Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicants were born in 1984, 1974 and 1985 respectively and currently reside in Bicske, Hungary.

Originally coming through Greece, the applicants entered Hungary via Serbia and were intercepted and arrested by the border police on 5 (Mr Nabil) and 6 (the other two applicants) November 2011. They were transferred to the border station in Röszke, Hungary, since they could not prove either their identities or their legal residence in Hungary.

On 6 November 2011 the applicants were interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter.

On the same day the Csongrád County Police Department ordered the applicants’ expulsion to Serbia and a ban on entry to the territory of Hungary for three years, pursuant to section 43 (2) (a) of Act no. II of 2007 on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third Country Nationals (the “Immigration Act”). With regard to the requirement of non-refoulement, it was considered that there was no such obstacle to the expulsion.

The execution of the expulsion order was simultaneously suspended for a maximum period of six months or until the expulsion became feasible, noting that “the Serbian party failed to reply before the expiry of the “retention time” (visszatartási idő)”.

At the same time, that is, on 6 November 2011, the applicants’ detention was ordered by the Csongrád County Police Department until 9 November 2011 under section 54(1)(b) of the Immigration Act, on the ground that “[they] refused to leave the country, or for other substantiated reasons it can be assumed that [they] are delaying or preventing the enforcement of expulsion or transfer”. In the findings of fact it was noted that the applicants were not in possession of any travel documents; that they had crossed the border illegally via Serbia; that they said that their travel destination was [Western] Europe, Germany in particular; and that they had not applied for asylum.

The applicants were first detained at Bács-Kiskun County Police Department’s guarded accommodation (őrzött szállás).

On 9 November 2011 the applicants applied for asylum, claiming that they were persecuted in their home country by the terrorist organisation AlShabaab.

On 10 November 2011 the applicants were transferred to the guarded accommodation of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Police Department in Nyírbátor.

Preliminary asylum proceedings were put in place on 10 November 2011, and the immigration authorities were notified thereof. On 9 December 2011 the applicants were interviewed by the Citizenship and Immigration Authority (hereinafter: “asylum authority”)

On 12 December 2011 their case was admitted to the “in-merit phase” by a decision of the asylum authority, in view of the fact, among other things, that there existed no “safe third country” in their respect.

Meanwhile, on 8 November 2011 the Kiskunhalas District Court had heard the applicants, assisted by a guardian ad litem and an interpreter, and had extended their detention until 5 December 2011. Relying on section 54(1) b) of the Immigration Act, it endorsed in essence the decision of 6 November 2011 of the Csongrád County Police Department, saying that the applicants, in a state of illegal entry, were likely to frustrate their deportation.

On 29 November and 30 December 2011 the detention was extended again by summary decisions of the Nyírbátor District Court, referring to the immigration authority’s renewed requests to have the applicants detained for the same reasons as before and stating that the circumstances had not changed. These latter decisions made no reference to the on-going asylum proceedings.

On 1 February 2012 the same court again extended the applicants’ detention on the same basis, mentioning that their expulsion was suspended due to their pending asylum applications.

On 17 January 2012 the applicants’ lawyer requested their release, but in vain. (The date as of which they obtained legal representation is not known.) A subsequent request for judicial review of their detention under sections 54(6)(b) of the Immigration Act was to no avail either.

On 3 March 2012 the Nyírbátor District Court again prolonged the applicants’ detention, holding that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would hinder or delay the implementation of the expulsion order. Having heard the applicants, the court held as follows:

“The expulsion order cannot be considered unenforceable on the ground that the asylum procedure has not been concluded. Under section 51(2) of the Immigration Act, a first asylum application has suspensive effect on the enforcement of the expulsion order, although this does not mean that the expulsion order is not enforceable. Unenforceability refers to a permanent state and not to a temporary period such as the term of the asylum procedure.

Under section 54(6) of the Immigration Act (Act no. II of 2007), detention ordered under the immigration laws shall be terminated if (a) the expulsion or transfer has become viable; (b) when it becomes evident that the expulsion or transfer cannot be executed; or (c) the detention has exceeded six ... months.

None of the reasons for the termination [of the detention] listed in the above-cited paragraph exists. The expulsion or transfer is [actually] not viable because of the pending asylum application; furthermore, there will be [at last] no reason preventing the execution of the expulsion or transfer if the foreign national [eventually] receives no protection in the asylum procedure, since the procedure has failed to prove that Serbia is no safe third country, [and Serbia], according to the information provided by the immigration authority, is ready to re-admit the foreign national pursuant to the Agreement between Serbia and the European Union. Lastly, the time that has elapsed since the beginning of the detention is less than six or twelve months ...

On the basis of the information available to the court, the foreign national, according to his statement made during the first interview, intended to travel to Western Europe to find employment. He did not admit to this during the hearing but the court has no information which would support the foreign national’s [statement departing from the earlier one].

In view of this, it is reasonable to assume that the foreign national would delay or prevent the enforcement of the expulsion order. He is unwilling to comply with the expulsion order voluntarily, therefore it can be established that the expulsion order cannot be enforced by way of applying sections 48 (2) or 62 (1) of the Immigration Act [that is, seizure of travel document or designated residence].

The court has found that the conditions for the continuation of the detention lawfully ordered under section 54 of Act no. II of 2007 continue to be met.”

After interviews on the merits of their applications on 28 February 2012, on 19 March 2012 the applicants’ asylum applications were dismissed, but they were granted subsidiary protection (“oltalmazott”) under section 12 (1) of Act no. LXXX of 2007 (the “Asylum Act”). This decision was delivered and became final on 23 March 2012.

The applicants’ detention ended on 24 March 2012.


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in 1972 in Villahermosa (Ciudad Real) and is currently serving a prison sentence in Spain.

At the time of the facts the applicant was in prison on remand in Foncalent (Alicante).

On 20 October 2009 the applicant was found guilty of a disciplinary offence by the disciplinary board of Alicante Prison and punished under the General Prison Rules. The punishment was: four weekends in isolation for having threatened prison officers (Rule 108 (b)); twenty days without group recreational activities for having disobeyed the orders given by prison officers in the fulfilment of their duties (Rule 109 (b)); and twenty days without group recreational activities for having damaged prison property (Rule 109 (e)).

The applicant appealed against the sanction before the Comunidad Valenciana post-sentencing judge no. 2 (Juzgado de Vigilancia Penitenciaria n.o 2).

On 17 November 2009 the post-sentencing judge found partially in the applicant’s favour and revoked the sanction imposed under Rule 109 (b).

On 19 November 2009 a State agent in charge of judicial communications attempted unsuccessfully to serve the applicant in person with the post-sentencing judge’s decision. The applicant had been transferred to a prison in Villena (Alicante).

On 28 January 2010 the applicant was served in person with the post-sentencing judge’s decision of 17 November 2009. He signed an acknowledgment of receipt.

The applicant lodged a reforma appeal with the same post-sentencing judge, who on 18 February 2010 confirmed her previous decision. A copy of the decision on appeal was served on the applicant. He signed an acknowledgment of receipt.

The applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court. He invoked Articles 20 (freedom of expression) and 24 (right to be presumed innocent) of the Constitution.

By a communication of 22 March 2010 the Constitutional Court asked the post-sentencing judge to provide it with a copy of the applicant’s case file.

On 12 April 2010 the post-sentencing judge transferred the applicant’s case file to the Constitutional Court.

By a decision of 30 September 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s amparo appeal inadmissible as devoid of any special constitutional significance. That decision was served on the applicant on 7 October 2010.

On 22 December 2010 the applicant asked the post-sentencing judge for a copy of his case file for submission to the European Court of Human Rights. He relied on sections 234 and 454 of the Judicature Act (see paragraph 31 below). He did so from a prison in Zuera (Saragossa) to which he had been transferred.

On 4 January 2011 the applicant sent his first letter to the Court giving notice of his intention to lodge an application under Article 34 of the Convention.

On 14 January 2011 the Court’s Registry acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s letter and invited him to submit a duly completed application form by 11 March 2011.

On 26 January 2011 the post-sentencing judge refused the applicant’s request for a copy of his case file on the grounds that his case “was still pending before the Constitutional Court”.

On 2 February 2011 the applicant sent his application form to the Court. He raised complaints under Article 6 § 2 and Article 10 § 1 of the Convention. He enclosed a copy of the Constitutional Court’s decision declaring his amparo appeal inadmissible. He further referred to the post-sentencing judge’s decisions of 17 November 2009 and 18 February 2010 in field “17. Other decisions” of the application form. However, he did not enclose a copy of those decisions.

On 4 February 2011 the applicant sent a communication to the post-sentencing judge. He stated that the Constitutional Court had delivered a decision in his case on 30 September 2010; that he intended to initiate proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights; and that in order to do so he should be provided with a certified copy of his case file without delay and before the deadline of 11 March 2011.

