for processing. According to the Government, on an unspecified date the President of the District Court returned the statement of appeal to the applicant on the grounds that it had been lodged after the deadline. The applicant received the President’s decision on 27 July 2010 and asked the District Court to renew the time allowed for appeal.

On 28 July 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 October 2010. The court noted as follows:

“When extending the [applicant’s] pre-trial detention, the court has taken into account [his] character. Nevertheless, it does not discern any grounds to cancel or replace the preventative measure previously imposed on [the applicant] ... given that the circumstances underlying the [applicant’s] detention pending trial have not altered. [The applicant] is charged with offences entailing a custodial sentence in excess of two years. Regard being had to the seriousness of the charges and to the fact that he absconded and that his name was put on the list of wanted persons, the court is convinced that [the applicant] might abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.

The court dismisses as unsubstantiated the [applicant’s] allegations that he was unfit for detention because of his state of health. There are no documents in the case file [to the contrary]. Furthermore, the court notes that all persons detained in a remand prison receive the necessary medical assistance as provided for in the applicable legislation.”

According to the Government, on 17 August 2010 the District Court reset the time-limit for the applicant’s appeal against the court order of 2 July 2010.

On 18 August 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 28 July 2010 on appeal.

On 25 August 2010 the applicant’s lawyer filed an additional statement of appeal against the court order of 2 July 2010.

On 6 September 2010 the City Court adjourned the hearing of the applicant’s appeal against the court order of 2 July 2010 owing to his lawyer’s failure to appear. On 8 September 2010 the City Court held the hearing and upheld the decision of 2 July 2010 on appeal.

On 29 September 2010 the District Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 December 2010 noting as follows:

“... the court considers that there are no grounds justifying the lifting or changing of the restrictive measure imposed on [the applicant] ... in the court’s view, the defence’s request to release [the applicant] on bail will not have a restraining effect on the defendant as regards the possibility of him interfering with the administration of justice. Regard being had to the particular complexity of the case and to the scope of the pending investigation, the court considers the investigator’s request to extend the [applicant’s] pre-trial detention well-founded. Accordingly the court rejects the request for bail lodged by [the applicant] and his defence.

Regard being had to the above and the seriousness of the charges against [the applicant], the court does not consider it possible to apply a restrictive measure other than to remand the accused in custody ... ”

On 25 October 2010 the City Court upheld the decision of 29 September 2010 on appeal.

On 29 November 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 January 2011. The court reasoned as follows:

“... the grounds underlying the [applicant’s] detention pending trial have not altered. [He] is charged with a grievous offence entailing a custodial sentence in excess of two years; he previously absconded and his name was put on the list of wanted persons; he is not employed and does not have an official source of income; he used to be a policeman and has relevant knowledge and experience; he is privy to the personal data of the victim and a witness. The evidence, the circumstances and the [applicant’s] character presented to the court lead it to believe that, if released, [the applicant] might abscond, continue criminal activities, threaten the victim and the witness, put pressure on them or otherwise interfere with the investigation of the case.”

On 27 December 2010 the City Court upheld the decision of 29 November 2010 on appeal.

On 28 December 2010 the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow fixed the trial for 12 January 2011. The applicant asked for release on bail in the amount of 500,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to be paid by his cousin. The court further extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other defendant until 17 June 2011, noting as follows:

“Defendant M. is charged with grievous offences. [The applicant] is charged with grievous offences. Accordingly, [the court] considers that there are grounds to believe that, if released, M. and [the applicant] might abscond or otherwise interfere with the proceedings. The court does not discern any circumstances justifying lifting or changing the restriction’s] request for release on bail as unsubstantiated.”

On 9 February 2011 the City Court upheld the decision of 28 December 2010 on appeal.

On 13 April 2011 the District Court found the applicant guilty of extortion and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. On 25 July 2011 the City Court upheld in substance the applicant’s conviction on appeal but reduced his sentence to three years and nine months.

On 2 July 2010 the applicant was placed in remand prison no. IZ77/4 in Moscow. He was held there until 8 September 2011 except for one period between October and November 2010 when he underwent medical treatment in remand prison no. IZ-77/1.

The applicant was detained in cells nos. 913 and 914 which measured 6 metres by 5.5 metres. The cell was equipped with eight bunk beds, a table, two benches and a metal cabinet used for food storage. The toilet was located some 1.4 metres away from the living area of the cell and offered no privacy.

The applicant suffers from chronic gastritis and post-traumatic brain dysfunction. Because of his condition, he was eligible for a special food regime, which was allegedly not provided. His relatives sent him medicine and food while he was in detention.

In October-November 2011 the applicant underwent medical treatment in the hospital of remand prison no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow.

In response to the applicant’s complaint, the Moscow City Ombudsman made an enquiry as to the medical care provided in the remand prison. The inquiry did not confirm the applicant’s allegations that he had been refused due medical care. The applicant was informed accordingly on 12 November 2010.

The Government’s submissions as regards the conditions in which the applicant was transported may be summarised as follows:

The Government did not specify the type of compartment the applicant was placed in during the transfer to and from the court-house. According to the documents submitted, on 11 February 2011 during the journey from the remand prison to the court-house, the applicant was placed in a single compartment with another inmate.

The Government submitted the following information as regards the measurements and capacity of the prison vans:

The vans were ventilated by an opening in the door and by vents in the compartments. They were equipped with heating and lighting. They were cleaned and disinfected daily. The vans were in good working order at all times. During the journey, it was not possible for the inmates to use a toilet. They could use the toilet at the court-house, if necessary.

According to the photographs submitted by the Government, each compartment was equipped with two benches located along the longer walls and facing each other. There was no access to natural light. The Government also submitted excerpts from standards for service vehicles intended for the transport of suspects and defendants in criminal cases, which set forth that the seating space per person in the prison van should be at least 0.45 by 0.35 m.

According to the applicant, he was transported in a single-occupancy compartment only on two occasions. For the rest of the time, he was transported in a collective compartment which held up to eighteen detainees and measured 3.8 m by 2.35 m by 1.6 m. There were not enough seats for everyone and some people had to stand or sit on someone else’s lap. During the winter the vans were not heated. The ceiling and the walls were covered with ice. The floor in the van was extremely dirty. It was covered with cigarette butts, food crumbs, plastic bottles and bags of urine. The natural ventilation of the van through the hatches was insufficient. All the detainees smoked in the van and the applicant was exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke. The light was off all the time.

On the days of the trial, the applicant was placed in a holding cell at the court-house measuring 2.5 by 1.5 metres. It was, according to the applicant, dirty, poorly lit and unventilated. In the winter, the temperature did not exceed +140C. The cell held two or more detainees. There was no toilet in the cell. The applicant spent about eight hours in such conditions.


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Baktalórántháza.

In 2001 the applicant’s loss of capacity to work was assessed to be 67 per cent as of 1 April 2001, and she was granted a disability pension (see paragraph 18 below). This assessment was maintained in 2003, 2006 and 2007.

Pursuant to a modification of the applicable methodology but apparently without any substantial change in her health, the level of the applicant’s disability was changed to 40 per cent on 1 December 2009. Without envisaging her rehabilitation, the assessment panel scheduled the next check-up of her medical status for November 2012.

As a consequence of her 40 per cent level of disability, her entitlement to the disability pension was withdrawn as of 1 February 2010.

The applicant challenged this decision in court, but the Nyíregyháza Labour Court dismissed her action on 1 April 2011, notwithstanding an expert opinion stating that the applicant’s condition had not improved since 2007. The applicant was obliged to reimburse the amounts received after 1 February 2010.

In 2011 the applicant requested another assessment of her disability. In September 2011 the first-instance authority assessed it at 45 per cent, scheduling the next assessment for September 2014. The second-instance authority changed this score to 50 per cent, with a reassessment due in March 2015. Such a level would have entitled her to disability pension, had her rehabilitation not been possible (see paragraph 19 below). However, this time the assessment envisaged the applicant’s rehabilitation in a time-frame of 36 months, during which time she was to receive rehabilitation allowance.

As of 1 January 2012, a new law on disability allowances (Act no. CXCI of 2011) entered into force. It introduced additional applicability criteria (see paragraph 20 below). Notably, instead of fulfilling the service period required by the former legislation, the disabled person must have at least 1,095 days covered by social security in the five years preceding the submission of his or her request. Persons who do not meet this requirement may nevertheless qualify if they had no interruption of social cover for more than 30 days throughout their career, or if they were in receipt of a disability pension on 31 December 2011.

