Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicants, Ms Ruža Karajica (“the first applicant”) who lodged the application on her own behalf and on behalf of her two underage children, her daughter Lucijana Karajica (“the second applicant”) and her son Jakov Karajica (“the third applicant”), are Croatian nationals who were born in 1974, 2000 and 2002 respectively, and live in Brdovec. They were represented before the Court by Ms I. Bojić, an advocate practising in Zagreb.

The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.

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

On 10 April 1999 the first applicant married S.K.

On 7 September 2000 she gave birth to the second applicant, and on 29 July 2002 to the third applicant.

The first applicant and S.K. separated in November 2004 when he moved out of the matrimonial home.

On 11 January 2005 the first applicant instituted civil proceedings against S.K. in the Zaprešić Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zaprešiću), seeking a divorce and the right to have the second and third applicants living with her (hereinafter “custody”).

On 9 March 2005 the Zaprešić Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Zaprešić – hereinafter “the local social welfare centre”), which participated in the proceedings as an independent intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the children’s interests, submitted its opinion and report.

By a judgment of 25 March 2005 the Municipal Court granted the divorce, awarded the first applicant custody of the second and third applicants, and granted S.K. access (contact) rights.

Following an appeal by S.K., on 23 November 2005 the Velika Gorica County Court (Županijski sud u Velikoj Gorici) quashed the first-instance judgment, except for the part granting the divorce, and remitted the case to the first-instance court.

In the resumed proceedings, the Zaprešić Municipal Court held hearings on 25 May and 12 December 2006, 20 February, 4 October and 14 December 2007 and on 11 June, 19 February and 18 July 2008. On 3 October 2006 it obtained a combined expert opinion from court experts in psychology and psychiatry, and on 1 April 2008 a fresh opinion and report from the local social welfare centre.

According to the combined expert opinion from experts in psychology and psychiatry the first applicant was mentally unstable and had demonstrated signs of a personality disorder, whereas her former husband, S.K., had shown no such signs and was sufficiently emotionally stable to take care of the children. In particular, the experts established that the first applicant lacked self-critical awareness and was unable to recognise and respond to the emotional needs of her children. They therefore recommended that custody of the second and third applicants be awarded to their father. Having regard to the importance of the role of a mother in the development of a child, and the fact that both children were very emotionally attached to her, the experts also suggested granting the first applicant extensive access rights, provided that she agree to seek psychiatric treatment.

In reply, the first applicant submitted an opinion by a psychiatrist who had been treating her since June 2005. The opinion, dated 29 November 2006, stated that she had been systematically abused by her former husband and, although mentally fragile, was not suffering from any mental illness, much less a personality disorder.

On 28 May 2007 the local social welfare centre, acting partly upon the opinion and court experts’ recommendations and partly of their own motion, instructed the first applicant to commence psychiatric treatment and to take the second and third applicants for psychotherapy. It also imposed various supervision measures in order to monitor the exercise of parental authority by her and S.K.

By a judgment of 18 July 2008 the Municipal Court awarded the first applicant custody of the second and third applicants, and granted S.K. access (contact) rights. Following an appeal by S.K., on 18 June 2009 the Velika Gorica County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.

On 10 January 2010 the Polyclinic for the Protection of Children – where the second and third applicants had been receiving psychiatric treatment – informed the local social welfare centre that it suspected the second and third applicants’ mental health was being neglected and that they were being emotionally abused by the first applicant.

According to a fresh expert opinion obtained by the Municipal Court in the resumed proceedings in November 2010 from two different court experts (a psychologist and psychiatrist), both the second and third applicants were very traumatised as a result of their parents’ – especially their mother’s – behaviour, and were in urgent need of psychotherapy. The experts also established that, although both parents were responsible for the situation, the first applicant, whose behaviour they regarded as “emotional abuse”, was more responsible. The inefficiency of the authorities had also contributed to the situation, by making it possible for the mother to manipulate the children. The experts further found that both parents had limited parenting capacities, but that the first applicant’s capacity was more limited. They initially could not recommend which parent should be awarded custody – handing the children to their father would worsen their mental state, whereas keeping them in their mother’s custody would intensify their hostility to their father and her influence over them. Thus, they first suggested that both parents undergo counselling to try to improve their own relationship and their relationship with their children, later proposing to award custody of the children to their mother for a period of six months and grant the father extensive access rights.

On that basis, on 27 December 2010 the court made an interim order whereby it awarded the first applicant custody of the children on a temporary basis and granted S.K. access rights, allowing him contact with the second and third applicants three times a week for two hours, every other weekend and for half of the school holidays.

It would appear that for the following six months, the father was unable to exercise his access rights because each time he went to collect the children they refused to go with him, a behaviour which the first applicant allegedly encouraged.

The last expert opinion obtained by the court in September 2011, which was prepared by the same psychologist and psychiatrist who had prepared the opinion of November 2010, recommended placing the second and third applicants into care. The experts suggested that the children be removed from their mother because she was harming their emotional development. Even though their father had better parenting capacity, for the time being he could not take over custody as the children, because of their mother’s influence, had a very negative attitude towards him, so any forced situation would have a negative impact. The experts therefore recommended placing the children into foster care, attending psychotherapy in a designated clinic, and granting each parent supervised access once a week. It was proposed that the measures would last for one year.