On 22 February 2011 the post-sentencing judge’s registrar rejected the applicant’s request, referring to the decision of 12 April 2010 (see paragraph 15 above) and stating that the European Court of Human Rights had the power to request the case file itself. That decision was served on the applicant on 4 March 2011.

On 3 March 2011 the Court acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s application form and invited him to send in all relevant domestic decisions by 3 June 2011.

On 4 March 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he had unsuccessfully requested a certified copy of his complete case file from the post-sentencing judge. He complained that the domestic authorities were hindering his right to a defence.

On 14 March 2011 the applicant resubmitted his request for a copy of the whole case file to the post-sentencing judge. He referred to the Court’s letter of 3 March 2011.

On 1 April 2011 the post-sentencing judge rejected the applicant’s request and refused to provide him with a copy of his case file. She informed the applicant that, for the purposes of subsequent applications before other courts, those courts could request the case files from the domestic courts directly. That decision was served on the applicant on 6 April 2011.

On 7 April 2011 the applicant informed the Court that the post-sentencing judge had refused to provide him with a copy of his case file.


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in 1959 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.

On 27 April 1990 the applicant was convicted of threatening to murder, hooliganism, robbery, rape and murder under Articles 207, 206 § 2, 146 § 2, 117 § 4 and 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) and sentenced to death.

On 5 June 1990 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above judgment on appeal, having amended the legal qualification of the charge of murder under Article 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR.

On 14 September 1991, by virtue of Presidential decree no. 81/14090, the death penalty was replaced by twenty years’ imprisonment.

In 1997–2008 the domestic courts, at three levels of jurisdiction and on several occasions, brought the legal qualification of the crimes of which the applicant had been convicted into line with the newly enacted Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law no. 63-FZ of 13 June 1996) and its subsequent amendment (Federal Law no. 162-FZ of 8 December 2003). On each occasion the final sentence – twenty years’ imprisonment – remained unaltered.

The last decision in this connection was taken by the Supreme Court of Russia on 26 June 2008.

On 27 February 2004 new criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of murder.

Police officers allegedly intimidated the applicant and forced him to confess. The applicant alleged that he was subsequently forced to confirm a self-incriminating statement in the presence of legal-aid counsel.

The applicant did not complain about the alleged ill-treatment, because he considered such a remedy ineffective.

On 29 February 2004 the applicant’s custody was changed to detention on remand pending trial.

On 27 May 2004 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was sent to the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District Court for trial.

According to the applicant, at the court hearing of 26 July 2004, while questioning witness M. and victims T. and P., the trial judge P. three times read out an extract from the judgment of 27 April 1990 relating to the applicant’s previous conviction for murder.

According to the Government, the reading out of the 1990 judgment against the applicant was done only once, on 23 August 2004, at the stage of the examination of the case file at the request of the prosecutor during the determination of the term of the applicant’s sentence, and the defence raised no objections.

At the court hearings of 23 August 2004 and 2 September 2004 the applicant asked the court to obtain the attendance of an expert whom he wished to question. His requests were refused by the court.

On 23 August and 25 October 2004 the applicant sought the withdrawal of the judge, without success. In dismissing the applicant’s request for the withdrawal of the trial judge on 23 August 2004 the court indicated that the partial announcement of the applicant’s unspent conviction of 1990 did not constitute a predisposition of the court to deliver a finding of guilt, but served the purpose of full and comprehensive examination of the applicant’s personality as he had earlier been convicted of an analogous crime – premeditated murder. In dismissing the applicant’s challenge of 25 October 2004 the court indicated that the applicant had failed to provide justification for his application for the withdrawal of the judge.

On 29 November 2004 the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District Court convicted the applicant of threatening murder, bodily harm, murder, and destruction of property, and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment, taking into account that the applicant had not fully served the sentence handed down on 27 April 1990.

The applicant appealed, claiming in particular that the court which convicted him had been biased and predisposed to deliver a finding of guilt. The applicant referred to the fact that while questioning witness M. and victims T. and P. the judge had read out extracts from his conviction of 27 April 1990, thus “creating an atmosphere of guilt”. He further indicated that he had challenged the judge in view of his attitude, although to no avail, and deplored the fact that the transcript of the trial omitted to mention the judge’s reading out of the judgment of 1990.

On 21 February 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 29 November 2004 on appeal. As regards the applicant’s complaint relating to the alleged bias of the trial judge, the Regional Court held as follows:

“The [applicant’s] arguments concerning bias on the part of the [trial] court – its predetermination to deliver a finding of guilt, the selective record of the course of the trial, and the violation of his rights by the reading out of the judgment of 27 April 1990 – had been addressed during the trial and had been reasonably dismissed as unsubstantiated. The transcript of the trial complies with Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation ... The [applicant’s] conviction of 27 April 1990 had not been expunged, therefore the reading out of the judgment [in question] cannot be regarded as having breached [his] rights.”


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

The common feature of these three applications is that they are brought by Cypriot nationals who complain that the children of women displaced from the north of Cyprus after 1974 were not entitled to refugee cards (and thus the benefits to which the holders of such cards were entitled), whereas the children of displaced men were entitled to such cards. The difference in treatment was removed in 2013, that is, after the introduction of the present applications: see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraph 7 below.

The applicants are all either displaced women or the children of displaced women. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applications were lodged on 29 July 2009, 8 April 2010 and 25 May 2011 respectively. The applicants in application nos. 43331/09 and 27877/10 are represented by Mr Loukis G. Loucaides. The applicants in application no. 36144/11 are separately represented by Mr Andreas S. Angelides. Mr Loucaides and Mr Angelides both practise in Nicosia.

The legislative provisions which, at the material time, granted refugee cards to the children of displaced men but not the children of displaced women were unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court in Vrountou v. the Republic (appeal no. 3830): see paragraphs 8 and 9 below. The final judgment of the Supreme Court in that case was given on 3 March 2006.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vrountou v. the Republic, Evangelia and Markella Chakkas, the applicants in application no. 36144/11, brought their own challenge to the refugee card scheme, lodging that challenge with the Supreme Court on 7 August 2006. They too alleged that, in according preferential treatment to the children of displaced men over the children of displaced women, the scheme was discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. That challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court at first instance on 19 January 2007 and on appeal to the revisional jurisdiction of the court on 1 December 2010, in each case for the reasons the court had given in its Vrountou v. the Republic judgment.

A scheme of aid for displaced and other affected persons was introduced by the Council of Ministers by decision no. 13.503 of 19 September 1974. Under the scheme, displaced persons were entitled to refugee cards. The holders of such cards were (and still are) eligible for a range of benefits including housing assistance. For the purposes of the scheme the term “displaced” was determined by the Council of Ministers as being any person whose permanent residence is in the occupied areas, or in an inaccessible area or in an area which was evacuated to meet the needs of the National Guard.

A circular on the implementation of the scheme was issued by the Director of Care and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons Service (“SCRDP”) on 10 September 1975. In relevant part it reads:

“(a) When a displaced woman marries a non-displaced man, the husband and children cannot be registered or considered as displaced persons;

(b) When a displaced man marries a non-displaced woman, the non-displaced wife will be registered on the refugee identity card of the husband. The children will be considered as refugees and will be registered on the refugee identity card of their father.”

Although the scheme was progressively extended, it was not until the passage of the Census Bureau (Amendment) (No. 2) Law of 2013 (N. 174(I)/2013) that children of displaced women became entitled to refugee cards on the same terms as the children of displaced men.

The pre-2013 scheme was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court by Maria Vrountou: Vrountou v. the Republic (appeal no. 3830). Ms Vrountou was the daughter of a displaced woman; she was refused a refugee card on 6 March 2003. Before the Supreme Court she claimed, inter alia, that the decision was in violation of the principle of equality safeguarded by Article 28 of the Constitution of Cyprus and in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1. She claimed that the scheme also breached Article 13 of the Convention.

That challenge was dismissed at first instance on 12 May 2004 and on appeal by the Supreme Court (revisional jurisdiction) on 3 March 2006, the latter finding that it was unable to extend the application of the scheme to the children of displaced women when the legislature had not done so. Ms Vrountou lodged an application (33631/06) with this Court on 25 July 2006 and the Court gave judgment in her case on 13 October 2015.


No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

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

The applicants were born in 1946, 1966 and 1973, respectively, and live in Sisak.

On 17 October 1991 the body of Stevo Borojević, the applicants’ respective husband and father, was found on the right bank of the river Kupa in Sisak. An on-site inspection was carried out immediately as well as an autopsy the following day which showed that the victim had been stabbed to death.

On 24 October 1991 the Sisak Police lodged a criminal complaint with the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office.