In February 2012 the applicant submitted another request for disability allowance. Her condition was assessed in April 2012, leading to the finding of 50 per cent disability. On 5 June 2012 her request was dismissed because she did not have the requisite period of social cover. Rehabilitation was not envisaged. The next assessment was scheduled for April 2014.

On 2 August 2012 the applicant submitted a fresh request for disability pension under the new law on disability allowances and underwent another assessment in which the level of her disability was again established at 50 per cent. Rehabilitation was not envisaged.

In principle, such a level of disability would entitle the applicant to a disability pension under the new system. However, since her disability pension had been terminated in February 2010 (that is, she was not in receipt of a disability pension on 31 December 2011) and, moreover, she was not in a position to accumulate the requisite number of days covered by social security or to demonstrate an uninterrupted social cover, she was not eligible, under any title, for a disability allowance under the new system. Instead of the requisite 1,095 days covered by social security, the applicant had only 947.

Accordingly, the applicant’s disability pension request was refused both by the competent administrative authorities (on 23 November 2012 and 27 February 2013) and by the Nyíregyháza Administrative and Labour Court, on 20 June 2013.

As of 1 January 2014, the impugned legislative criteria have been amended with a view to extending the eligibility for disability allowance to those who have accumulated either 2,555 days covered by social security in ten years or 3,650 days in fifteen years. However, the applicant could not meet these criteria either.

It appears that currently the applicant lives on aid.

Since 2013 the Constitutional Court has examined a number of complaints attacking in essence the same new rules on disability entitlements (decision nos. 3227/2013, 3156/2013 and 3235/2014). The complainants in those procedures raised their constitutional concerns after the final and binding domestic judgments, without applying to the Kúria (Supreme Court) in review proceedings. Although these motions were eventually rejected as inadmissible for other reasons, the Constitutional Court did not consider that, for their constitutional complaints to be entertained, those complainants were required to have approached the Kúria beforehand.


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Budapest.

On 1 July 2002 the applicant concluded an employment contract with a State-owned financial institution.

On 6 May 2010 the applicant’s employment was terminated by mutual agreement with effect from 30 July 2010. Under this agreement, on 17 May 2010 the employer paid the applicant, after payroll burdens, a net amount of 4,997,020 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 16,100 euros (EUR)), including his salary due until the termination of his employment, payment for unused annual leave and an additional five months’ salary.

Under new legislation (see paragraph 10 below) the gross amount corresponding to the above payment was subsequently taxed at a 98% rate in its part exceeding HUF 3.5 million; the income tax and social security contributions already paid (see paragraph 8 above) were deducted from the tax payable. Thus, the applicant had to pay an additional HUF 2,144,160 (approximately EUR 6,900) as special tax, until 20 May 2011.


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Violation of Article 14+9 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Non-pecuniary damage - award

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

The applicants are all Jehovah’s Witnesses, except for the ninth applicant, M. Kvergelidze. Their application to the Court is based on thirty cases of alleged violence and assault to which the applicants were subjected at different times. The applicants lodged approximately 160 complaints with the investigation authorities, including the General Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (“the GPO”), with a view to criminal proceedings being brought against the perpetrators. The complaints failed to yield any concrete results.

At least four acts of religiously motivated violence were allegedly carried out with the direct participation of the police and other representatives of the authorities, while four other cases indicate their indirect involvement. Twelve of the thirty acts of alleged violence described in the application involved assaults on Jehovah’s Witnesses by the group of Orthodox believers run by Mr Basil Mkalavishvili (“Father Basil”), a priest defrocked by the Georgian Orthodox Church (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 11, 3 May 2007). Although in all the cases the applicants complained to the investigation authorities, in only a few of the cases did they receive a written response. In at least fifteen of the cases, when the applicants challenged the inactivity and ignorance of the law enforcement authorities, the courts refused to hear their complaints. In the majority of the cases, the victims reported the original investigation authorities’ indifference and failure to act to the GPO, but the latter took no adequate action. In only three cases were the applicants able to take their complaints right up to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which then dismissed them.

The Public Defender of Georgia, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International and national and international media repeatedly reported that Jehovah’s Witnesses had been the target of violence by private and Orthodox religious individuals, the majority of whom had been led by Father Basil, and that the relevant authorities had failed to prevent or stop it.

In support of the factual account set out below, the applicants produced the statements of more than 100 victims and witnesses of the alleged violence, photographs of police officers failing to take action while attacks were taking place, photographs of the injured applicants, as well as video recordings and photographs of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meeting places that had been pillaged and ransacked. To illustrate the situation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Georgia at the material time, the applicants’ representatives also referred to the evidence submitted in two other applications made by Jehovah’s Witnesses before the Court (Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others, cited above, and Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 72874/01, pending before the Court).

The following account presents the facts as the applicants claim they occurred.

This part of the application concerns applicants K. Pirtskheliani, E. Pirtskheliani, G. Lemonjava, Z. Sartania, N. Pularia, D. Pachkoria, Z. Gogokhia, R. Tskhadaia, B. Tskhadaia, B. Kurashvili, N. Kantaria, L. Esebua, R. Karchava, D. Gulua, T. Biblaia, S. Kintsurashvili, K. Kutaladze, D. Samkharadze, L. Sabashvili and M. Berishvili (listed in the appendix as nos. 40-59).

On 23 August 2000, A.T., P.Ch., O.P, Z.G., D.Zh. and V.G., senior officials at the Zugdidi office of the Ministry of the Interior (Western Georgia) drew up a “plan for a protection operation to prevent the meeting of the religious movement of Jehovah’s Witnesses” in the village of Rokhi on 25 August 2000. The plan stated that “unofficial demonstrations against the meeting in question are likely to take place, requiring police intervention to prevent religious conflict.” The aims of the operation were defined as follows: to pick up individuals attending the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meeting, to identify them for operational purposes, to gather information on the identified individuals by infiltrating their ranks; and to set up permanent and mobile checkpoints on the outskirts of the village of Rokhi, and on the roads around Rokhi and between neighbouring villages.

According to the applicants, the Rokhi religious convention was postponed by two weeks because of the on-going negotiations between the meeting organisers and local officials on the security measures to be put in place.

On 8 September 2000 a peaceful meeting of some 700 Jehovah’s Witnesses was taking place at the property of K. and E. Pirtskheliani (applicants nos. 40 and 41), when it was suddenly disrupted by the police. According to the applicants, the police opened fire inside their property. Masked police officers entered the house, turned it upside down and removed various items. Around fifty Jehovah’s Witnesses who were present were beaten, including applicants D. Gulua, M. Berishvili, K. Pirtskheliani and K. Kutaladze. E. Pirtskheliani, the aged co-owner of the house, was verbally assaulted and one of the attackers spat in her face. She was also made to watch her house being ransacked and plundered, and the stage set up in the courtyard set on fire. At the same time the police organised around seven buses to drive the participants of the religious meeting off from the scene.

Elsewhere, police checkpoints were set up on the main roads to impede a further 1,300 Witnesses – including the applicants B. Kurashvili, R. Tskhadaia and B. Tskhadaia – from reaching the meeting. According to applicant D. Samkharadze, he and L. Sabashvili were allegedly attacked and beaten on their way to the assembly, whilst N. Pularia, R. Karchava, Z. Gogokhia, Z. Sartania, S. Kintsurashvili, T. Biblaia, L. Esebua, and G. Lemonjava escaped physical aggression but were verbally assaulted and humiliated.

The applicants lodged complaints with the SamegreloZemo Svaneti regional prosecutor’s office in September 2000, and criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 178 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia (robbery) on 15 January 2001. The criminal file was sent to the investigation department of the Zugdidi office of the Ministry of the Interior and investigator B.Ch. was put in charge of the investigation. In FebruaryApril 2001 most of the applicants, along with other participants of the 8 September 2000 religious meeting, were questioned as witnesses; none of them was granted formal victim status. It appears that no other investigative measures were taken.

On 19 June 2001 the applicants were informed that the investigator had suspended the investigation on 15 April 2001 and that the regional prosecutor had upheld that decision on 20 April 2001. The reason stated was the failure of the investigation to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicants referred the matter to the regional prosecutor’s office, complaining that their statements, providing, among other things, the names of several police officers involved in the incident and the number plates of the vehicles used, had been disregarded. The investigator’s decision was set aside on 12 July 2001 and the case was referred back to the same investigator for further inquiries. However, the investigation was subsequently suspended again without the applicants being informed. They did not learn that their case had been closed until the respondent State submitted its observations to the Court in two other applications made by Jehovah’s Witnesses against Georgia on 31 December 2001. Consequently, on 17 January 2002, the applicants contacted the regional prosecutor to obtain a copy of the decision. They received no response.