On 8 December 2011 the local social welfare centre lodged a motion seeking that the second and third applicants be temporarily removed from the first applicant for a period of one year, the child protection measure laid down in section 111 of the Family Act (see paragraph 56 below). On the same day it appointed one of its employees, Ms A.P., to act as their guardian ad litem and represent their interests in the proceedings, as required by section 121 of the Family Act (see paragraph 56 below).

On 21 December 2011 the Municipal Court adopted a judgment depriving the first applicant and S.K. of custody of the second and third applicants for a period of one year and awarding custody to St. Joseph’s House for Uncared Children (Kuća sv. Josipa za nezbrinutu djecu – hereinafter “St. Joseph’s House”), a children’s home run by the Catholic church. S.K and the first applicant were granted access (contact) rights, to be exercised on the premises of St. Joseph’s House in the presence of one of its employees. S.K. was entitled to see the children every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and the first applicant every Sunday from 3 to 5 p.m. The court also decided that the judgment would be immediately enforceable, accordingly ordering the first applicant to entrust the second and third applicants to St. Joseph’s House immediately following service.

In making its decision the court, apart from relying on the abovementioned expert opinions, also took into account the fact that the first applicant had refused to act upon the instruction of the local social welfare centre to seek psychiatric treatment (see paragraph 14 above), had taken the children for treatment at the designated clinic only once, and had been obstructing execution of the supervision measures imposed by the centre, by refusing to cooperate with the social worker assigned to her case.

In particular, the court found that the mother’s refusal to seek psychiatric treatment (which was a precondition for the successful psychotherapy of her children), her and S.K.’s fixation on their mutual problems and their lack of communication and unwillingness to adapt and change, were making them insensitive to the emotional needs of their children. That was harmful for the physical and mental development of the children, who had been traumatised and manipulated by their parents’ attitude and behaviour. The parents had thus significantly neglected their duty to raise and educate them, as they had not taken sufficient care of their health within the meaning of section 111(1) and (2) of the Family Act (see paragraph 56 below).

The court therefore concluded that the first applicant and her former husband could not properly take care of their children and that temporarily depriving them both of custody was warranted.

The first applicant appealed against the court’s decision, arguing that she had been undergoing psychiatric treatment, albeit in a different clinic from the one recommended by the court experts. The reason she had refused to undergo counselling with her husband, as recommended by the court experts, was because he had been convicted of domestic violence against her (see paragraphs 46-49 below). Furthermore, she had taken her children for psychotherapy but in a different clinic from the one recommended by the experts and endorsed by the local social welfare centre.

On 21 March 2012 the Velika Gorica County Court (Županijski sud u Velikoj Gorici) dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment .

By a decision of 13 June 2012 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants.

As the period of one year set forth in the judgment of 21 December 2011 was about to expire, on 17 December 2012 the Zaprešić Municipal Court adopted a decision containing the same custody and access arrangements as those in that judgment. The court found that the fact that the judgment had remained unenforced (see paragraphs 38-41 below) suggested that the circumstances that had warranted the imposition of the child protection measure ordered therein still existed. It thus refused to take (into account) any new evidence. The decision was immediately enforceable.

By a decision of 13 February 2013 the Velika Gorica County Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the first applicant and upheld the firstinstance decision.

The applicants did not lodge a constitutional complaint against this decision.

On 17 December 2013, a day before the period of one year fixed in its decision of 17 December 2012 was due to expire (see paragraph 29 above), the Zaprešić Municipal Court adopted identical decision with similar reasoning. It again refused to take any evidence. This decision was also immediately enforceable.

By a decision of 12 March 2014, the Velika Gorica County Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the first applicant and upheld the first-instance decision.

The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging violations of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing and to respect for their family life. In so doing, they relied on Article 29 paragraph 1 and Article 35 of the Croatian Constitution (see paragraph 55 below) and Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.

On 17 June 2014 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing and to respect for their family life, quashed the second-instance decision of 12 March 2014 and first-instance decision of 17 December 2013 (see paragraphs 32 and 33 above) and remitted the case to the Zaprešić Municipal Court.

In particular, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to respect for family life and a breach of the principle of equality of arms in that (a) the first-instance court, without giving valid reasons, had not held a hearing or taken any evidence before reaching its decision; (b) the ordinary courts had paid no heed to the first applicant’s argument that one of the court experts was her former husband’s therapist; (c) the first-instance court had not heard the children, even though their age and maturity permitted that they be heard; and (d) an employee of the local social welfare centre (the public authority that proposed the contested child protection measure, see paragraph 21 above), who had assumed a rather passive role in the proceedings and had not even contacted the children, had been appointed as the second and third applicants’ guardian ad litem, thus creating a conflict of loyalty between her employer and her wards (children under her care).

The Constitutional Court explained that taking new evidence had been particularly warranted in the circumstances, as children grew quickly and thus it could not have been assumed, as the first-instance court had done, that there had been no relevant developments in the two years that had passed between the first-instance judgment of 21 December 2011 and the decision of 17 December 2013. The best interests of the children required that evidence be taken to establish the current situation as regards the second and third applicants, which had been crucial for deciding whether to maintain or lift the impugned child protection measure of their temporary placement into care.