The police interviewed Ms Jasenka Borojević, the victim’s wife, on 5 December 1991. She told them that her husband had left her workplace at about 10.30 a.m. on 6 October 1991 to return home because a general emergency had been announced and their daughter, who was a minor, was there alone. However, after he left she had not seen him again.

In 1996 the United Nations Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (the “UNTAES”). On 15 January 1998 the UNTAES mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the Croatian authorities began.

On 27 February 2002 the police interviewed Jasenka Borojević and Edita Mihić, respectively the wife and daughter of the late Stevo Borojević. They said that prior to Stevo Borojević’s disappearance on 6 October 1991, Croatian soldiers had carried out searches in their flat in July 1991 and on 3 October 1991. One of the soldiers, T.P., had been known to them. They had subsequently learned that an individual named G. had also been implicated. A certain M.T. had also told them that he had asked Đ.B. about the killing of Stevo Borojević and that Đ.B. had shown M.T. a list of persons to be followed and a list of persons to be liquidated, and that Stevo Borojević had been on neither of those lists.

On 29 July 2005 the State Attorney’s Office issued a document concerning enquiries into the killings of civilians between 1991 and 1995. The document was addressed to the County State Attorney’s Offices, which were required to examine all the information collected to date on the killings of civilians during that period and to concentrate their activities on identifying the perpetrators and gathering the relevant evidence in order to initiate criminal proceedings.

On 9 October 2008 the State Attorney’s Office issued an instruction to the County State Attorney’s Offices for implementation of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which it indicated that an inspection of their work had indicated two main problems: possible partiality of the persons involved in the pending proceedings as regards the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators, and the problem of trials in absentia. The instruction advocated the impartial investigation of all war crimes, irrespective of the ethnicity of those involved, whether victims or perpetrators, and reiterated the duties of those working for the State Attorney in that respect.

On 11 December 2008 an investigating judge at the Sisak County Court heard evidence from Jasenka Borojević and Edita Mihić, who repeated what they had said to the police.

The police interviewed J.B., a relative of Stevo Borojević, on 30 December 2008 but he had no knowledge of the latter’s disappearance and killing.

On 5 January 2009 the police interviewed V.P. and on 8 January 2009 they questioned T.P.

On 27 January 2009 an investigating judge at the Sisak County Court heard evidence from T.P., a neighbour of the Borojević family. He said that one day in 1991 when Sisak was being shelled, he and other tenants from the building had been in the basement when three armed men dressed in military uniforms had entered. He had exited the basement with them and they had told him that someone had been shooting from the building. T.P. had shown them the flats where Serbs lived. The three men had entered the flat of the Borojević family while T.P. waited outside. They had not taken anyone from the flat. T.P. remembered that the men had been young.

On the same day the judge heard evidence from V.P., who said that a certain T.Š., who had died in the meantime, had told him that he had learned that Stevo Borojević had been taken to Žabno by the men who controlled the roads. He had been tortured and then taken to Vurot. V.P. had the impression that T.Š. knew who had taken Stevo Borojević but he had not identified that person. Later he had seen a vehicle belonging to Stevo Borojević on the Topolovac agricultural estate. However, when he had attempted to find out who was driving the vehicle, a man wearing a camouflage uniform and a balaclava and armed with a Kalashnikov had threatened to kill him.

On 20 June 2011 the Sisak County Police lodged a criminal complaint against Đ.B., V.M and D.B. on charges of war crimes against the civilian population. This included the killing of the applicants’ relative. On the same day Đ.B., Head of the Sisak Police Department in 1991 and 1992, V.M., police commander at the border territory of Sisak and Banovina in 1991 and 1992 and Deputy of Sisak Police Department, and D.B., a member of the “Wolves” Unit of the Croatian Army, were arrested.

On an unspecified date the investigation was opened. On 13 July 2011 Đ.B. died.

On 16 December 2011 the Osijek County State Attorney’s Office lodged an indictment against V.M. and D.B. at the Osijek County Court, alleging that they had been in command of the unit whose unknown members had committed a number of crimes against the civilian population between July 1991 and June 1992, including the killing of the applicants’ relative. They were charged with war crimes against the civilian population.

On 9 December 2013 a first-instance judgment was delivered. V.M. was found guilty of war crimes against the civilian population in that, in his capacity as “the commander of police forces in the broader area of Sisak and Banovina” and “Deputy Head of the Sisak Police”, he had allowed the killings of persons of Serbian origin and had failed to undertake adequate measures to prevent such killings. The relevant part of the judgment concerning the applicants’ relative reads:

“in the morning of 6 October 1991 at a checkpoint in Odra Sisačka, some unknown members of the reserve police stopped a white vehicle, a Fiat 127, which was being driven by Stevo Borojević, took the vehicle from him and kept it for themselves, and arrested Stevo Borojević and took him to an unknown location where they killed him, after which his body was found on 17 October 1991 on the right bank of the river Kupa at the location called “Rušetina” in Sisak, with several open wounds and contusions on his head and a wound caused by stabs and cuts in his chest.”

V.M. was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. D.B. was acquitted of all charges.

On 10 June 2014 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of V.M. and increased his sentence to ten years’ imprisonment.

On various dates the applicants brought separate civil actions against the State, seeking compensation in connection with the death of their close relative. The claims were dismissed on the grounds that they had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired.

Following the criminal conviction of V.M., the applicants sought the reopening of these proceedings in the Petrinja Municipal Court. Their request is now pending.


CASE OF GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA

Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

Both applicants were born in 1943 and live in Vladivostok.

The first applicant is the editor of a weekly newspaper, Arsenyevskiye Vesti (Арсеньевские вести), and the second applicant is a journalist and columnist there. It has a circulation of 17,100. The newspaper is published and distributed in the Primorskiy Region.

In late 2003 during a campaign for elections to the national parliament, the State Duma, the newspaper published a number of satirical and parodic articles on the course of the campaign in the Primorskiy Region. They featured a Russian online cartoon character, a girl called Masyanya, who was very popular at the time, going from St Petersburg to Vladivostok as an election observer.

An article in issue no. 46 of the newspaper for 13-19 November 2003 contained a pretend interview with Masyanya, stating that on her arrival at Vladivostok Airport she had been attacked and injured by local prostitutes, who did not want outsiders competing with them and who had forced her to return to St Petersburg. Masyanya had had a particularly fierce fight with a certain Vasilinka, the director of an escort agency called Contact or Image! (агентство интимных услуг Контакт или имидж!). The article stated that Vasilinka had refused to make any comments.

In issue no. 47, dated 20-26 November 2003, in a column called “Nadezhda Alisimchik’s Hummock of View” (Кочка зрения Надежды Алисимчик) written by the second applicant, Arsenyevskiye Vesti published a pretend interview with Vasilinka. The article was headlined “Candidates must be known from the inside!” (Кандидатов нужно знать изнутри!). The relevant part read as follows:

“Nonetheless, we managed to get in touch with Vasilinka, the director of the escort agency Contact or Image! for an interview and photograph. Vasilinka proved to be a dame with a touch of greed and was pulled by a free advert for her agency in our newspaper, although she warned us that she would not answer a single question about that ‘bitch’ Masyanya.

‘This ragtag bunch from St Petersburg has no reason to be here because my agency Contact or Image can handle the elections – all my girls are professionals, and I myself am a lawyer and have extensive working experience as a prosecutor. Sporadically, during elections, I run the Contact or Image escort agency in coordination with superior organisations. There is no conflict here – the clientele is the same, and there is no need to spend money on protection on the side. Besides, this is a good opportunity for the Contact or Image escort agency to study its clients from the inside, which is particularly important when working with candidates to the State Duma. This is, so to say, a governmental order, which, I think, is also supported by the President. Especially as it’s for extra income, and there’s no such thing as too much money, even when one is at liberty,’ Vasilinka told our newspaper.

We asked this prostitute-werewolf to comment on the list of candidates to the State Duma for circuit no. 52 ...”

The article was followed by a list of candidates and Vasilinka’s comments on them, using slang words and expressions commonly used in the criminal underworld. Some candidates were described in more positive terms than others. To the left of the article was a picture of a female dressed in a one-dollar banknote. The figure’s left hand pointed in the direction of three handwritten letters which were reproduced in small type. The face on the figure, which had long, flowing hair, was a photograph of the then prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region, Mr V.