This part of the application concerns applicants R. Tsartsidze, M. Gelashvili, R. Botchoidze, V. Gabunia, G. Sagaletovi, S. Bozoyani, Z. Martirosovi, Z. Baidoshvili, Sh. Simoniani and A. Gratiashvili (listed in the appendix as nos. 60-69).

According to the applicants, on 16 September 2000 a large number of Jehovah’s Witnesses departed for a meeting in Marneuli (Eastern Georgia). The police had set up checkpoints along the route, blocking the roads and preventing the Witnesses from arriving at their destination. Nineteen buses and several cars stopped by the police were obliged to turn back. Meanwhile, the police allowed a bus carrying Orthodox believers to continue to Marneuli. Upon arrival, the group of Orthodox believers burst into the property belonging to R. Tsartsidze (applicant no. 60) in which the meeting was to be held. They destroyed religious objects and removed items belonging to the owner of the property. The police officers present refused to intervene to protect the Jehovah’s Witnesses and at least some of them went as far as to beat members of the meeting. At least twenty-eight Witnesses were beaten and robbed during the attack. Property belonging to the Witnesses valued at several thousand US dollars was destroyed or stolen. In addition, according to an audit report submitted by the applicants, 1,500 kilograms of religious literature worth several thousand US dollars was burnt on that day.

R. Tsartsidze was assaulted and beaten by those who stormed his house, while Sh. Simoniani, G. Sagaletovi, Z. Martirosovi, R. Botchoidze and M. Gelashvili were stopped and beaten by a group of Orthodox believers on their way to the convention site. G. Sagaletovi submitted a medical certificate stating that he had sustained concussion as a result of the beatings. M. Gelashvili sustained bruises around his right eye and on his right knee. It appears that the next day he was further assaulted by two police officers on account of his participation in the events at hand.

S. Bozoyani was prevented by the roadblocks from travelling to Marneuli and thus escaped the attack unharmed, while V. Gabunia, Z. Baidoshvili and A. Gratiashvili did not submit any statements with regard to the treatment inflicted on them.

On 18 September 2000 the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the GPO. They received no information concerning the progress of their complaint. Therefore, on 24 December 2001, the applicants’ representative contacted the GPO requesting a copy of the decision taken with respect to the initial complaint. The GPO did not respond. On 25 March 2002, the applicants lodged a complaint against the authorities for their failure to reply. Their complaint was dismissed on 2 April 2002 by the Marneuli District Court on the ground that they could not file a complaint against a non-existent decision.

This part of the application concerns the applicants I. Papava, E. Baramia, M. Sakhokia, M. Chikovani, T. Todua and Z. Khargelia (listed in the appendix as nos. 34-39).

On 3 September 2000, several private individuals, including Z.O., K.T., and U.A., armed with guns and knives, burst into the home of I. Papava in Senaki (Western Georgia) where a meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses was taking place. One of the assailants blocked the door, while the others proceeded to attack the applicants. A gun was pointed at the head of M. Sakhokia and he was punched in the face until his nose, which had been broken, began to bleed. T. Todua was cruelly beaten and a cigarette was stubbed out on his forehead. Z. Khargelia was punched in the face and stomach and threatened with a knife, and M. Chikovani jumped out of a window when one of the attackers took out his gun and pulled the trigger. She was taken to hospital by ambulance and placed in intensive care. I. Papava, the owner of the house, was not at home during the attack, but his wife, E. Baramia, was present and was also assaulted.

Along with their statements giving details of the incident, the applicants also provided the Court with a photograph of M. Chikovani, who, after jumping out of the window, sustained an injury to her back and was unable to walk for months, a photograph of M. Sakhokia with a broken nose, and a photograph of T. Todua with a cigarette burn on his forehead.

The police officers who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident insulted the victims and refused to record their complaints. On 22 September 2000, the applicants lodged a collective complaint with the city prosecutor.

On 15 October 2000, several of the applicants were summoned to give a statement. Their representative subsequently lodged a complaint in respect of the pressure and harassment to which the applicants had been subjected during questioning. He also denounced the investigators’ refusal to organise a medical examination of M. Chikovani and other victims of the attack.

On 22 February 2001, the applicants were notified of the decision of 20 December 2000 to take no further action in relation to their complaints. According to the decision, the investigating authorities had concluded that M. Sakhokia’s injuries had been self-inflicted, while M. Chikovani had jumped out of the window “of her own free will”. The decision also stated that the investigative authorities had established that one of the attackers had had a toy gun and had hence concluded that the meeting in question had not been violently disrupted.

Following an objection lodged by the applicants on 3 March 2001 with the regional prosecutor, the case was sent to the city prosecutor for further investigation. On 13 November 2001, the applicants went to the public prosecutor’s office to seek information on the progress of their case. They learnt that no further action would be taken and were denied a copy of the decision. On 26 November 2001, the applicants applied to the Senaki Court of First Instance but the judge refused to register their application. It was only following a complaint filed with the Chair of the Georgian Supreme Court that the Senaki court dealt with the applicants’ application on 4 January 2002 and quashed the decision of the public prosecutor’s office to take no action in their case. The case was sent back for additional investigation. Since then, the applicants have received no further news from the investigation authorities.

This part of the application concerns the applicants I. Geliashvili, E. Kakhelishvili, K. Javashvili, G. Poladashvili, L. Nozadze, T. Arabidze, B. Saralidze and S. Kvergelidze (listed in the appendix as nos. 26-33).

On 16 and 17 August 2000, a large group of Orthodox believers led by Father Basil burst into the courtroom of the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance in Tbilisi, which was dealing with a criminal case against two Jehovah’s Witnesses. The group attacked the applicants, journalists and foreign observers present in the room. The court bailiffs guarding the courtroom did not move or intervene in the confrontation. The group of believers was equipped with big wooden crosses, which they used as weapons. They took control of the courtroom. The lawyer acting for the accused asked for the hearing to be adjourned, but the judge did not allow his request. The court imposed no penalties on the religious believers who had forcibly occupied the courtroom. The attack was filmed and broadcast on the Rustavi 2 and Kavkasia television channels.

Applicants E. Kakhelishvili, S. Kvergelidze, L. Nozadze and I. Geliashvili managed to escape the aggression unharmed, while K. Javashvili, G. Poladashvili, T. Arabidze and B. Saralidze, according to their statements, suffered verbal and physical abuse; they were all threatened with being beaten by the big crosses.

The applicants lodged various complaints. They were given no information as to the progress of their cases. On 3 July 2002 their lawyer asked for access to the file and discovered that criminal proceedings had been instituted on 17 August 2000 and that on that same day, an investigation unit had been set up. The case had since been assigned to three successive investigating officers. The first two had managed to secure an extension of the investigation period until 17 December 2000 and 17 February 2001 respectively. On 17 February 2001, the investigator responsible had decided to close the case on the grounds that it had been impossible “to identify the perpetrators of the attack”. The applicants pointed out that the video recording of the attack had been broadcast on television and that furthermore, many of the witnesses had recognised Father Basil’s religious group.

On 22 March 2001, the decision to take no further action was set aside and the file returned for further investigation. On 3 May 2002, the investigation period was extended to 20 September 2002. Following two years of investigation, none of the attackers was placed under investigation and no decision was served on the applicants and their lawyer.

This part of the application concerns the applicant G. Makharoblishvili (listed in the appendix as no. 16). On 29 January 2001, while walking along the road between the villages of Okami and Lamiskana (Eastern Georgia), the applicant was picked up by four private individuals, who were later identified as T.B., G.K., N.P., and J.B. They took him by car to the place of worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses living in Lamiskana. They threatened to kill him unless he crossed himself and went around the site carrying an icon. When the applicant refused, they dragged him into a forest and beat him. They stripped him and took his personal belongings, including religious literature, which they then set alight. They threatened to rape him if he did not do as they ordered. They placed the belt of his own trousers around his neck, dragged him by the hair and forced him to crawl to a sacred rock and kiss it. After an hour and a half, and having been warned not to mention the incident to anyone, the applicant was taken back to the attackers’ car. He was thrown out of the car outside the house of a villager. The villager took care of the applicant for two days until he was able to return home.