Meanwhile, as the first applicant refused to entrust the second and third applicants to the children’s home, on 10 February 2012 the local social welfare centre applied to the Zaprešić Municipal Court to have the judgment of 21 December 2011 (see paragraph 22 above) enforced.

On 14 February 2012 the Zaprešić Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi) ordering the first applicant to entrust the second and third applicants to St. Joseph’s House within eight days of service, or face a fine of 5,000 Croatian kunas (HRK).

On 18 July 2012 the Municipal Court fined the first applicant HRK 5,000 for disobeying the court order to entrust the second and third applicants to the children’s home, and ordered her to do so within eight days of service, or face an additional fine of HRK 6,000.

Since fining the first applicant with a view to forcing her to comply with the above judgment and entrust the children to the children’s home had no effect, on 18 November 2012 the Zaprešić Municipal Court, following an application by the local social welfare centre, issued a new writ of execution. This time it ordered an enforcement officer, with the assistance of the police, to physically remove the second and third applicants from the first applicant or a third party and place them in the care of St. Joseph’s House.

On 21 March 2013 at 1.30 p.m. the enforcement officer and five policemen attempted to remove the second and third applicants from their mother. The children resisted by screaming, crying and shouting that they did not want to go to a home and wanted to remain living with their mother. Given the children’s reactions, the enforcement officer eventually decided to adjourn the intervention. Immediately afterwards the first applicant took the second and third applicants to a doctor, who referred them to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist who examined them that day found that they were suffering from shock.

On 19 April 2013, during a meeting held at the local social welfare centre, the first applicant promised to cooperate with the relevant authorities and undergo counselling with a view to improving her relationship with her former husband.

Following a motion by the centre, on 13 May 2013 the Zaprešić Municipal Court postponed enforcement until 29 July 2013.

On 25 July 2013 the centre lodged another motion to postpone enforcement, which the Zaprešić Municipal Court granted on 2 September 2013 by postponing enforcement until 25 October 2013.

On 21 October 2013 the centre lodged a third motion to postpone enforcement. This time the Zaprešić Municipal Court, on 30 October 2013, dismissed the motion, because under the domestic law it was not possible to postpone enforcement for more than six months at the request of the party seeking enforcement. Furthermore, since the centre as the party seeking enforcement had not applied for a continuation of enforcement in those six months, as was required by law, the court discontinued the enforcement proceedings.

Meanwhile, on 18 January 2005 the Zaprešić Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Zaprešiću) found S.K. guilty of domestic violence, after an incident against the first applicant on 29 November 2004. He was given a thirty-day suspended sentence, with a probation period of three years.

On 22 August 2006 the Zaprešić State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zaprešiću) indicted S.K. on two counts of domestic violence, a criminal offence punishable under Article 215a of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 57 below), relating to the incident of 29 November 2004 and a separate incident on 14 November 2004.

On 29 February 2008 the Zaprešić Municipal Court found S.K. guilty as charged and imposed a ten-month suspended sentence with a probation period of one year.

On 2 February 2009 the Velika Gorica County Court dismissed an appeal lodged by S.K. and upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final.

On 26 August 2011 the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) indicted the first applicant before the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) for obstructing the execution of measures ordered to protect a child or minor, a criminal offence punishable under Article 215 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 57 below).

On 6 June 2013 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court found the first applicant guilty as charged and imposed a six-month suspended sentence with a probation period of two years.

The first applicant appealed, and it would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) as the second-instance court.

Following a petition by the first applicant, on 8 May 2012 the Gender Equality Ombudsman (Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova) advised the local social welfare centre that in instructing her to undergo various treatment and expert assessments, it had failed to take into account the fact that she was a victim of domestic violence. In particular, the Ombudsman noted that, by insisting that the first applicant attend counselling with her former husband, who had been convicted of domestic violence against her, the centre had treated the victim and the perpetrator equally. That constituted secondary victimisation and amounted to discrimination against her as a victim of domestic violence. The Ombudsman therefore suggested that the centre reformulate its recommendation to the court in the proceedings regarding custody and access rights, basing it on a fresh expert opinion from a different expert and bearing in mind the fact that the first applicant was a victim of domestic violence.

The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (Ustav Republike Hrvatske, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, no. 56/90 with subsequent amendments) read as follows:

“In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him or her, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”

“Everyone shall be guaranteed respect for, and the legal protection of, his personal and family life ...”

Family Act

The relevant provisions of the Family Act (Obiteljski zakon, Official Gazette nos. 163/03, 17/04, 136/04, 107/07, 57/11, 61/11) read as follows:

Measures to protect the rights and welfare of the child

“(1) The court shall, in non-contentious proceedings, deprive a parent of the right to live with and raise his or her child and shall entrust the child to another individual, an institution or another legal entity providing social services, if [that parent] significantly neglects [his or her duty] to raise and educate [the child], or if there is a risk to [him or her] being properly raised.

(2) It is deemed that a parent is significantly neglecting the raising, upbringing and education of [his or her child] if the parent, for example, does not take sufficient care of the child’s diet, hygiene, clothing, health or regular school attendance, or does not deter the child from bad company, staying out late at night and breaking [night-time] curfews, or from vagrancy, begging or stealing.”