On 9 December 2003 Mr V., in a private prosecution, brought criminal proceedings against the applicants, under Article 130 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code, before the Justice of the Peace of Circuit no. 27 in the Frunzenskiy District of Vladivostok (“the Justice of the Peace”). He alleged that the article headlined “Candidates must be known from the inside” and the picture published in issue no. 47 of Arsenyevskiye Vesti for 20-26 November 2003 had been highly insulting, had aimed at damaging his honour and human dignity and had ascribed negative characteristics to his personality in an indecent, cynical and defamatory manner. He pointed out, in particular, that there was no doubt that the article had referred to him as it had stated that the character Vasilinka, “was a lawyer herself and had extensive working experience as a prosecutor”. Mr V. further submitted that the article in question, and the comments in respect of the list of the candidates, had been written in slang words and expressions and had represented him as an immoral and corrupt “prostitute-werewolf”, thus clearly indicating the intention of the writers to humiliate and insult him. He also complained that the picture accompanying the article had been put together in an indecent manner, in breach of the established rules of behaviour and public morals.

By a judgment of 2 June 2004 the Justice of the Peace convicted the applicants as charged. The court noted in particular:

“In issue no. 47 for 20-26 November 2003 in the column headlined “Nadezhda Alisimchik’s Hummock of View” the newspaper Arsenyevskiye Vesti published an article ‘Candidates must be known from the inside’ which was accompanied by a photographic collage showing a female body covered with a one-dollar banknote. The photographic collage shows the face of the claimant, the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region, [Mr V.], portrayed with long hair. The article contains an interview with ‘Vasilinka’, the director of an escort agency and states that it was possible not only to get in touch with her, but also to obtain her photograph. The text of the article and the portrayal of the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region, [Mr V.], as an immoral and corrupt ‘prostitute-werewolf’ in an indecent and insulting manner damage the claimant’s honour and dignity.

The claimant’s representative has highlighted the insulting nature of the information published in the newspaper ... pointing out that the claimant is a public figure and often takes part in TV programmes; his photograph has been published on numerous occasions in the media, and [Mr V.’s] face is therefore well known to people in the Primorskiy Region.

Having examined the photographic collage and the text of the article ... the use of the name ‘prostitute-werewolf Vasilinka’, the explanations of the claimant’s lawyer, who has insisted that the character’s name in the article and the surname of the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region have the same root, and that the article states that the character is a lawyer by profession and has extensive working experience as a prosecutor, the court concludes that [the applicants] undertook deliberate actions which were insulting to [Mr V.], and which were committed publicly as [the insult was disseminated] in a newspaper, that is to say in the media.

... The applicants’ actions ...were intended to damage the honour and dignity and the professional reputation of the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region, [Mr V.]...”

The court found the applicants guilty of aggravated insult as it had been published in the media, and fined each of them 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 860 euros (EUR)).

On 19 July 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivistok (“the District Court”) delivered its decision in the appeal proceedings.

At the hearing the applicants had contested the guilty verdict. The second applicant had stated that the article in question had been written as a parody of various negative social phenomena, especially corruption during the elections and the role of the law-enforcement agencies. The first applicant stated that the article had been misinterpreted and that it had in fact concerned violations committed by law-enforcement agencies during the election campaign. She also argued that the picture had not been related to the article, nor had it depicted the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region.

The appellate court found it established that “[the applicants had] deliberately insulted” Mr V. when in issue no. 47 of Arsenyevskiye Vesti for 20-26 November 2003 they had in the column called “Nadezhda Alisimchik’s Hummock of View” published an article entitled “Candidates must be known from the inside!”, accompanied by a photographic collage representing a female body with the face of the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region, the body having been covered with a one-dollar banknote. In the District Court’s opinion, “the text of the article and the photographic collage [were] of an insulting nature, ascribe[d] negative characteristics, expressed in an indecent manner, to Mr V.’s personality and damage[d] the honour and dignity of Mr V., the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region, as a private individual and as an official”.

The appellate court observed, in particular, that the article had involved an interview with the director of an escort agency, “Vasilinka”, who “sporadically, during elections, [ran] the escort agency Contact or Image in coordination with superior organisations”, and that the article was followed by “director Vasilinka’s rating of the candidates”, using slang words and expressions on her behalf. The photographic collage had illustrated the text about “Vasilinka”, a “prostitute-werewolf”, who “herself is a lawyer and has extensive working experience as a prosecutor”. In the District Court’s opinion, “the said information [was] of an insulting nature, since it degrade[d] Mr V.’s honour and dignity”. In reaching that conclusion, the District Court “[took] into account the fact that the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region, Mr V., [was] a public figure and his photograph [had] been published in the media on many occasions ...”

With reference to its findings, the appellate court concluded that the applicants “[had taken] deliberate actions which [had been] of an insulting nature in respect of Mr V. and were performed in public, as [the impugned information] was disseminated in the media”. In the District Court’s opinion, although Mr V.’s surname had not been mentioned in the article, the image which had illustrated the article had used a photograph of him. It had therefore been clear that information “of an insulting nature” had related to Mr V. The District Court observed that, “by virtue of his office, Mr V. [was] a public figure and readers [could] therefore easily understand that the photographic collage [showed] Mr V.; so that readers [were] not mistaken, the name of the character in the article, ‘Vasilinka’, [had] the same root as Mr V.’s surname, and the character [was] a lawyer by profession and has extensive working experience as a prosecutor”.

The District Court further held as follows:

“The court cannot accept the defendants’ arguments that it has not been proven that [Mr V.] was insulted as, in the court’s opinion, it is the text of the article and the photographic collage that are themselves insulting. Judging by its location on the page and its composition, the said photographic collage accompanies the article headlined “Candidates must be known from the inside”. Besides, the text itself refers to the fact that the photographic collage represents that very ‘Vasilinka’ who is the character in the article. The article states ‘nonetheless we managed to get in touch with the director of the escort agency Contact or Image, Vasilinka, for an interview and a photograph. Vasilinka proved to be a dame with a touch of greed and was pulled by a free advert for her agency in our newspaper’.

...In the court’s opinion, the offence took place in the form of public speech in the media, [the applicants] acted deliberately, the related words ‘prostitute’ and ‘werewolf’ indicate an intention to humiliate, dishonour and disgrace the subject of the article and photographic collage and, in a figurative sense, portray condemnable and distinctly negative characteristics, which are seen by the public as well as the person to whom they are addressed as insulting. In the court’s opinion, representing the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region as an immoral and corrupt ‘prostitute-werewolf’ is intended to ascribe distinctly negative characteristics to [Mr V.’s] personality in an indecent form.”

The appellate court concluded that the first-instance judgment had been well-founded and dismissed the applicants’ appeal.

By a decision of 30 August 2004 the Primorskiy Regional Court upheld the applicants’ conviction at final instance, endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts.

On 23 March 2005 a bailiff issued a writ of execution in respect of the first applicant, ordering her to pay the fine and an execution fee of RUB 2,200.

On 5 April 2005 the first applicant informed the bailiff that she was unable to pay the fine in one amount owing to a lack of funds. She requested that she be authorised to pay by instalments over six months. It appears that her request was refused and the first applicant had to borrow a part of the fine from the bank. According to the first applicant, she was able to pay back the money she borrowed six months later.

The second applicant was also unable to pay the total amount of the fine and execution fee in one amount. She paid in instalments by deductions from her wages until 28 February 2006.


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

The applicant, Mr Jan Stolk, is a Netherlands national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Utrecht. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.M.J. Brands, a lawyer practising in Oegstgeest.

2summarised as follows.

From January 2003 the applicant worked for a design and consultancy agency specialised in urban planning. At the relevant time, the owner of the agency was self-employed and was employing two other persons, one of them the applicant.

On 17 February 2010 the applicant’s employer (hereafter: “the employer”) requested the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body (Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen) to authorise the termination of the applicant’s employment contract. Such authorisation may be requested and granted under the Extraordinary Labour Relations Decree 1945 (Buitengewoon Besluit Arbeidsverhoudingen 1945; see below). The employer’s request was based on altered business circumstances (veranderde bedrijfeconomische omstandigheden).

On 24 March 2010 the applicant submitted a statement of defence (verweer) to the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body, arguing that it appeared from that organisation’s policy rules that a request for authorisation on the basis of altered business circumstances should be substantiated by relevant figures regarding the turnover, the costs and the results of the business per month for the last three years, which figures the employer had failed to include in his request. He further argued that there was a chance that the agency would be awarded two new projects and that there was a fair chance that any delay in ongoing projects had been caused by administrative proceedings instead of economic circumstances so that the decrease in available work would constitute normal business risk (normale bedrijfsrisico).

On 2 April 2010 the employer stated that the ongoing projects were nearly finished and that due to the economic crisis much work had disappeared over a short period of time, that he had submitted the figures over the years 2008 and 2009, that the drop in available work did not concern a temporary lapse which could be considered normal business risk, and lastly, that his other employee, thanks to his qualifications, was able to carry out all business activities independently, unlike the applicant.

On 16 April 2010 the applicant submitted a second statement of defence to the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body, arguing, inter alia, that the employer’s statements concerning the agency’s prospects had not been substantiated.