On 19 February 2002 the applicant reported the incident to the police. In support of his version of events he submitted, along with his detailed statement, a statement of the villager, who had taken care of him. When the attackers learnt that he had done so, they threatened him. The police contacted them and obtained a written undertaking that they would stop intimidating the applicant. The applicant was notified of the decision of 1 June 2001 not to open a criminal case two months later. On 28 August and 24 December 2001, his lawyer lodged an appeal with the regional prosecutor and the GPO respectively. He received no response. On 20 March 2002, the lawyer referred the matter to the Kaspi Court of First Instance. The court informed him verbally that the decision not to institute criminal proceedings would be set aside by the regional prosecutor and that the investigation would go ahead. On 2 April 2002, the regional prosecutor sent the matter for further investigation. Since that date, the applicant has received no further information as to the progress of his case. His lawyer’s requests for information have also been to no avail.

This part of the application concerns applicant S. Khojenashvili (listed in the appendix as no. 70). On 16 April 2001, the applicant was allegedly beaten up by V.A., in the Baghdadi region (Western Georgia) because he was a Jehovah’s Witness. The applicant went to the local hospital, which alerted the police. The medical certificate submitted by the applicant stated that he had sustained bruising on the back of his head and abrasions on his face, right cheek, forehead and the back of his left ear.

On 18 April 2001, the applicant filed a complaint with the Baghdadi police. He was pressurised on many occasions by the attacker and his family to withdraw his complaint. The police investigated, identified Mr V.A. as the attacker and forwarded the case file to the Baghdadi Court of First Instance. On 5 June 2001, before even questioning the applicant and the prosecution witnesses and after having questioned the defence witnesses, the trial judge decided not to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime. The applicant appealed to the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, which, by a decision of 8 October 2001, upheld the decision of the lower court. Both those courts established that V.A. had not beaten up the applicant while he had been touting his literature, but had merely pushed him to get away from him. The applicant had therefore been injured by falling. On 24 January 2002, the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant.

This part of the application concerns applicant V. Dolidze (listed in the appendix as no.10). On 19 April 2000 the applicant, along with some thirty Jehovah’s Witnesses, was celebrating a religious feast in a private house in the city of Lanchkhuti (Western Georgia). Late in the evening some seventy persons approached the house and tried to interrupt the religious gathering. Several of them, who were apparently drunk, including L.Ch. and O.E., the latter being armed with a wooden stick, burst into the house and verbally assaulted the Witnesses; the applicant was physically assaulted by L.Ch. Police intervention was requested and the head of the city police, T.K., arrived but, according to the applicant, only to assist the attackers. He forced the applicant to go to a police station, where the latter was physically assaulted by T.K., insulted by other people, including an Orthodox priest, and threatened with further physical violence unless he stopped practising his religion in Lanchkhuti. He was detained at the police station for about three hours.

On 25 April 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint. By a decision of 15 May 2000 an investigator from the Lanchkhuti district prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings owing to the absence of evidence of a crime. He concluded, after having questioned several police officers, that there was no evidence substantiating the applicant’s allegation that T.K. had insulted him. The applicant was not informed of the above decision until 22 March 2001. He immediately appealed, complaining, inter alia, that his initial complaint had concerned not only the conduct of T.K. but also the violent dispersal of the Jehovah’s Witnesses meeting of 19 April 2000 and the physical and verbal assault on him that had ensued. On 22 April 2001 the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld on appeal and no further investigation was ever conducted. The respective decision was served on the applicant only on 19 May 2002.

These parts of the application concern the applicants N. Sikharulidze, A. Aptsiauri and G. Gogia (listed in the appendix as nos. 7274, case no. 8); G. Markozashvili and L. Markozashvili (nos. 75 and 76, case no. 9); K. Vashakidze, N. Gabisonia, N. Gegia and M. Tchubabria (nos. 77-80, case no. 10); I. Bolotashvili, V. Gugulashvili, A. Toradze and M. Bekauri (nos. 82-85, case no. 11); A. Burjanadze and A. ElbakidzeJioeva (nos. 86 and 87, case no. 12); N. Butkhuzi (no. 88, case no. 13); and V. Begheluri and G. Todua (nos. 1 and 2, case no. 14) respectively.

On 16 January, 27 November, 19 and 26 December 2000, 8 June 2001, 19 and 26 December 2000, 11 November 2000 and 29 April 2001 respectively the applicants were subjected to various forms of aggressive behaviour because of their faith. A group of Father Basil’s followers in Tbilisi, a group of around thirty followers of Father Tsaava and Father Basilaia in Martvili, and other groups of laypersons followed the applicants in the streets or close to their homes; they insulted them; they attempted to break into their homes by forcing the doors, frightening children who had been left home alone (case no. 9); they tried to force one of the applicants to kiss the cross (applicant no. 80, criminal case no.10); and they seized their religious literature (case no. 14) and burned it (case no. 11). The homes of applicants A. Elbakidze-Jioeva and N. Butkhuzi at which the Jehovah’s Witnesses held their services were burgled and ransacked, and religious objects were stolen (cases nos. 12 and 13).

In certain cases, the police were present at the scene but did not intervene to protect the applicants (criminal cases nos. 9 and 10).

In all cases, the applicants lodged complaints, but apart from cases nos. 8 and 10, no response was ever received. The applicants contacted the Prosecutor General to obtain a written decision as regards their complaints but they never received a reply. In some cases the courts contacted the public prosecutor’s office themselves requesting written decisions, but received no response.

In criminal case no. 8, in reply to a complaint filed by applicants N. Sikharulidze, A. Aptsiauri and G. Gogia (nos. 72-74), the police informed them that they had issued a warning to Father Basil to stop attacking Jehovah’s Witnesses. The applicants requested several times a copy of the written decision not to institute criminal proceedings, but received no response. On 18 June 2002 the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance refused to hear an objection lodged by the applicants on the grounds that they could not validly challenge a non-existent decision. The complaints filed by G. and L. Markozashvili (criminal case no. 9), I. Bolotashvili, V. Gugulashvili, A. Toradze and M. Bekauri (criminal case no. 11), N. Butkhuzi (criminal case no. 13) and V. Begheluri and G. Todua (criminal case no. 14) on 19 March 2002 had the same outcome; On various dates in March-June 2002 the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance refused to examine the applicants’ complaints on the ground that they had failed to submit the decisions of the prosecutor’s office.

In criminal case no. 10, the applicants were notified of the prosecutor’s decision of 30 July 2001 to take no further action. This decision was set aside by the court authorities and the case was referred back for further investigation. Subsequently, on 8 May 2002 the Martvili prosecutor upheld the initial refusal to institute criminal proceedings. The prosecutor concluded, on the basis of various witness testimonies, that neither of the Jehovah’s Witnesses had been subjected to verbal or physical abuse during the alleged incident; they had been merely prevented by the local priests and population from attending a religious gathering of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the home of N. Gabisonia (applicant no. 78) in order to avert an escalation of religious conflict in the city.

In criminal case no. 12, following several written complaints which have been left unanswered, on 5 June 2002 the head of the local police informed the applicants in person that no investigation had been carried out because they had never received their written complaints.

This part of the application concerns the applicant Kh. Japiashvili (listed in the appendix as no. 89). On 6 May 2000, the applicant was travelling to the village of Shakasheti with various religious books belonging either to him or to the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was stopped by police officer Z.D. and taken to Agara police station, where the books were confiscated. His attempts to object resulted in verbal abuse and he was released. The applicant returned to the police station some time later accompanied by two other Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were the other owners of the confiscated literature. On arrival, they noticed the charred remains of their books. On 8 May 2000, they lodged a complaint.

On 10 June 2002 the applicant was notified of a decision of 23 May 2000 not to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime.

This part of the application concerns the applicants K. Gagua and A. Gegelia (nos. 90 and 91). On 30 June 2000, G.Ts., an Orthodox priest, accompanied by several police officers, including B.B., approached K. Gagua, who was sitting on a bus in the city of Martvili, and demanded that he show them his bag. On the instructions of the priest, the police officers confiscated the religious literature and personal documents found in the bag. The applicant filed a complaint at the police station.

On 16 July 2000, both applicants were walking through the central square in the village of Didi Chkhoni (Martvili municipality) when they were stopped by a group of fifteen men. The applicants were cruelly beaten because of their faith. The head of the local police, R.A. and two police officers, K.T. and N.A, were close by and witnessed the act of violence, but failed to intervene to protect the victims. On the contrary, they threatened to arrest the applicants. The applicants filed a complaint. In support of his complaint, A. Gegelia submitted a medical report which stated that he had sustained bruises around his left eye, on his forehead and on both thighs.