“(3) The measures referred to in sections 111 and 112 of this Act shall last up to one year.

(4) The proceedings for imposing the measures referred to in sections 111 and 112 of this Act shall be instituted [by the court] of its own motion or following an application by a social welfare centre or the child.

(5) Imposition of the measures referred to in sections 111 and 112 of this Act does not terminate the other rights and duties of the parent toward [his or her] child.

(7) An appeal lodged against decisions adopted on the basis of sections 110 to 112 of this Act does not suspend their enforcement.”

“To protect the rights and welfare of the child, the social welfare centre shall appoint a special guardian in cases falling under section 111, 112 and 114 of this Act.”

The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (Kazneni zakon, Official Gazette no. 110/97 with subsequent amendments), in force from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2012, reads as follows:

“(1) Anyone who obstructs the execution of educational or other measures ordered by the court, social welfare centre or [other] State authorities, or fails to discharge its statutory duties to protect a child or minor in due time, shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment of up to one year.”

“A family member, who by violence, abuse or particularly insolent behaviour, subjects another member of the family to degrading treatment, shall be punished by imprisonment of six months to five years.”


Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 13+10-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants were born in 1975, 1981, 1985 and 1977 respectively and live in Budapest.

At the material time, the applicants were members of the Hungarian Parliament and the opposition party Párbeszéd Magyarországért. Mr Szilágyi was notary of Parliament.

At a plenary session on 30 April 2013, during a pre-agenda speech, Mr Karácsony and Mr Szilágyi showed a billboard in the session hall displaying the text “FIDESZ [the party on government]. You steal, you cheat, and you lie.”

On the same day, Mr Szilágyi made a speech in the general debate on Bill no. T/10881 amending Certain Smoking-related Acts, accusing the government parties of corruption.

On 6 May 2013 the Speaker presented a proposal to fine Mr Karácsony 50,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 170 euros (EUR)) and Mr Szilágyi HUF 185,520 (approximately EUR 600) for having gravely disrupted the plenary proceedings, in application of section 49(4) of Act no. XXXVI of 2012 on Parliament.

The Speaker proposed that the maximum fine as regards Mr Szilágyi (a third of his monthly remuneration) be applied, since he was an elected official of Parliament, not just an ordinary MP.

A decision approving the proposal of the Speaker was adopted by the plenary on 13 May 2013, without a debate.

On 21 May 2013 during the final vote on Bill no. T/10881 Mr Dorosz and Ms Szabó presented a billboard with the text “Here Operates the National Tobacco Mafia”.

On 27 May 2013 the Speaker submitted a proposal to fine them HUF 70,000 (EUR 240) each, for gravely disrupting the plenary proceedings, in application of section 49(4) of Act no. XXXVI of 2012 on Parliament. The proposal stated that an increased fine was necessary, since similar, seriously disruptive conducts had occurred before.

The plenary adopted the proposal on 27 May 2013 without a debate.

A constitutional complaint was filed, concerning a sanction for disruptive conduct, by MP E.N., a member of the opposition party Jobbik, and rejected by the Constitutional Court on 4 November 2013 (decision nos. 3206/2013. (XI.18.) AB and 3207/2013. (XI.18.) AB, see paragraph 16 below).

The Constitutional Court found that MP E.N. had been fined under sections 48(3) and (6), 50(1) and 52(2) – rather than section 49(4) – of Act no. XXXVI of 2012 on Parliament. It held in particular that the restrictions imposed on him for conduct falling under the above provisions – that is, “gravely offensive expression” – were in compliance with the Fundamental Law. His complaint in respect of section 49(4) was rejected because this provision, concerning “gravely offensive conduct”, was not applicable in that case.

The Constitutional Court went on to observe that there was no remedy available to that complainant against the measure.

Lastly, the Constitutional Court held that parliamentary disciplinary law concerned Parliament’s interior business and the MPs’ conduct as parliamentarians, rather than citizens’ rights or obligations; and that therefore no requirement of a remedy against a parliamentary disciplinary measure could be deduced from Article XXVIII(7) of the Fundamental Law.


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Erik Møse;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Warsaw.

On 14 May 2010 the applicant was arrested in Kyiv by officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (“the SBU”) on suspicion of unlawfully importing equipment for the covert surveillance of telephone networks and using it to intercept private telephone conversations (see paragraph 24 below), an offence committed in collaboration with M., a Russian national.

An SBU investigator lodged a request with the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) seeking that the applicant be remanded in custody pending the investigation. He submitted that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to prevent him from absconding and interfering with the investigation, given that the applicant was a foreign national, did not have a permanent place of residence in Ukraine and was suspected of a serious offence.

On 17 May 2010 the District Court held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and his lawyer, remanded the applicant in custody, and ordered that he be placed in an SBU detention facility. It held that the arguments submitted by the investigator were sufficiently strong to allow the conclusion that the applicant should be detained.

On 27 May 2010 the Court of Appeal held a hearing to examine the applicant lawyer’s appeal against the order of 17 May 2010 in the presence of a prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer and upheld the order.

On 13 July 2010 the District Court held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor, the applicant and his lawyer and extended the applicant’s detention until 14 September 2010. It noted that there were no reasons to release the applicant and that the investigative authority needed time to complete the investigation.