On 20 April 2010 the applicant received both the acknowledgement of receipt of the second statement of defence and the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body’s decision authorising his employer to terminate his employment contract.

On 22 April 2010 the applicant received a letter from his employer terminating his employment contract as of 1 August 2010.

Provisions of domestic legislation relevant to the case, and as applicable at the relevant time, are the following.

The Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body is a nondepartmental administrative body (zelfstandig bestuursorgaan) – i.e. an administrative body not subordinate to any particular Minister – under Netherlands law (section 4 of the Work and Income (Implementation Structure) Act (Wet structuur uitvoeringsorganisatie werk en inkomen)). It is responsible not only for implementing social-security legislation, but also for exercising the tasks imposed on it by section 6 of the Extraordinary Labour Relations Decree 1945.

The employer requires for the termination of the employment relationship prior authorisation of the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body.

The employer does not require this authorisation:

a. if termination takes place without delay (onverwijld) for an urgent reason, under simultaneous notice of this reason to the employee;

b. during the probationary period;

c. if termination takes place as a result of bankruptcy of the employer or if a debt rescheduling scheme concerning natural persons is applied to him.

By ministerial regulation (ministeriële regeling) rules are set out concerning the authorisation within the meaning of paragraph one.

Before a decision regarding the giving of authorisation pursuant to paragraph one is taken, the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body will hear representatives of the appropriate employer and employee organisations except in cases provided for by ministerial regulation.

Our Minister [of Social Affairs and Employment (Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid)] may provide the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body with indications concerning the power to give authorisation within the meaning of paragraph one. He does not enter into the decision-making in individual cases.

By ministerial regulation provisions can be made in case the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body does not properly fulfil its obligations that flow from this section.

By ministerial regulation certain employees or groups of employees can be conditionally or unconditionally dispensed or exempted from paragraph one.

No appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal (College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven) lies against decisions of the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body regarding the giving of authorisation pursuant to paragraph one.”

Detailed rules for this procedure have been set out in the Dismissals Decree (Ontslagbesluit).

The authorisation of the Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body constitutes a decision within the meaning of the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht). This Act generally grants a right to a judicial examination of such decisions; however, decisions made pursuant to section 6 of the Extraordinary Labour Relations Decree 1945 are excluded from the possibility to appeal (section 8:5, paragraph one, in conjunction with Annex F, paragraph one of the General Administrative Law Act).


CASE OF BOYADZHIEVA AND GLORIA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED EOOD v. BULGARIA

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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The first applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Sofia. The second applicant was registered in 1992 and has its registered place of business in Sofia.

At the time of the events in question the first applicant was registered as a sole trader. At that time the main commercial activity of the two applicants was trade in medicaments.

In February and March 2006 the first applicant sold medicaments to a company called K., for which she was paid 22,043.23 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of 11,275 euros (EUR), in total.

Between December 2005 and April 2006 the second applicant also sold medicaments to K., receiving a total of BGN 33,344.05 (the equivalent of EUR 17,055) by way of payment.

In September 2006 other companies which were creditors of K., including E., applied for the commencement of insolvency proceedings against K. Their request was allowed in a judgment of 17 November 2006 of the Plovdiv Regional Court (hereinafter “the Regional Court”), which declared company K. insolvent, opened insolvency proceedings and appointed a trustee. It noted that K. had ceased its payments to E. and other creditors in October 2005, and held that the initial date of the company’s insolvency was therefore 30 October 2005.

In January 2007 the trustee prepared the first list of K.’s creditors, which included company E.

In May 2007 company E. brought proceedings against the first applicant under section 646(2) of the Commerce Act, as in force at the time (see paragraph 25 below), seeking to have the payments K. had made to her during the so-called “suspect period” – the period between the initial date of insolvency as declared by the Plovdiv Regional Court and the commencement of the insolvency proceedings (the payments described in paragraph 7 above) − declared null and void and the sum received by her returned to the insolvency estate.

The action was allowed in a judgment of the Regional Court of 31 October 2007. Observing that it was undisputed that K. had paid the first applicant BGN 22,043.23 during the “suspect period”, and without analysing the matter any further, it ordered her to pay back this sum to the insolvency estate, plus default interest.

That judgment was upheld on 12 March 2008 by the Plovdiv Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”).

The Court of Appeal’s judgment was enforceable and, at the request of K.’s trustee, a bailiff opened enforcement proceedings against the first applicant for the sums due to the insolvency estate. In December 2008 the applicant settled that debt, which also included interest and costs and expenses related to the enforcement proceedings.

In the judicial proceedings against the first applicant, in a final decision of 21 January 2009 the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to accept for examination an appeal on points of law lodged by her.

In April 2007 company E. brought proceedings against the second applicant under section 646(2) of the Commerce Act, as in force at the time (see paragraph 25 below), seeking to have the payments K. had made to it during the “suspect period” between 30 October 2005 and 17 November 2006 (payments described in paragraph 8 above) declared null and void and the sum received by the applicant returned to the insolvency estate.

The action was allowed in a judgment of 23 January 2008 of the Regional Court. While it acknowledged that the transactions between the second applicant and K. had not damaged the latter’s interests, because K. had received equivalent goods in exchange for its payments to the applicant, the Regional Court added that the Commerce Act “did not take account” of such considerations. It thus ordered the second applicant to pay back to the insolvency estate the sum of BGN 33,344.05, plus default interest.

Upon appeal by the second applicant, on 10 June 2008 that judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which stated once again that section 646(2) of the Commerce Act did not require any proof that the contested payment had damaged the interests of K.’s remaining creditors; such damage, as well as the knowledge about it, were to be considered “presumed”.

Since the Court of Appeal’s judgment was enforceable, a bailiff opened enforcement proceedings against the second applicant for the sums owed by it to the insolvency estate. The second applicant settled that debt, which included interest and costs and expenses related to the enforcement proceedings, in October 2008.

In the main judicial proceedings against the second applicant, in a final decision of 29 July 2009 the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to accept for examination an appeal on points of law lodged by it.

In the insolvency proceedings against K., the majority of its assets were distributed among its creditors between November 2007 and October 2008. In two decisions delivered in November and December 2008 the trustee in bankruptcy added the State to the list of creditors, with claims exceeding BGN 5,000,000. As the State was a privileged creditor, almost all payments from the insolvency estate after that were made to it, but a substantial proportion of the debts owed to it by K. nonetheless remained unpaid.

The applicants did not make use of the possibility afforded to them by section 648 of the Commerce Act (see paragraph 29 below) to join the insolvency proceedings as creditors of K. Two other companies in a similar situation – they had also been obliged to return sums to the insolvency estate on the basis of section 646(2) of the Commerce Act – did join the insolvency proceedings, but received no part of the sums owed to them.

The insolvency proceedings continued until 2014, when company K. was wound up.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in 1995 and lives in Kaunas. He is a Ukrainian national and has lived in Lithuania since 2006.

On the evening of 22 October 2011 the Panemunė Police Department of the Kaunas District received a call that a man had been robbed in the street by several young men in the neighbourhood close to the railway station. Several police cars were sent to the area in search of the suspected robbers.

That same evening, shortly before midnight, the applicant was walking to see his girlfriend who lived in the same neighbourhood. At that time he was sixteen years old. He was approached by a police car in which there were three officers A.R., Ž.S. and R.A. They asked the applicant to stop and take his hands out of his pockets. As the officers were getting out of the car, the applicant started running away from them. The officers informed other police patrols in the neighbourhood that they were chasing a young man who fitted the description of one of the suspected robbers.

The applicant was apprehended by the police near a bus stop close to the railway station. Three police cars were present during his arrest:

(a) the first police patrol, which comprised officers O.K., R.V. and V.F.;

(b) the second police patrol, which comprised officers A.R., Ž.S. and R.A.;

(c) officers of the operational division – driver T.S. and investigator L.L.

The applicant was apprehended by T.S., who subsequently handed him over to A.R., Ž.S. and R.A. He was handcuffed, put into a police car, and taken to the Panemunė police station, where a record of an administrative violation was drawn up, charging him with disobeying lawful orders of the police (see paragraph 16 below).

The officers telephoned the applicant’s mother R., and agreed that she would pick up the applicant from the railway station. Officers A.R., Ž.S. and R.A. drove the applicant to the station and handed him over to his mother around 1 a.m. that same night.

Subsequently the applicant and his mother, on the one hand, and the police officers, on the other, presented different accounts surrounding the applicant’s arrest.