The applicants’ complaints were never followed up. On 24 December 2001, their lawyer contacted the GPO but received no reply. On 29 March 2002, the applicants took legal action in respect of the investigation authorities’ failure to act. On 10 April 2002, the Martvili Court of First Instance refused to hear the complaint on the ground that the applicants could not validly challenge a non-existent decision. On 22 April 2002, the applicants filed the same complaint with the same court. On 16 May 2002, that court responded that the case had been referred back to the prosecutor’s office for a written decision. In reply to their query of 19 August 2002, the responsible investigator informed the applicants that on 28 May 2002 a decision had been taken to close the case. He based his decision on the statements of the alleged perpetrators. He dismissed the medical evidence and concluded that no crimes had been committed. The decision also stated that the time-limit for initiating a private legal action had expired.

This part of the application concerns the applicant A. Mikirtumovi (listed in the appendix as no. 97), a Jehovah’s Witness pastor. On 21 September 2000 the applicant was visiting a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Tetritskaro. Having been stopped in the street by unidentified individuals, he was taken to the police station where he was jeered at and insulted. The police threatened to arrest him if he were ever to be seen practising his religion in Tetritskaro again. The applicant was expelled from the town and the bus driver was ordered not to let him off the bus before the terminus in Tbilisi.

On 22 September 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint. He received an acknowledgment of receipt but no further information as to the progress of his case. On 24 December 2001, he contacted the GPO asking for a decision. No response followed. On 19 March 2002, the applicant referred the matter to the Tetritskaro Court of First Instance. On 5 June 2002, the first-instance judge informed him that the court’s attempts to obtain the file and the decision from the public prosecutor’s office had failed and that he was therefore unable to investigate his complaint. One month later, the court managed to obtain a copy of the prosecutor’s decision, which it forwarded to the applicant. It appeared from the 30 June 2001 decision that the prosecutor had decided not to initiate criminal proceedings. He concluded, on the basis of the statement of the two police officers involved in the incident, that the applicant had been taken to the police station for his own safety in order to prevent any conflict with the local population. The prosecutor also stated that there was no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s allegations of abuse.

The prosecutor’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld by the Tetritskaro Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia on 20 August and 10 October 2002 respectively.

This part of the application concerns the applicant Z. Kvaratskhelia (listed in the appendix as no. 98). On 15 August 2001, the applicant was stopped in a Tbilisi street by police officer N.M., who asked him what he had in his bag. The religious literature and the Bible in his bag were confiscated. The police officer and two passers-by insulted the applicant. On the following day, the applicant went to the police station to request the return of his books and Bible. In response to his request, officer N.M. threw a bag he was holding towards the applicant and kicked him out of the police station.

On 21 August 2001 the applicant filed a complaint but received no response. On 24 December 2001, his lawyer contacted the GPO but received no reply. The applicant referred the matter to the Vake-Saburtalo Court of First Instance in Tbilisi. At the hearing of 12 April 2002, the applicant obtained a copy of the decision of the public prosecutor’s office not to institute criminal proceedings dated 5 November 2001. The court set aside that decision and referred the case back to the public prosecutor’s office for further investigation. On 21 June 2002, the applicant’s lawyer tried unsuccessfully to obtain information on the progress of the file.

This part of the application concerns the applicants B. Gogoladze, A. Tvaradze and M. Kapanadze (nos. 13, 14 and 15). On 1 April 2001 the applicants were returning from a religious meeting. In the village of Dviri (Borjomi district, Western Georgia), they were attacked by a group of villagers accompanied by Mr S.Kh., and Mr J.B., administrative head of the county town of the district and administrative head of the village respectively. One of the attackers, a private individual, struck B. Gogoladze, who started bleeding and grabbed his bag containing a Bible and other religious literature. The same person then attacked the other two applicants, lashing them with the strap of the bag belonging to Gogoladze. The two administrative heads condoned the violence and insulted the applicants. They then ordered the villagers to stop and left the scene with them.

On 5 April 2001 the applicants filed a complaint. On 24 August 2001, they were notified of the decision to close the proceedings. On 6 September 2001, the applicants challenged that decision before the regional prosecutor, who dismissed their action on 1 October 2001. The applicants complained to the GPO on 28 November 2001, but no reply followed.

This part of the application concerns the applicants V. Begheluri, I. Janashvili, M. Makievi, Kh. Makieva, E. Tabaghua, E. Begheluri, J. Gogokhia, T. Kolbaia, L. Gelashvili and N. Maisuradze (listed in the appendix as nos. 1, 6 and 17-24).

On 28 July 2000 in Tbilisi, followers of Father Basil stopped a bus that was carrying Jehovah’s Witnesses to a religious meeting in Marneuli. They punctured the tyres, forced the applicants along with other Jehovah’s Witnesses out of the bus and assaulted them, verbally and physically. The men, including M. Makievi, E. Begheluri and V. Begheluri, were particularly severely beaten; N. Maisuradze was also personally targeted because she was video recording the attack. In particular, after forcefully getting of the bus, she was chased by two men who assaulted her and then took the camera away from her. They shortly returned to her a broken camera, but the video recording was missing. They also threatened her not to make any recordings in the future.

On 31 July 2000 forty-eight Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the applicants, filed a complaint. In August-September 2000 they in addition submitted individual statements detailing the violent incident. On 24 December 2001, their lawyer contacted the GPO asking for a decision to be taken. They received no response. On 19 March 2002, the applicants complained to the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance in Tbilisi of the investigation authorities’ failure to take action, which had amounted to a rejection of their complaint. On 19 June 2002, the court informed the applicants that in the absence of any written decision, their complaint could not be examined.

On 15 September 2001 the applicant M. Gaprindashvili (listed in the appendix as no. 99) was walking along a street in the city of Kutaisi, when he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse because of his faith. Notably, he alleged that he had been beaten and insulted by a passer-by while he was distributing religious literature. Accompanied by his attacker, the applicant went to the police station where he was allegedly hit by a police officer, T.K., while other police officers thanked the attacker. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted the statements of four eyewitnesses.

On 19 September 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint. On 12 October 2001, the Kutaisi prosecutor decided not to institute proceedings against the passer-by, identified as L.M., and police officer T.K. Noting that the applicant’s statement and those of the eyewitnesses supporting his version of the events were controversial, the prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of a criminal offence committed by either of them. The applicant challenged that decision. After having questioned the parties concerned, the lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant’s injuries had not been confirmed by a medical report. An appeal by the applicant to the Supreme Court of Georgia was dismissed on 18 June 2002.

This part of the application concerns the applicants M. Salukashvili, L. Kikalishvili, V. Burduli and I. Janashvili (listed in the appendix as nos. 36, case no. 22); L. Khitarishvili, N. Kobaidze and M. Kvergelidze (nos. 7-9, case no. 23); E. Gabelaia (no. 81, case no. 24); and S. Barsegyani, I. Dalakishvili-Barsegyani, and T. Arabyani (nos. 12, 92 and 93, case no. 25) respectively.

According to the applicants, because of their faith they were subjected to threats, verbal assault and theft of their religious literature and personal belongings while walking in the streets on 13 February 2000, 3 April 2000, 13 July 2000 and 20 June 2001 respectively. The attacks were carried out in different parts of the country. The perpetrators were followers of Father Basil or just laypersons hostile to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most of them were identified by the victims.

The applicants in all the cases complained to the police. When filing the complaint, some of them were subjected to verbal abuse by police officers (case no. 22). In response to their complaints, some of the applicants were informed verbally that the police had already warned the attackers to stop abusing Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hence, when E. Gabelaia (case no. 24) complained to the police on 18 July 2000 that she had been repeatedly assaulted by S.G. and his friends, the police limited themselves to contacting S.G. and obtaining a written undertaking that he would stop intimidating the applicant. The latter was informed in this respect verbally by head of police on 20 July 2000. According to the case file, she took no further action in response.

The applicants in criminal cases nos. 22, 23 and 25 were not informed of any decision taken by the relevant national authorities in connection with their complaints. The applicants complained to the courts of the inaction of the investigation authorities, but the courts refused to deal with their cases in the absence of a written decision. The respective court decisions were delivered on 3 April (criminal case no. 25) and 18 June 2002 (criminal cases nos. 22-23).