On 26 July and 6 August 2010 the Court of Appeal held hearings to examine, respectively, the applicant lawyer’s and the applicant’s own appeals against the District Court’s decision of 13 July 2010. Only a prosecutor was present at the former hearing, whereas the latter hearing was attended by the prosecutor, the applicant and his lawyer. The Court of Appeal rejected both appeals and upheld the District Court’s decision on both occasions.

On 9 September 2010 the Court of Appeal held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer, granted the investigative authority’s request, and extended the applicant’s detention until 14 November 2010. The court noted that the charges against the applicant were serious, that there were no reasons to release him and that the investigative authority needed more time to complete the investigation.

On 1 November 2010 the investigator charged the applicant with several additional offences in connection with the same events: breaching the privacy of telephone communications and unlawful transfer of equipment subject to export control, committed in a group (see paragraph 24 below).

On 12 November 2010 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 14 December 2010.

On 14 December 2010 the applicant’s case was sent to the District Court for trial.

On 27 April 2011 the District Court committed the applicant for trial, rejected the applicant’s request for release and ordered his continuing detention pending trial. The court stated that the applicant was charged with a serious offence, was a foreign national and had no permanent place of residence in Ukraine. No time-limit was set for his detention.

On 25 August 2011 the District Court rejected the applicant’s requests for release. It gave reasons similar to those given in its decision of 27 April 2011 and added that there was no reason to set an end-date for the applicant’s detention since his detention was needed to complete the trial.

On 14 October, 24 November 2011, and 11 January 2012 the District Court rejected the applicant’s further requests for release. It gave reasons similar to those given in its decision of 27 April 2011.

On 19 March 2012 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged, sentencing him to four years’ imprisonment.

On 7 December 2012 the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and remitted the case for additional investigation. It ordered the applicant’s continuing detention without giving reasons.

On 15 January 2013 the District Court set bail for the applicant.

On 16 January 2013 the applicant was released on bail.

On 17 May 2013 the District Court approved the applicant’s plea bargain, convicted him, and sentenced him to two years and eight months’ imprisonment, which was to be considered fully served in view of the time the applicant had spent in pre-trial detention.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion)

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

The applicant was born in 1975 in the Andijan Region of Uzbekistan.

The applicant first arrived in Russia in November 2008. In summer 2009 he applied for Russian nationality using a false name and a forged Kyrgyz passport. His application was granted on 16 March 2010.

On 31 July 2009 an investigator from the National Security Service of Uzbekistan issued a decision to charge the applicant with membership of the extremist organisation Nurchilar (also spelled Nurcilar) and possession and dissemination of extremist literature, offences under Articles 244-1(3) and 244-2(1) of the Uzbek Criminal Code. A search warrant was issued on the same date. On 5 August 2009 the Unus-Abad District Court ordered the applicant’s arrest.

On 22 February 2013 the applicant was arrested in Omsk and charged with using a false identity document to cross the Russian border. Once his real identity had been established, he was detained pending extradition proceedings. On 26 February 2013 the Isilkul Town Court of the Omsk Region imposed a custodial preventive measure, which was subsequently extended on 22 March and 22 April 2013 until 22 June 2013.

On 22 March 2013 the Russian Prosecutor General’s office received an extradition request from his Uzbek counterpart. The request stated that the applicant was wanted in Uzbekistan in connection with his membership of an extremist organisation, an offence under Article 244-1(1) of the Uzbek Criminal Code.

On 23 May 2013 the Isilkul town prosecutor lifted the custodial measure that had been imposed in the extradition proceedings. The extradition was adjourned until such time as the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charge of using a false document had been completed.

As of the date of the applicant’s most recent submission of 6 March 2014, he was not aware of the outcome of the extradition proceedings.

On 23 May 2013, immediately after the applicant’s release from custody, the Isilkul Town Court heard an administrative case against him on the charge of illegal residence in Russia, an offence under Article 18.8 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The Town Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a fine and administrative removal from Russia (“expulsion order”). Pending removal, he was to be held in the Centre for Social Adaptation for foreign nationals.

On 29 May 2013 the applicant asked the Court to apply interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to prevent his expulsion to Uzbekistan. The Court granted his request on 31 May 2013.

On 11 June 2013 the Omsk Regional Court summarily rejected the appeal against the Town Court’s expulsion order of 23 May 2013.

In the meantime, on 6 June 2013 an investigator with the border control department of the Federal Security Service for the Kurgan and Tyumen Regions had the applicant transferred from the Centre for Social Adaptation to the Kazanskoye police ward in the Tyumen Region pending the criminal proceedings against him on the charge of using a false passport.

On the following day the Kazanskiy District Court of the Tyumen Region issued a detention order against the applicant and he was placed in remand prison IZ-72/2 in the Tyumen Region.

On 17 September 2013 the Kazanskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of using two false passports and of illegally crossing the Russian border, and sentenced him to a fine. He was released in the courtroom.

On 27 March 2013, while in custody awaiting a decision on the extradition request, the applicant applied for refugee status in Russia, claiming that he feared persecution on account of his religious beliefs.