Immediately after the arrest, A.R., Ž.S. and R.A. all submitted identically worded reports to their superior:

“On 22 October ... around 11.45 p.m. ... we noticed a suspicious young man who corresponded to the description of a youth who had recently fled from the police. After we addressed [him], he stopped; when we were getting out of the car to talk to him, he suddenly started to run. He did not respond to our order to stop ... Soon he was noticed ... close to the railway station ... and he was apprehended. Then he began kicking out, fell to the ground, and resisted being apprehended, so we warned him that physical coercion would be used. The young man ignored this and continued actively resisting and kicking out, so when detaining him we were forced to use physical coercion and restraining measures, namely a truncheon and handcuffs. The young man was arrested and taken to the Panemunė police station ...”

On 24 and 26 October 2011 the applicant’s mother R. complained to the Kaunas District Police Department and the Kaunas City Prosecutor that her minor son had been beaten by police officers while being apprehended. She claimed that one of the officers had hit the applicant with a truncheon in the police car numerous times, and that afterwards his body had been covered in bruises and he had had difficulties walking.

On 24 October 2011 the applicant was examined by a court medical expert. The report on the results of that examination, issued in November 2011, found several contusions on the applicant’s body – both shoulders and upper arms, his chest, both thighs and calves and the left knee. It determined that the contusions had been caused by a hard blunt object of cylindrical shape, from eighteen or more blows (aštuoniolika ar daugiau trauminių poveikių). The report also found a tear injury (plėštinė žaizda) on the applicant’s left thumb caused by a hard blunt object, and bruised skin on his left wrist which could have resulted from handcuffing. It concluded that the injuries corresponded to negligible health impairment (nežymus sveikatos sutrikdymas) and that they could have occurred at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant (see paragraph 14 above and paragraph 25 below).

On 23 October 2011 the Panemunė Police Department drew up a record of an administrative violation against the applicant. He was accused of insulting police officers by using swear words and of disobeying their lawful orders, contrary to Article 187 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Violations.

On 27 April 2012 the Kaunas District Court held an oral hearing. Police officers A.R., Ž.S. and R.A. all testified that the applicant had run away from them and had not complied with their order to stop. They also stated that while being apprehended near the railway station the applicant had violently resisted, had been kicking out and shouting, and had thrown himself on the ground, as a result of which the police had had to use a truncheon and handcuffs against him.

In the hearing the applicant admitted having run away from the officers because he had been afraid that they would beat him. However, he denied that he had resisted being apprehended near the railway station. The applicant’s lawyer also pointed out that a medical examination had detected at least eighteen blows from a hard blunt object on the applicant’s body (see paragraph 15 above) and argued that the police officers were lying in order to cover up the fact that they had beaten him.

On 4 May 2012 the Kaunas District Court found the applicant guilty and fined him 150 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 43 euros (EUR)). The court found no reason to doubt the credibility and impartiality of the police officers, and considered that their consistent testimonies proved that the applicant had violently resisted the police.

On 11 July 2012 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the judgment of the lower court.

On 24 October 2011 the Head of the Panemunė Police Department instructed the officers of that department to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the applicant’s allegations that he had been ill-treated by the police while being apprehended.

The inquiry was conducted by an investigator of the Division of Crimes against the Civil Service and Public Interest of the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Kaunas District Police Department. As submitted by the Government, that division had been established for the specific purpose of investigating crimes allegedly committed by police officers.

On 5 November 2011 A.R. was questioned as a witness. The written record of the interview repeated almost identically the wording of his initial report (see paragraph 13 above), and added:

“We found out that [the applicant] was a minor only at the police station ... Had we known that earlier, we would not have used physical coercion and restraining measures against him ... At the time of the arrest, there was blood on [the applicant’s] hand. I don’t know how he hurt it. He didn’t complain about anything, so we didn’t take him to a doctor ... We delivered [the applicant] to his mother ... She began scolding her son and even thanked us for bringing him to her. She complained to us that she had problems with her son because he wasn’t obeying her and was skipping school.”

On the same day the officer Ž.S. was also questioned as a witness and the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of A.R.

On 8 November 2011 the investigator examined the jacket the applicant had been wearing during his arrest and found stains on the lower back of the jacket which were “possibly similar to old bloodstains” (galimai panašios į seno kraujo žymes).

On 15 November 2011 the applicant was questioned as a witness and stated:

“On 22 October 2011, around midnight I was walking ... I saw a police car ... it stopped, then one of the officers told me, “take your hands out of your pockets”. I took my hands out of my pockets, then the officer got out of the car and walked towards me, then I started running away and the police car started chasing me ... I ended up near a bus stop close to the railway station and there I was arrested by the police. Two uniformed police officers got out of a car, one of them (the driver) asked me why I was out of breath. I said that I was trying to catch the trolleybus. [That officer] said through the portable radio, “we’ve got one”. Then two other officers in uniform arrived on foot; one of them had a shaved head. Soon another police car arrived in which there were two uniformed officers. I knew one of the officers, A.R., because he was my classmate’s father. The officers who had come on foot approached me and the one with the shaved head told me that I would “pay for running away from them” (dabar aš gausiu, kad bėgau nuo jų), and with A.R. they swore at me ... Then A.R. handcuffed me behind my back and put me into a police car, in the back, and told me to sit there. Soon the officer with the shaved head got into the car and sat down in front of me. He took out a truncheon and began to hit me on various parts of the body. He hit me about fifteen times on the legs, about seventeen times on the arms, once on the back, once kicked me in the stomach, and once punched me in the face. I was made to lie down on the floor of the car and the officer with the shaved head told me to pray. I was praying and they were laughing at me. I also remember that on the way to the police station one of the officers told me that I would take the blame for somebody else’s robbery. I said nothing. There were three officers in the car, one of them was A.R., the other was the one with the shaved head who was sitting next to me, and the third was about 172 cm tall; this one had a large build and short dark hair ...

In the police station A.R. took me to another room where he told me that if I didn’t defend his daughter, next time it would be worse. I told him that I would defend his daughter so that nobody beat her. I gave them my mother’s telephone number, and the officers called her and took me to her ... The officer with the shaved head handed me over to my mother and said “I don’t know how you will react but the officers have given him a little lesson to not run away from them the next time.”

On 22 November 2011 the investigator examined twenty-two photographs of the applicant which had been taken by his mother on 23, 25 and 29 October 2011. The investigator noted that injuries were visible on the applicant’s forehead, arms and legs, upper chest and the left side of his back. Several of the photographs showed a shoe with stains similar to bloodstains.

On 23 November 2011 A.R. was questioned again. The written record of the interview was almost identical to his previous statements (see paragraphs 13 and 23 above), and added:

“... I arrived at the place where [the applicant] had been apprehended ... He was actively resisting: he was kicking out and had fallen on the ground. After being asked to calm down and get into a police car, he continued disobeying those lawful orders and resisted being apprehended, he started biting, so he was warned that physical coercion would be used against him. The young man ignored this and continued actively resisting and kicking, so we were forced to use physical coercion in order to arrest him, namely combat wrestling methods (kovinių imtynių veiksmai) and restraining measures, namely a truncheon and handcuffing him behind the back. While Ž.S. and R.A. were arresting [the applicant], I took out handcuffs and got ready to put them on him. As I remember, the truncheon was used by Ž.S. in order to arrest [the applicant] ... [The applicant] was acting aggressively and unpredictably. He was put in the back of the police car ... Ž.S. was driving the car, I was sitting next to the driver, and R.A. was in the back with [the applicant]. We asked him why he had fled from the police. He said that he had been afraid. We asked why he had been afraid if he hadn’t done anything, but he didn’t respond. In the car [the applicant] was calm; no physical coercion or restraining measures were used against him there. We noticed that his finger was injured (bleeding) but he refused to be examined by doctors. He said that he had hurt his finger on the fence or in the bushes while running away from the police. His clothes were dirty and the jacket was torn. [The applicant] had dirtied his clothes and torn his jacket when running away from the police ...

In the police station, when [the applicant’s] identity was established I realised that he was my daughter’s classmate ... Then I said to him, “God forbid something happens to my daughter”. I also said, “I will defend my daughter”. I can’t remember my exact words, but I let it be known that he must not hurt my daughter. As far as I am aware, this young man is prone to doing such things. In the police station neither I nor other officers hit [the applicant] ... I did not use any swear words and did not humiliate him. I didn’t see the other officers acting inappropriately in respect of [the applicant] either.”

The following day R.A. was questioned as a witness and the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of A.R. (see paragraph 27 above). However, he stated that A.R. had not discussed any personal matters with the applicant and that it did not seem as though A.R. and the applicant knew one another.

On 24 November 2011 officer O.K. was questioned as a witness. He confirmed that on the night of 22 October 2011 he had been on duty together with officers R.V. and V.F. He further stated:

“... After we arrived near the railway station, I saw an arrested young man who was actively resisting arrest, purposely falling on the ground and kicking out at officers, so the officers warned him that if he didn’t calm down physical coercion and restraining measures would be used against him. The young man continued behaving in an aggressive manner and actively resisting arrest, so officers used physical coercion, after which the young man was handcuffed and put into a police car ...”