This part of the application concerns the applicants V. Marikyani and S. Barsegyani (listed in the appendix as nos. 11 and 12, case no. 26), K. Korchilava (no.71, case no. 27), A. Turkia and T. Galdava (nos. 94 and 95, case no. 28), D. Margiani (no. 96, case no. 29) and G. Kokhreidze (case no. 30). According to the applicants, while walking in the street they were subjected to verbal and physical abuse because of their faith. They were beaten up and their personal belongings were stolen on 3 August and 24 September 2000, 20 June and 1 August 2001, and 19 April 2000 respectively. In support of their version of the events the applicants submitted detailed statements as well as medical evidence where available.

Applicants V. Marikyani and S. Barsegyani (criminal case no. 26), who were allegedly beaten by a group of fifteen supporters of Father Basil in a street during daylight hours in Tbilisi, had to seek medical assistance in a hospital. Two days after the attack they filed a criminal complaint with the GPO in which they provided a detailed account of the incident, indicated the number plates of the vehicles involved, and identified two of the alleged attackers by name. While being questioned as witnesses, the applicants were pressured by the police to withdraw their complaint. In a ruling of 9 January 2001 the Gldani-Nadzaladevi Court of First Instance concluded, having regard to the relevant case file, that the assault in question, as a result of which the applicants had sustained minor bodily injuries, had clearly had a religious motive and had been committed by followers of Father Basil. The judge noted, however, that it had been impossible to identify the alleged perpetrators and referred the case file back to the prosecution authorities. As it appears from the materials at hand, the applicants were informed in June 2002 that their case file was subsequently lost.

In case no. 27, the applicant was assaulted by a private individual, L.L. He filed a complaint with the local police the day after the attack. He also underwent a medical examination. He resubmitted his criminal complaint to the district prosecutor of Abasha one week later, together with the results of the medical examination. He received a reply on 5 October 2000 stating that criminal proceedings had been instituted. Since then, however, the applicant has not inquired about the progress of the investigation.

Applicant A. Turkia (criminal case no. 28) was assaulted by a layperson, M.J., in the city of Abasha on 20 June 2001. The incident was witnessed by applicant T. Galdava, who apparently escaped the attack unharmed. According to Mr Turkia’s statement, he suffered serious physical and verbal abuse and was also threatened with a knife. On 25 June 2001 he filed a complaint with the GPO. Mr Turkia claimed that it was not the first attack of this type involving M.J. On 9 July 2001 the deputy head of the Abasha regional police decided not to follow up the complaint. He concluded, on the basis of the alleged attacker’s statement as well as several eyewitnesses’ depositions, that M.J. had simply asked Mr Turkia to stop disseminating religious literature in the city and that Mr Turkia had suffered no physical injuries. The decision was upheld on appeal by a prosecutor on 23 July 2001. On 24 July 2002 the Abasha District Court judge set aside the prosecutor’s decision. He referred to the results of Mr Turkia’s medical examination, and to a photograph of him taken the day after the alleged incident. He concluded that there was evidence of an offence and remitted the case for further investigation. Applicant Turkia was not informed of the progress of the subsequent investigation.

In case no. 29 the applicant, who was verbally and physically assaulted by a group of private individuals, among them M.T. and G.C. residents of the village Narazini (Western Georgia), was informed by police that they had issued a warning to M.T. to stop attacking Jehovah’s Witnesses. A decision was taken not to initiate a criminal investigation. The applicant challenged the refusal. On 4 January 2002 the Zugdidi District Court remitted the case for further investigation. The trial judge concluded that no identification procedure had taken place and that the investigation had disregarded the accusations voiced with respect to G.C. On 23 January 2002 a Zugdidi prosecutor after having questioned the alleged attackers maintained the refusal to open a criminal case owing to the absence of elements of crime.

G. Kokhreidze (criminal case no. 30) was assaulted while hosting several Witnesses at a dinner in her home on 19 April 2000. She complained to police claiming that one of the assailants, U.S. had been systematically attacking her. Police informed her that they had warned U.S. and that no proceedings had been instituted. Subsequently, the applicant requested a copy of the written decision not to institute criminal proceedings, but received no response.


Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

On 2 December 2002 the applicants’ son and brother respectively, Utku Uyar, was killed in a traffic accident when the car he was driving collided with a bulldozer at approximately 2.30 p.m. in the afternoon. The bulldozer was being used for road works by the General Directorate of Highways (Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü). An autopsy performed on the victim’s body on 3 December 2002 confirmed that he had died as a result of bodily traumas sustained in the crash.

Shortly after the accident, three gendarme officers went to the site of the crash to prepare an incident report. They noted, inter alia, that no signs had been placed on the road to warn drivers about the road works, a fact confirmed by the driver of the bulldozer. According to a map sketched by the gendarme officers, the car driven by Utku Uyar had hit the bulldozer on the rear left side, while the bulldozer was parked on an unpaved area on the right side of the main road.

According to witness statements obtained by the gendarmerie on 2 December 2002, the rear of the bulldozer had protruded approximately one and a half metres onto the main road at the time of the collision. However, it had been moved to the side of the road immediately after the accident, prior to the arrival of the gendarmerie at the site of the crash.

A couple of hours after the accident gendarme officers questioned the driver of the bulldozer, B.T. He stated that he had been operating the bulldozer on the unpaved area next to the main road when Utku Uyar’s car had crashed into it. He denied any responsibility for the accident.

On 3 December 2002 B.T. was taken to the Sultanhisar public prosecutor to make a statement. Repeating his earlier words to the gendarmerie, B.T. insisted that the bulldozer had been completely off the main road at the time of the accident, and that he had no idea how the collision had occurred. He also stated that there had been some signs about 700-800 metres from the place of the crash showing road works. He made the same statement before the Sultanhisar Magistrates’ Court later the same day.

On 9 December 2002 the Sultanhisar public prosecutor interviewed an eyewitness, A.E.H., who stated that at the time of the incident the bulldozer had occupied almost half the main road and that just before the crash another accident had been avoided when a lorry had managed to steer around the bulldozer at the last minute. The witness stated that he had warned an engineer overseeing the road works that someone holding a flag was needed to redirect the traffic.

On 12 December 2002 the Sultanhisar public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Sultanhisar Criminal Court of First Instance (“the Sultanhisar Criminal Court” or “the trial court”) against B.T., charging him with causing death through negligence under Article 455 § 1 of the Criminal Code in force at the material time.

On 13 December 2002 the Sultanhisar Criminal Court began hearing the case.

On an unspecified date the first applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.

On 7 January 2003 the trial court carried out an on-site inspection of the place of the accident. The inspection included a gendarmerie expert, the defendant and eight witnesses. The expert carried out measurements on the bulldozer and the unpaved road it had been working on, as well as on the main road. Only one of the witnesses, A.E.H., who had previously been interviewed by the public prosecutor, had seen the accident happen. The remaining witnesses made contradictory statements about the location of the crash. Some of them stated that the victim’s car had crashed into the bulldozer on the shoulder between the main road and the unpaved area, while others stated that the collision had occurred in the right lane of the main road.

On 16 January 2003 the gendarmerie expert issued his report (“the first report”). He stated that owing to the contradictory nature of the witness accounts the location of the collision could not be established with any certainty. He continued by saying that if the crash had occurred on the shoulder, then the victim bore five-eighths responsibility, as he had had no reason for leaving his lane and crossing to the shoulder; the remaining responsibility fell on the General Directorate of Highways (two-eighths) and B.T. (one-eighth) for not taking the necessary safety measures around the road construction work. If, however, the collision had occurred in the right lane of the main road, then B.T. and the General Directorate of Highways were six-eighths and two-eighths liable respectively for occupying the main road without taking any safety measures.

On 11 April 2003 the Forensic Medicine Institute issued a report concerning the accident (“the second report”). Relying on all the information in the case file, they found that the collision had occurred on the main road. On the basis of that finding, it declared that B.T. was threeeighths responsible for occupying the main road, the victim was threeeighths liable for not reacting effectively and redirecting the car in a timely manner to avoid a collision, and the General Directorate of Highways was two-eighths responsible for not placing warning signs and signals on the road.

On 17 June 2003 the first applicant objected to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report. It appears that the Sultanhisar Criminal Court ordered a third report owing to the contradictions between the first two.

On 8 September 2003 three court-appointed experts issued their own accident report (“the third report”), where they reached the same findings as the Forensic Medicine Institute.