By a decision of 20 June 2013, the Omsk division of the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”) refused the application, finding that the applicant had waited for about five years after his first entry to Russia before asking for asylum, that he had used false names and documents in order to stay in Russia, and that he had no credible claim of a risk of persecution.

The applicant lodged a hierarchical appeal, which was rejected by the central office of the FMS on 11 September 2013. The decision was notified to his lawyer by letter of 16 September 2013.

Unaware of the refusal, on 18 September 2013 the applicant went to the Omsk office of the FMS for a certificate of pending refugee-status proceedings, which would have allowed him to reside legally in Russia. He was arrested in the office and placed into custody pending expulsion under the expulsion order of 23 May 2013 (see paragraph 13 above).

On 22 January 2014 the Basmannyi District Court of Moscow rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant against the FMS’s decision of 11 September 2013. The District Court found that the applicant had failed to prove that he risked persecution in Uzbekistan.

An appeal against the District Court’s judgment is pending. The applicant is now in custody in the Omsk Centre for Social Adaptation.


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.


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

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in St Petersburg.

On 19 May 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of organising a criminal gang and placed in the IVS, which, according to the applicant, was in a poor sanitary condition.

On the following day the applicant’s detention was authorised by domestic courts. It was regularly prolonged until his release (see paragraph 11 below).

On 1 June 2006 the applicant was transferred from the IVS to remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg, where he stayed until 19 May 2011. The facility was overcrowded. Thus, cell 81 measuring 8 sq. m was equipped with six sleeping places and accommodated up to six inmates; cell 104 measuring 8 sq. m was designed for six detainees and housed up to six individuals; finally, cell 907 measuring 8 sq. m presented six sleeping places and up to six persons who occupied them.

On an unspecified date the St Petersburg City Court commenced the examination of the case. From that date, in order to take part in the hearings, the applicant was regularly transported by prison van between the remand prison and the court premises. While in the courthouse, he was placed in a confinement cell. The applicant alleged that both the van and the cell had been overcrowded.

On 19 May 2011 the St Petersburg City Court ordered to release the applicant and on 14 June 2011 it acquitted him of all charges.


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Violation of Article 18+5 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Baku.

The applicant has been involved in various political organisations and local and international non-governmental organisations for a number of years. In 2008 he co-founded the Republican Alternative Civic Movement (“REAL”) and in 2012 was elected its chairman. He is also Director of the Baku School of Political Studies, which is part of a network of schools of political studies affiliated with the Council of Europe. He has held that position for several years.

The applicant maintained a personal internet blog on which he commented on various political issues. In particular, in November 2012, after the enactment of a new law by the National Assembly introducing heavy sanctions for unauthorised public gatherings, the applicant posted a comment on his blog which he claimed was meant to insult members of the National Assembly. Without naming any names, he went on to state, inter alia, that the National Assembly was composed of “fraudulent people” and compared the entire legislative body to a zoo. Those statements were quoted in the media and elicited a number of seemingly irate responses from various National Assembly members. The responses, also published in the media, ranged in content from retaliatory ad hominem insults to calls for punishment and threats of suing him in court. According to the applicant, the parliamentarians’ “lawsuit plans were ... temporarily dropped” after the calls for reprisals against the applicant were condemned by one of the VicePresidents of the European Commission, who was visiting the country at the time.

At the beginning of January 2013 REAL announced that it would consider nominating its own candidate for the upcoming presidential election of November 2013. The applicant himself announced that he was considering standing as a candidate in the election. According to the applicant, his prospective presidential candidacy was widely discussed in Azerbaijan at that time.

On 23 January 2013 rioting broke out in the town of Ismayilli, located to the northwest of Baku. According to media reports quoting local residents, the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A., the son of the Minister of Labour and Social Protection and nephew of the Head of the Ismayilli District Executive Authority (“IDEA”). It was claimed that after being involved in a car accident, V.A. had insulted and physically assaulted passengers of the other car, who were local residents. On hearing of the incident, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments (including the Chirag Hotel) and other property in Ismayilli thought to be owned by V.A.’s family.

On 24 January 2013 the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a joint press statement, placing the blame for the rioting on E.S., a hotel manager, and his relative E.M., who had allegedly been drunk and who, it was claimed, had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local residents’ property and inciting people to riot.

Meanwhile, the Head of IDEA, V.A.’s uncle, publicly denied that the Chirag Hotel belonged to his family.

On 24 January 2013 the applicant travelled to Ismayilli to get a firsthand account of the events. On 25 January 2013 he described his impressions from the trip on his blog. The entire post read as follows:

“Yesterday afternoon I spent a little longer than two hours in Ismayilli, together with [another member] of our Movement [REAL] and our media coordinator... First, here is [the summary of] what I wrote on Facebook during those hours using my phone:

- We have entered the town.

- There is a lot of police and their number is growing. The protesters gather each hour or two and make speeches. We are in front of the building of the [Ismayilli District] Executive Authority. There are around 500 police officers in this area.

- The cause of the events is the general tension arising from corruption and insolence [of public officials]. In short, people have had enough. We are having conversations with local residents.

- The [ethnic] Russians of the village of Ivanovka are also fed up; they tried to come to [Ismayilli] to support the protest, but the road was blocked and they were sent back.

- Everybody is preparing for the night.