On 28 November 2011 the investigator submitted a report to the Head of the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Kaunas District Police Department, suggesting that no pre-trial investigation should be opened. The investigator concluded that the use of physical force by the police officers had been a necessary and proportionate response to the applicant’s violent resistance and aggressive behaviour.

On the same day the Head of the Criminal Investigation Unit approved the investigator’s conclusion and decided not to open a pre-trial investigation.

The applicant’s mother appealed against that decision, asking for a pre-trial investigation to be opened and for it to be entrusted to an authority other than the police. On 19 December 2011 the Kaunas City Prosecutor partly upheld the appeal. The prosecutor opened a pre-trial investigation, noting that the medical examination of the applicant had shown numerous injuries, so it was necessary to assess whether the use of force by the police officers had been within the limits provided in the law (see “Relevant domestic law” below). However, the prosecutor refused to entrust the pretrial investigation to another authority, finding no reason to doubt the impartiality of the police investigator.

On 2 February 2012 officer T.S. was questioned as a witness. He confirmed that on the night of 22 October 2011 he had been on duty with officer L.L., and that following information that a young man had fled from the officers towards the railway station, they had driven there in the police car. T.S. further stated:

“I drove the police car towards the said young man and asked him to come closer, which he did. He was breathing hard, and, I saw that one of his hands was bleeding ... Soon afterwards three officers arrived on foot and one or two cars arrived ... In order to prevent the young man from fleeing, I held him by one sleeve. When he saw the approaching officers, he began to squirm and tried to get away ... After he was handed over to the officers, I saw that he was actively resisting arrest with his legs and arms, he was squirming and he fell on the ground with full force, making it more difficult to arrest him. The officers, using force, took him to the police car ... I didn’t see the officers hit the young man or use any restraining measures such as handcuffs or a truncheon. As I remember, he was taken to the car by possibly two officers, I don’t remember exactly because around six officers were present at the scene. Soon afterwards L.L. and I left and I didn’t see anything else.”

L.L. was questioned on 25 September 2012, and gave essentially the same statement as T.S.

On 10 July 2012 the applicant’s mother submitted a request to the Kaunas City Prosecutor for the investigation to be transferred to the prosecutor’s office on the grounds that the Kaunas police officers could not be considered impartial. She also asked for several investigative actions, such as interviews with her and with the applicant, and for the officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant to be identified.

The following day the Kaunas City Prosecutor dismissed the request for the investigation to be transferred to the prosecutor’s office, finding no grounds to doubt the impartiality of the police investigator. However, the prosecutor instructed the investigator to carry out the actions requested by the applicant’s mother.

It appears that the applicant’s mother did not appeal against that decision.

On 30 July 2012 officer R.V. was questioned as a witness. He confirmed that on the night of 22 October 2011 he had been on duty together with officers O.K. and V.F. He stated that when they had arrived at the railway station the applicant had already been put into the police car. R.V. stated that he did not see how the applicant was put into the car, nor did he see the officers using any coercive or restraining measures against him.

On 31 July 2012 officer V.F. was questioned as a witness; the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of R.V.

On 3 August 2012 the applicant’s mother R. was questioned as a witness. She stated that around 1 a.m. on 23 October 2011 police officers had delivered the applicant to her near the railway station. She stated:

“When [the applicant] got out of the police car, he was limping on one leg ... The officers explained to me that they had caught him ... and that he fitted the description of a robber. When my son approached me, I began scolding him, but the officer Ž.S. told me, “don’t scold him, we already gave him a good lesson about running away from the police” ... A.R. asked me, “is there a father or are you raising him alone?”, and then said, “that’s why they grow up like this”. My son and I then left. Around 3 a.m. that night, when we were eating in the trolleybus, my son undressed and I saw that his body was covered in bruises ... My son told me that one of the officers (the one with the shaven head) had beaten him up. As I know now, that was Ž.S.”.

That same day the applicant was granted victim status and further questioned. He stated that he had initially run away from the police officers because it was dark and he had been afraid that they would beat him up. However, when he reached the railway station he was no longer afraid because the area was well lit and there were other people nearby. The applicant added:

“One of the officers who had come on foot – the one with the shaved head, as I know now it was Ž.S. – swore at me in Russian, from which I understood that I would be beaten up for running away. Officer A.R., who is my classmate’s father, handcuffed me behind my back, put me in the back of a police car and closed the door. Ž.S. came from the other side of the car, opened the door and sat down next to me; he took out a truncheon and started hitting me on various parts of my body, except for the head. He hit me around fifty times. No other officers were in the car at that time. Then Ž.S. got out of the car, talked to the officers and got back in the car, in the driver’s seat. A.R. sat next to the driver and the third officer sat next to me ...

At the police station ... A.R. approached me and said, “now I will show you”. I asked, “why, I don’t bother your daughter, I don’t even talk to her”. A.R. led me behind a wall, put an electroshock device on the left side of my stomach and threatened to use it if I didn’t defend his daughter from my friends; he also said that if he caught me one more time, he would beat me even more. I agreed to defend his daughter ...

I want to add that I injured my left thumb while running away from the officers and it was bleeding; that’s why there were bloodstains on my jacket at the spot where my hands were handcuffed. The officers did not provide me with the first aid. All the blows were struck by one officer, Ž.S. I was beaten only in the police car; nobody beat me at the police station ... I suffered physical injuries due to the beating.”

The applicant denied having resisted the police officers or having sworn at them. He also said that he had fallen down while running towards the railway station but not while being apprehended.

In September 2012 a court medical expert carried out an additional examination of the applicant’s medical file. The report on the results of that examination confirmed the findings of the previous medical report (see paragraph 15 above). It also specified that the applicant’s injuries were not likely to have been caused by falling down (sužalojimų visuma griuvimui nebūdinga), nor by punching or kicking, but that they had most likely been caused by a hard blunt object of a cylindrical shape.

On 5 October 2012 confrontations were arranged between the applicant and each of the officers A.R., Ž.S. and R.A. separately. All the officers repeated their earlier statements (see paragraphs 13, 23, 27 and 28 above) and the applicant denied them. A.R. confirmed that he had handcuffed the applicant. The officers stated that none of them had used any swear words or threats to the applicant. Meanwhile the applicant insisted that he had not resisted the officers and that he had not been warned about the possible use of restraining measures. He also denied falling to the ground while being apprehended near the railway station.

That same day a confrontation was arranged between the applicant and O.K. The officer stated that when he had arrived at the railway station the applicant was already in handcuffs and he was squirming but not actively resisting. He could not remember which officers had put the applicant into the police car.

During a subsequent interview on 8 October 2012 O.K. retracted the statement he had made in his first interview, in which he had said that he had seen the applicant actively resisting the officers (see paragraph 29 above). O.K. stated that he had been mistaken and that his statements made during the confrontation were the correct ones.

On 12 December 2012 the Kaunas City Prosecutor discontinued the pre-trial investigation. The prosecutor held that physical force had been used against the applicant only to the extent that was strictly necessary to arrest him, and that the applicant’s allegations that he had been beaten up in the police car with a truncheon had not been proven. The Kaunas City Prosecutor also considered that the officers A.R., Ž.S. and R.A. could not have known at the time of the arrest that the applicant was a minor. The prosecutor concluded that the mere fact that the applicant had sustained injuries was insufficient to find that the police officers had acted unlawfully.

On 18 March 2013 the Kaunas District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision. The court concluded that there was no “objective and indisputable evidence” that the police officers had exceeded their legal powers. It also referred to the earlier court judgments which had found the applicant guilty of an administrative violation (see paragraphs 19-20 above), concluding that the officers had had the right to use physical coercion in response to the applicant’s resistance. The court also considered that the pre-trial investigation had been thorough and comprehensive.

On 11 April 2013 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld that judgment.

Subsequently the applicant’s mother requested the reopening of the investigation, but her request was dismissed on the grounds that there were no relevant new circumstances.


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently detained in the Tekirdağ F-type Prison.

According to the arrest report, signed by thirteen police officers, on 18 March 2009 at 2.15 p.m. the applicant was stopped by police officers for an identity check. He resisted and opened fire, killing a police officer. The other police officers used force to neutralise and arrest him. Several fake identity cards were found in the applicant’s bag.

At 5.15 p.m. the applicant was sent to the Bursa Şevket Yılmaz State Hospital for a medical examination. The medical report indicated that there were superficial grazes on the applicant’s back and bruises to the frontal region of his head, caused by blunt instrument trauma. It further specified that the abrasions on the applicant’s wrists could have been caused by handcuffs. The report concluded that the injuries on the applicant’s body were not life-threatening.