On 5 March 2004 an additional indictment was filed against Y.S., the head of the team of workers carrying out the road construction work (“the foreman”) for causing Utku Uyar’s death through negligence by not placing signs or a man with a flag on the road to warn drivers about the construction work.

At a hearing held on 23 June 2004 Y.S. denied all responsibility for the failure to take safety measures, claiming that such measures were the responsibility of his superiors.

At its fifteenth hearing, held on 30 November 2004, the Sultanhisar Criminal Court delivered its judgment. It convicted B.T. and Y.S. as charged on the basis of the second and third reports, and sentenced them to a judicial fine.

The parties appealed against the trial court’s judgment.

On 11 July 2005 the public prosecutor’s office attached to the Court of Cassation remitted the case to the Sultanhisar Criminal Court for a reassessment of the sentence in the light of the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) that had entered into force in June 2005.

At a hearing held by the Sultanhisar Criminal Court on 9 November 2005, the defendant Y.S. argued that the responsibility for taking safety measures on the road fell on Ş.Z., the head of the road construction site.

On 22 November 2005 the Sultanhisar Criminal Court requested that the General Directorate of Highways indicate whether responsibility for taking the necessary safety measures at the road construction site had been that of Y.S. or Ş.Z. The first applicant objected to that request, stating that the trial court had no jurisdiction to collect new evidence at that stage of the proceedings as the case had been remitted to it only for a reassessment of the sentence in the light of the new Criminal Code. The first applicant’s objection was dismissed, having regard to the authority and duty of a trial court to collect relevant evidence at all stages of the criminal proceedings.

On 21 December 2005 the General Directorate of Highways informed the Sultanhisar Criminal Court that the head of the construction site was responsible for placing the necessary warning signs while the foreman was responsible for keeping those signs in place for the duration of the construction work. It added that warning signs had been placed on the road at the time of the accident.

On 17 May 2006 Ş.Z. was heard as a witness. He stated that his responsibility was limited to placing warning signs around the construction site, which he had duly fulfilled. He added that the inspection of the day-to-day work at the site was the responsibility of the foreman, who was Y.S.

At a hearing held on 20 June 2006 the trial court ordered an additional report to determine the liability of Y.S. and Ş.Z. for the accident.

The additional report, issued on 27 November 2006 (“the fourth report”), found that the responsibility to take safety measures fell on Ş.Z. and not Y.S. He was, therefore, two-eighths liable for the accident, according to the experts.

On 27 February 2007 the Sultanhisar Criminal Court again convicted B.T. under the relevant provisions of the former Criminal Code, which were more favourable in the circumstances. However, on the basis of the additional report, it acquitted Y.S. and decided that a criminal complaint should be filed against Ş.Z. with the Sultanhisar public prosecutor’s office. On 6 March 2007 the first applicant appealed against that judgment.

On 6 July 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld Y.S.’s acquittal, but quashed the trial court’s judgment in so far as it concerned B.T., holding that the trial court had to consider whether the procedure for the suspension of the pronouncement of judgments (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması), provided for in Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271), was applicable in the circumstances.

On 28 January 2010 the first applicant requested that the Sultanhisar Criminal Court file a criminal complaint against Ş.Z., as per its decision dated 27 February 2007.

At a hearing held on 30 March 2010 the Sultanhisar Criminal Court issued an order for the Sultanhisar public prosecutor to indicate whether an investigation had been commenced against Ş.Z., and if not, to duly commence the investigation process, having regard to the impending expiry of the limitation period. At the same hearing the criminal court decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment against B.T. (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması), pursuant to Article 231 §§ 5 and 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271).

On 6 April 2010 the applicant objected to the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment, arguing that the conditions for such a suspension, as set out in Article 231 § 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had not been satisfied.

On 31 May 2010 the Nazilli Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection, finding that the requirements of the above-mentioned article of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been complied with.

It appears that in the meantime, on 5 April 2010, the registry of the Sultanhisar Criminal Court filed a criminal complaint against Ş.Z. with the Sultanhisar public prosecutor’s office.

On 14 April 2010 the Sultanhisar public prosecutor delivered a decision not to prosecute in relation to Ş.Z. as prosecution of the offence in question had become time-barred.

On an unspecified date the applicants filed a criminal complaint against the members of the registry of the Sultanhisar Criminal Court for neglect of duty. They alleged that by delaying the filing of a criminal complaint against Ş.Z., they had caused his prosecution to become timebarred.

On 6 September 2010 the Sultanhisar public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Sultanhisar Magistrates’ Court against three members of the registry of the Sultanhisar Criminal Court for neglect of duty.

On 11 July 2011 the Sultanhisar Magistrates’ Court acquitted the defendants on the grounds of an absence of mens rea because the offence of neglect of duty required a specific intent, which had been absent.

The applicants appealed against that judgment.

On 17 December 2015 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Sultanhisar Magistrates’ Court.

In the meantime, on 27 December 2004 the applicants brought compensation proceedings against B.T., Y.S. and the General Directorate of Highways before the Sultanhisar Civil Court of First Instance (“the Sultanhisar Civil Court”). The first applicant claimed 639 Turkish liras (TRY) and TRY 35,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, respectively. The second and third applicants claimed TRY 35,000 and TRY 5,000, respectively, in non-pecuniary damages.

On 4 February 2010 the Sultanhisar Civil Court dismissed the claims against Y.S. on account of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings. It also delivered a decision of non-jurisdiction in respect of the claims against the General Directorate of Highways as such claims were to be brought before the administrative courts. Relying on the second and third reports issued during the criminal proceedings, the Sultanhisar Civil Court held that B.T. held three-eighths liability for Utku Uyar’s death and ordered him to pay TRY 239.77 (approximately 115 euros (EUR)), plus interest, in respect of pecuniary damage to the first applicant, in proportion to his responsibility for the death. It also ordered B.T. to pay compensation in respect of nonpecuniary damage of TRY 2,000 (approximately EUR 960) to each of the first two applicants, and TRY 500 (approximately EUR 240) to the third applicant, together with interest running from the date of the accident.

On 29 March 2010 the applicants appealed against the judgment of the Sultanhisar Civil Court, arguing in particular that the compensation for non-pecuniary damage ordered by that court had been minimal.

On 27 April 2011 the Court of Cassation granted the applicants’ request and quashed the judgment of the Sultanhisar Civil Court, ordering that court to award a higher level of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the applicants.

It appears that on 20 December 2011 the Sultanhisar Civil Court ordered B.T. to pay compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage of TRY 15,000 (approximately EUR 6,085) to each of the first two applicants, and TRY 2,000 (approximately EUR 810) to the third applicant, together with interest running from the date of the accident.

On 16 April 2012 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Sultanhisar Civil Court in so far as it concerned the first two applicants, on the grounds that the compensation awards for non-pecuniary damage to those applicants had been excessive. The case was remitted to the Nazilli Civil Court of First Instance (“the Nazilli Civil Court”) on account of the closure of the Sultanhisar Civil Court.

On 26 December 2012 the Nazilli Civil Court ordered B.T. to pay TRY 8,000 (approximately EUR 3,370) to each of the first two applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage, together with interest running from the date of the accident. B.T. appealed against this judgment but the applicants did not submit an appeal.

On 11 March 2015 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Nazilli Civil Court.

On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicants brought an action for compensation before the Aydın Administrative Court against the General Directorate of Highways. The first two applicants sought TRY 35,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and the third applicant requested TRY 5,000.

Relying on the second report, submitted by the Forensic Medicine Institute to the Sultanhisar Criminal Court, on 11 October 2012 the Aydın Administrative Court found the General Directorate of Highways to be partially responsible for the death of Utku Uyar on account of the absence of the necessary warning signs and signals to alert drivers to the ongoing road construction work. Accordingly, it granted the applicants’ request in part and ordered the General Directorate of Highways to pay the first two applicants TRY 20,000 (approximately EUR 8,530) each and the third applicant TRY 5,000 (approximately EUR 2,130) in respect of nonpecuniary damage, together with interest running from 27 December 2004 (the date on which the first compensation claim had been made before the Sultanhisar Civil Court).

It appears that on 23 April 2013 the applicants received TRY 84,289.89 (approximately EUR 35,790) from the General Directorate of Highways.

In the meantime, the General Directorate of Highways appealed against the judgment of the Aydın Administrative Court. On 12 May 2016 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

A description of the domestic law regarding the new remedy introduced by Law no. 6384 to deal with complaints relating to the excessive length of proceedings may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013), Demiroğlu v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013) and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014).