- We are leaving Ismayilli, returning to Baku. The matter is clear to us. Quba was the first call. Ismayilli is the second. After the third call, the show will begin.

We came back after having fully investigated the situation in Ismayilli. I wrote that clashes would again take place in the evening, by posting ‘everybody is preparing for the night’ [on Facebook]. People there had been saying ‘We’ll give them hell in the evening; we have procured supplies’ (meaning the fuel for Molotov cocktails had been bought). People are angry. There are also those who do not care and who are afraid, but those who are not afraid are very exasperated and will continue the protest at night. This is no longer a political situation where we could stay there and try to change something; this is already a situation of disorderly crisis which requires conciliatory steps by the State to be resolved.

No one should fool oneself or others. The events in Ismayilli were not and are not a calm peaceful protest, it is an extremely violent but just protest and the responsibility for it lies with Ilham Aliyev.

As it is with all revolutionary processes, in the beginning the political initiative is still in the hands of the President, but by not taking action he is gradually losing this initiative. When [such leaders] begin to react to the situation, it is usually too late and their actions have no effect. Mubarak, the Shah of Iran, and all others have gone this way.”

On 28 January 2013 the applicant posted more information on his blog concerning the events, citing the official websites of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Ministry of Taxes and publishing screenshots of those sites. In particular, he noted that, according to those sources and to information posted on V.A.’s Facebook account, the Chirag Hotel was actually owned by V.A. This directly contradicted the earlier denial by the Head of IDEA. The information cited by the applicant was removed from the aforementioned Government websites and V.A.’s Facebook page within one hour of the applicant publishing his blog entry. However, the blog entry itself was extensively quoted in the media.

On 29 January 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a new joint press statement concerning the events in Ismayilli. It noted that ten people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of 23 January 2013, and had been detained pending trial. In addition, fifty-two people had been arrested in connection with their participation in “actions causing a serious breach of public order”; some of them had been convicted of “administrative offences” and sentenced to a few days’ “administrative detention” or a fine, while others had been released. The statement further noted that “lately, biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated, distorting the true nature of the mentioned events resulting from hooliganism”, including information about large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of one individual. The statement refuted that information, noting that only four people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared. It further stated, inter alia, the following:

“Following the carrying out of inquiries, it has been established that on 24 January 2013 the Deputy Chairman of the Musavat Party, Tofiq Yaqublu, and the Cochairman of the REAL Movement, Ilgar Mammadov, went to Ismayilli and made appeals to local residents aimed at social and political destabilisation, such as calls to resist the police, not to obey officials and to block roads. Their illegal actions, which were calculated to inflame the situation in the country, will be fully and thoroughly investigated and receive legal assessment.”

On 30 January 2013 the applicant commented on that statement on his blog. He noted that the Government had taken a decision to “punish and frighten” him, and that there were several reasons for that: firstly, the applicant’s blog posting of 28 January 2013, which had revealed facts embarrassing the Government; secondly, the fact that REAL had raised a public debate on the June 2012 legislative amendments aimed at keeping secret information concerning shareholders in companies, creating “a more clandestine environment for stealing the oil money”; thirdly, the applicant’s earlier criticism of the National Assembly, in which he compared it to “a zoo”, following enactment of the legislation placing “severe limitations on the freedom of assembly” by “introducing unjustifiably high monetary penalties for attending unauthorised demonstrations”; and lastly, the REAL Movement’s “quickly accumulating strength” prior to the presidential election, becoming a “serious barrier in the eyes of the traditional [political] players” and threatening “to spoil the repeat of the election farce performed year after year”.

On 29 January 2013 the applicant received a phone call from the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office and was orally invited to the department for questioning as a witness. Although that did not constitute a formal summons, the applicant went to the Prosecutor General’s Office and was questioned.

According to the record of the questioning, the applicant stated that he had arrived in Ismayilli in a car driven by another member of REAL at around 3.30 p.m. on 24 January 2013. After entering the town, they stopped from time to time and spoke to local residents without getting out of the car, in order to receive first-hand information about the events that had taken place up to that time. When they arrived at the central square where the IDEA building was located, they met a number of journalists and saw a large number of police and law-enforcement officers. At the square, the applicant spoke only to the journalists; he did not speak to any local residents. No violent clashes were happening at the square at that time. While at the square, the applicant saw Tofiq Yaqublu, who was also visiting the town, but separately from the applicant. They stopped to greet each other and immediately went their separate ways. The applicant and his colleague from REAL spent about thirty to forty minutes at the square. The applicant, his colleague from REAL, and one of the journalists then spent some time in a nearby teahouse. After a while, the three of them returned to Baku. On their way out of Ismayilli, they again stopped a few times and, from inside the car, spoke to passers-by about the situation in the town.

During the questioning, the investigator informed the applicant that it had been established from “the material in the criminal case file” that at around 5 p.m. of that day, while standing near the building of the Ismayilli Region Education Department, the applicant and Mr Tofiq Yaqublu had been inciting local residents to cause disorder, disobey the police, block roads and throw stones at the police. The applicant was asked to comment on that. He replied that that information was false and a calumny against him.

After the questioning had ended, the applicant went home.

In the evening of 3 February 2013 the applicant received another telephone call asking him to come in for further questioning.