The applicant was then taken to the Kestel District Police Station. According to the form explaining the rights of arrested persons, the applicant was reminded of his rights, including his right to have the assistance of a lawyer, to remain silent, and to inform his family members of his arrest. According to a report signed by seven police officers, the police tried to conduct a fingerprint examination in order to identify the applicant, but he resisted, shouted slogans, tried hitting his head on the machine and kicked the nearby furniture. The applicant alleged that he had been beaten at the police station.

The applicant was subsequently transferred to the anti-terrorism branch of the Bursa Security Headquarters, where he was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. According to the applicant, in the basement of the Bursa Security Headquarters, his testicles were squeezed and he was beaten, subjected to hanging by his arms, hosed with cold water, exposed to cold air circulation and forced to lie in an ice-covered blanket.

According to a police report, on 19 March 2009 at about 7 p.m. the applicant was taken by four police officers to Istanbul, where he had offered to show the officers a house used as a cell by the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal organisation. It was reported that, as the applicant could not find the house, they returned to the Bursa Security Headquarters on 20 March 2009 at 4.15 a.m. This report was signed by four police officers, but the applicant declined to sign it.

On 20 March 2009 the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer at the Bursa Security Headquarters in connection with the killing of a police officer and his alleged involvement in the MLKP. The applicant exercised his right to remain silent.

On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Bursa Forensic Medicine Institute. During his examination, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated whilst in custody. He stated that he had been beaten, hung by his arms and hosed with cold water and alleged that ice cubes had been placed over his body. The medical examination revealed that the applicant had a haematoma under his left eyelid, a red-coloured bruise measuring 5 x 10 cm and swellings in his occipital region, and purplecoloured bruises on his right eye and periorbital region. It was also noted that the applicant had several bruises on his left eyebrow, on the zygoma, on both sides of his mouth, between his eyebrows, on his left arm and both wrists, and also on his penis. The doctor noted that the bruises on the applicant’s wrists could have been sustained as a result of the use of handcuffs. It was further noted that the applicant had complained about shortness of breath, headaches and pain in his ribs. The doctor requested consultations from the thoracic surgery, neurosurgery and internal medicine departments.

Later on the same day, the applicant was interrogated, in the presence of his lawyer, by both the Kestel Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Kestel Magistrates’ Court and exercised his right to remain silent. On the basis of the evidence in the case file, the judge ordered his detention on remand.

On 21 March 2009 at about 1.40 a.m. the applicant was taken to the emergency department of the Bursa Uludağ University Hospital. In the hospital he was examined by several doctors, specifically from the neurosurgery, general surgery, thoracic surgery and radiology departments. The radiology examinations did not reveal any abnormality in the bones, lungs or heart. The general surgeon indicated that there was no need for surgery. Finally, the thoracic surgeon noted in his report that the applicant had no respiratory problems but that he had several bruises on his body, specifically on his back. He also stated that no fractured ribs had been observed. According to the information in the file, the applicant left the emergency department at about 4 a.m.

Later on 21 March 2009 the applicant was also taken to the emergency service of the Bursa State Hospital as he had complained of a pain in his chest. Following consultation of doctors from general surgery, neurosurgery and radiology departments, a doctor from the emergency service issued a report concluding that the applicant’s eighth and ninth ribs had been fractured and that he was suffering from post-traumatic injury. He was accordingly admitted to the emergency department for monitoring and observation.

On 30 March 2009 the applicant filed a complaint with the Bursa Public Prosecutor and alleged that he had been ill-treated in custody. In his petition, the applicant maintained that he had been beaten at the Kestel Police Station. He also maintained that following his transfer to the AntiTerrorism Branch of the Bursa Security Headquarters, his testicles had been squeezed, he had been beaten, subjected to hanging by his arms, hosed with cold water, exposed to cold air circulation and forced to lie in an ice-covered blanket. The applicant further stated that he could identify the police officers who had ill-treated him if he met them face to face.

Upon receiving the applicant’s complaint, the Bursa Public Prosecutor initiated an investigation into his ill-treatment allegations. In this connection, the applicant gave a statement on 31 March 2009, and claimed in a detailed account that he had been ill-treated during his custody. The applicant further maintained that he would be able to identify the police officers who had ill-treated him.

The public prosecutor interviewed seven police officers who had been on duty at the time of the applicant’s arrest and during his custody at the Kestel Police Station and the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Bursa Security Headquarters. They all denied the accusations against them. The police officers who had arrested the applicant stated that they had used proportionate force to neutralise him.

At the request of the public prosecutor, on 8 April 2009 the applicant was once again taken to the Bursa Uludağ University Hospital for a medical examination. As the gendarme officer refused to leave the consultation room, the doctor did not perform the examination. The gendarme officer issued a report stating that the doctor had not complied with the Protocol for Prisons signed by the Ministries of Justice, Health and Interior, dated 6 January 2000 ‒ according to which a gendarme officer is obliged to stay in the consultation room during the medical examination in a hospital of a person who has been remanded in connection with terrorismrelated crimes and the examination was then carried out in the absence of the gendarme officer. The doctor prepared a detailed report stating that there were several bruises on the front of his left arm which appeared to be self-inflicted. Similar marks were also noticed on his abdomen. Healed scars were observed on both wrists. Bruises on the fingers and right knee were also noted.

The doctor further ordered certain medical tests but according to the information in the case file, the prison authorities did not allow the applicant to go to the hospital on the appointment dates and transferred him to the Tekirdağ Ftype Prison.

On 15 April 2009 the Forensic Medicine Institute issued a medical report about the applicant based on the medical reports dated 20 March 2009 and 21 March 2009 issued by the Uludağ University Hospital. It was concluded that his injuries were not life-threatening and would heal with simple medical care. It was also noted that no fractured ribs had been observed. No reference was made to the medical report dated 21 March 2009 issued by the Bursa State Hospital.

In the course of the investigation, the public prosecutor also requested the video camera recordings taken during the applicant’s periods in custody in Kestel Police Station and the Bursa Security Headquarters. The Bursa Security Directorate informed the public prosecutor’s office that the camera recordings were only kept for eight days.

On 3 November 2009 the public prosecutor issued a non-prosecution decision. In his decision the prosecutor held that the injuries observed on the applicant’s body had been sustained during the scuffle at the time of his arrest. The prosecutor also concluded that the force used to neutralise the applicant had been in compliance with Article 16 of Law no. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police.

On 1 December 2009 the applicant filed an objection against the public prosecutor’s decision. He repeated that he would be able to identify the police officers who had ill-treated him. On 23 March 2010 the Yalova Assize Court rejected the objection.

In the meantime, criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for killing a police officer. By a judgment delivered on 20 January 2012 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case file contains no information regarding the current status of these proceedings.


CASE OF ESKERKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The three applicants were born in 1980, 1981 and 1983 respectively and are in detention in Moscow.

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

The applicant was arrested on 8 March 2015 on suspicion of murder.

On 8 March 2015 a court ordered his pre-trial detention, which was further extended on several occasions, in particular on 24 August and 25 November 2015. The applicant appealed against the extension orders on 26 August and 26 November 2015 respectively. The appeals were dismissed on 16 December 2015 and on 8 February 2016.

The applicant has been detained in remand prison no. 77/6 in Moscow since 17 March 2015, except for twenty-one days in May 2015 when he was detained in remand prison no. 77/1 in Moscow (hereinafter “IZ-77/6” and “IZ-77/1”). In IZ-77/6 the applicant has around 3 square metres (sq.m) of personal space, the cell is extremely hot in the summer and extremely damp in the winter, it lacks natural light and fresh air, while access to potable water and hot water is restricted. The applicant has not been provided with bedding and can have no more than one ten-minute shower a week. Daily physical exercise in the fresh air is limited to one hour. The applicant has not described the conditions of his detention in IZ-77/1.

On 25 November 2015 the applicant was transported between IZ77/6 and the Basmanny District Court of Moscow in a prison van. Personal space in the van was limited and there was not enough fresh air; the applicant had no access to a toilet and no food or drinking water was provided. Upon his arrival to the court building and before returning to the remand prison he was detained for about 15 hours in a convoy cell where he disposed of around 0.5 sq. m of personal space and had no access to natural light, fresh air, the toilet or drinking water.

The applicants were arrested on 7 March 2015 on suspicion of murder.

On 8 March 2015 a court ordered their pre-trial detention, which was further extended on several occasions, in particular on 19 February, 1 March and 12 May 2016. Appeals filed by the applicants were dismissed on 8 April, 21 April and 28 June 2016 respectively.

On 12 May 2015 the applicants were transported from remand prison No. 77/2 in Moscow (“IZ-77/2”) to the Moscow City Court and back in a prison van. The conditions of the applicants’ transfer to and from the court building were identical to those described by the applicant in case no. 18496/16.