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Sofia.

The applicant’s husband owned a house with a yard and a garage in Sofia.

On 14 June 1985, by decision of the Sofia mayor, the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a school. The decision, based on section 98 (1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство – “the TUPA”), stated that the applicant’s husband was to be compensated with a four-room flat and a garage in a building which the municipality intended to construct.

By a supplementary decision of 12 September 1986, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor determined the exact location, size and other details in respect of the future flat to be provided in compensation. No mention was made however of the garage. Even though, after judicial review initiated by the applicant’s husband, in a final judgment of 18 March 1987 the Sofia City Court ordered the mayor to supplement the decision and specify the exact garage to be provided to the applicant’s husband, this was not done.

In 2004 the municipal authorities transferred to the applicant’s husband property to a flat different from the one described in the decision of 12 September 1986, which however he did not contest.

The applicant’s husband passed away in 2005. By virtue of his will, all his property was left to the applicant.

In a letter signed by the chief architect of Sofia and dated 8 July 2009 the applicant was informed that the decision of 12 September 1986 had not yet been supplemented to specify the garage to be provided to her because no buildings with garages earmarked for the purpose were being built.

In August 2009 the applicant challenged before the courts the mayor’s failure to issue a decision specifying the garage to be provided to her. In a final judgment of 23 June 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed her claim, noting that the case at hand did not concern what was defined by statute as “unlawful failure to act”, but instead the enforcement of the judgment of 18 March 1987 (see paragraph 7 above), which had to be pursued under a different procedure.

In parallel proceedings brought on an unspecified date in 2009, the applicant sought damages from the Sofia municipality for wrongful failure to provide her with a garage. In a final decision of 23 September 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court declared the claim inadmissible, on the ground that the courts had already established in the judgment of 23 June 2010 that there had not been any unlawful failure to act on the part of the administrative authorities.


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Chişinău. At the time of the events she was thirty-four years old and married. She was a lecturer at the Police Academy.

It appears from the case-file materials that at the time of the events the relationship between the applicant and her superiors at the Police Academy were tense and that there had been a set of employment-related civil proceedings between them.

On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant underwent artificial insemination at a fertility clinic and became pregnant with twins. On 3 August 2003 she was seen by a doctor from the No. 7 Centre for Family Doctors (“the CFD)”, an institution belonging to the Ministry of Health, who ordered her hospitalisation on account of an increased risk of miscarriage. The applicant was hospitalised between 4 and 20 August 2003 and was later closely supervised by a doctor from the CFD. It would appear that the applicant’s absence from work during her hospitalisation was certified by a sick note referring to her pregnancy and an increased risk of miscarriage as the reasons for her absence.

On 5 November 2003 the President of the Police Academy requested information from the CFD in connection with the applicant’s medical leave in August 2003. In particular, he asked who had ordered her hospitalisation, when she had been hospitalised, what had been the initial and final diagnoses, and what treatment she had received.

In a letter dated 7 November 2003 the CFD informed the applicant’s employer that the applicant had been hospitalised between 4 and 20 August 2003 on account of an increased risk of miscarriage. The letter also stated that this was the applicant’s first pregnancy and that she was carrying twins; that the pregnancy had resulted from artificial insemination and that the applicant had hepatitis B. The letter further mentioned that the applicant had obstetrical complications and that she had a negative blood type. A copy of the applicant’s medical file from the hospital where she had been hospitalised, containing a detailed description of all the medical procedures she had undergone and of all the medical analyses, was annexed to the letter.

On an unspecified date the applicant suffered a miscarriage. According to the medical report, one of the factors which had led to the miscarriage was the stress to which she had been subjected.

In January 2004 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the CFD and the Police Academy and claimed compensation for a breach of her right to private life. She argued, inter alia, that her employer had had sufficient information as to the reasons for her medical leave and had not been entitled to seek further details of such a private nature. Moreover, after the information had been obtained it had not been kept confidential but had been disclosed to everybody at the Police Academy. According to the applicant, the disclosure had caused her serious stress and anxiety. Everyone at her workplace, including her students, had learned details about her private life, and different rumours had begun to circulate. Only two days after the disclosure, she had suffered a miscarriage due to the stress to which she had been subjected. Her husband, who had also been an employee of the Police Academy, had had to resign from his post and accept a less well-paid job.

On 6 July 2004 the Centru District Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the grounds, inter alia, that the disclosure of information by the fertility clinic had been lawful in view of the ongoing investigation being conducted by the applicant’s employer. As to the contention that the employer had disclosed the information to other employees, the court found it to be ill-founded. The applicant appealed.

On 2 November 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s appeal and quashed the above judgment. The court found the applicant’s action well-founded and ordered the CFD to pay her 20,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (EUR 1,124) and the Police Academy to pay her MDL 15,000 (EUR 843). The Court of Appeal found that the CFD had disclosed to the applicant’s employer more information than had actually been requested.

On 10 May 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appeal on points of law lodged by the CFD and dismissed the applicant’s claims against it. The Supreme Court held that the CFD had acted in accordance with the law when providing the applicant’s employer with medical information about her. The CFD had been under an obligation to provide the Police Academy with such information in the context of the latter’s legal relationship with its employee. According to the Supreme Court, at the time of the events there were relations of an employment-law and of a criminal-law nature between the Police Academy and the applicant. The Supreme Court considered that the provisions of the laws on reproductive health and on the rights and obligations of the patient were not pertinent to the case.


Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant, Mr Seyfettin Çetin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and is detained in Kırıkkale.

At the time of the introduction of this application, the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Kırıkkale.

On 6 April 2009 the disciplinary board of the Kırıkkale F-type prison decided to impose a disciplinary sanction on the applicant for going on a hunger strike in order to protest against measures taken against prisoners in the Erzurum F-type prison. Relying on sections 40(2)(g), 42(1) and 48(2) of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures, the disciplinary board prohibited the applicant from receiving and sending letters, making telephone calls and using other means of communication for a period of one month.

On 4 May 2009 the Kırıkkale Enforcement Court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant.

On 25 May 2009 the Kırıkkale Assize Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant.

The relevant provisions of Law no. 5275 provide as follows:

(2) The acts punishable by prevention from participating in certain activities are the following:

(g) Going on a hunger strike.”

“(1) The penalty of deprivation or restriction of access to means of communication consists of completely or partly depriving the convict, for one month to three months, of receiving and sending letters, fax messages and telegrams, watching television, listening to the radio, making telephone calls and using other means of communication.”

(2) Each time a convict commits another act punishable by a disciplinary penalty within the period at the end of which a previous finalised disciplinary penalty may be lifted, he or she shall be liable to the next heaviest penalty.”

Under section 5 of Law no. 6008, following the lodging of an objection against a disciplinary sanction, the enforcement judge will deliver his/her decision after hearing the defence submissions of the prisoner concerned and collecting all the evidence. The prisoner can present his/her defence submissions in person or through a lawyer.

Provisional section 1 of Law no. 6008 provides a further remedy for all those prisoners who had previously lodged objections with enforcement judges concerning disciplinary sanctions imposed on them before the enactment of this law. Accordingly, those who previously lodged objections with enforcement judges against disciplinary sanctions now have the possibility of lodging a fresh objection with an enforcement judge within six months of the enactment of this law, and their cases will be examined in accordance with the new procedures.

A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Aydemir and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), nos. 9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05, and 9509/05, 9 November 2010).

The object of Law no. 6384 is to provide for the settlement, by means of compensation, of applications lodged with the Court concerning length of judicial proceedings, and non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions. A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013).

The competence ratione materiae of the Compensation Commission was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on 16 March 2014. The decree extended the competence of the Compensation Commission to the examination of other complaints such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than Turkish and the prison authorities’ refusal, on different grounds, to hand over periodicals. A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, §§ 9-17, 27 May 2014).

Furthermore, according to Article 5 § 2 of Law no. 6384, an applicant may apply to the Compensation Commission within one month following the official notification of the Court’s inadmissibility decision by the Government.

The Turkish Council of Ministers issued a decree which came into force on 9 March 2016. The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of the Compensation Commission.

The Compensation Commission is now entitled to examine the following subjects under Article 4 of the decree, which reads as follows:

“a) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant’s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area, or as a result of the application of section 2/B of Law no. 6831, or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys;

b) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant’s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area;

c) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans;

d) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant’s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities;

e) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration’s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence drafted in Turkish.”