In the morning of 4 February 2013 the applicant voluntarily appeared at the Prosecutor General’s Office. First, from 10.50 to 11.10 a.m. a face-to-face confrontation was held between the applicant and R.N., described in the record of the confrontation as a resident of the Ashagi Julyan village of the Ismayilli Region. According to a copy of that record (submitted by the Government to the Court as a separate document enclosed with their observations), R.N. stated that on 24 January 2013 he had been in Ismayilli where he had seen many police officers, as well as a number of young people slowly gathering in groups of five to seven. He heard people discussing the events of the day before. Among them, he saw Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant. He did not know the applicant’s identity until he inquired about it and someone told him. He heard the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu telling people to throw stones at the police and to capture the IDEA building. Following this, people started throwing stones at the police.

According to the record, in reply, the applicant stated that everything that R.N. had said was false and a laughable fabrication, and that it was an attempt to frame him and pressure him for political reasons.

After the questioning ended at 11.10 a.m., the applicant was not allowed to leave the building.

From 12.50 to 1.05 p.m. another face-to-face confrontation was held, this time with another Ismayilli Region resident, I.M. According to the record of the questioning (also submitted by the Government to the Court as a separate document enclosed with their observations), I.M. stated that on 24 January 2013 he had been in Ismayilli and had seen lots of young people gathering. There were also many police officers. Protesters were throwing stones at the police. Then he saw two persons standing near the Education Department building and telling protesters to throw stones, not to be afraid, and to capture the IDEA building. Having inquired from the bystanders who those two persons were, he was told that they were Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant. Then he saw and heard two police officers named Namiq and Vahid tell the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu to calm down, but to no avail.

According to the record, in reply, the applicant stated that I.M.’s statement was a fabrication and that “everything happening in this room” amounted to political sabotage against him and the Azerbaijani people. The applicant also noted in the record, in handwriting, that he had not been allowed to leave the building during the period of more than one hour between the two face-to-face confrontations, despite his wish to the contrary.

The above face-to-face confrontations were not specifically mentioned in the official charges against the applicant (see paragraph 27 below) or the prosecution’s subsequent requests for a judicial order on the applicant’s remand in custody or an extension of the detention period, and the names of R.N. and I.M. were not otherwise mentioned in either of the above or in any other official document made available to the Court by the parties and relating to the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him.

After the second confrontation, the applicant was again denied permission to leave. At 3.24 p.m., following the arrival of his defence lawyer, the applicant was charged with criminal offences under Articles 233 (organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code. The specific acts attributed to the applicant were described as follows:

“Beginning at around 3 p.m. on 24 January 2013, Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov,

having taken advantage of the fact that from around 9.30 p.m. on 23 January 2013 a group of persons in the town of Ismayilli had engaged in acts of malicious hooliganism causing a serious breach of public order, had deliberately burned, in a publicly dangerous manner, property belonging to various persons [including] the Chirag Hotel, four cars, five mopeds and scooters, and an auxiliary building located in the yard of a private residential house, and had committed acts of violence against Government officials,

having, in his false way of thinking, considered [the above events] as a ‘rebellion’,

aiming to make the above acts develop and acquire a continuous character in order to create artificial tension and to violate the social and political stability in the country,

being a resident of Baku, arrived in Ismayilli and, together with Tofiq Rashid oglu Yaqublu and with the active participation of others, [committed the following:]

organised, as an active participant, acts causing a serious breach of public order, by means of openly and repeatedly inciting town residents [E.I.], [M.A.] and others, who had gathered at the square near the administrative building of the Regional Education Department located on the Nariman Narimanov Street opposite to the administrative building of [the IDEA], [to do the following:]

[i] to enter in masses into the area in front of the building of [the IDEA], which is the competent body of the executive power of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and by doing so to create difficulties for the movement of traffic and pedestrians, [ii] to disobey the lawful demands to disperse, made by Government officials wanting to stop their illegal behaviour, [iii] to resist uniformed police officers protecting the public order, by way of committing violent acts posing danger to [police officers’] life and health, using various objects, [iv] to disrupt the normal functioning of [the IDEA], State enterprises, bodies and organisations, as well as public-catering, commercial and public-service facilities, by way of refusing to leave, for a long period of time, the areas where the acts seriously breaching the public order were being committed, and [v] to stop the movement of traffic, by way of blocking the central avenue and the Nariman Narimanov Street, and

was finally able to achieve that, at around 5 p.m. of the same day in the town of Ismayilli, a group of persons consisting of [E.I.], [M.A.] and others had marched in masses from the mentioned square in the direction of the administrative building of [the IDEA] and had thrown stones at officers of the relevant bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who were preventing [this march] in accordance with the requirements of the law.

By these actions, Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov committed the criminal offences under Articles 233 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.”

From 4.30 to 5.10 p.m., the applicant was questioned again, this time as an accused. During the interview he gave essentially the same statement as during the interview of 29 January 2013 (see paragraph 17 above).

At around 6 p.m. the applicant was taken to the Nasimi District Court. The Deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application with the Nasimi District Court asking it to order the applicant’s remand in custody. The application was essentially a copy of the text of the decision to charge the applicant with the criminal offences (see paragraph 27 above). It was followed by a note stating that it was necessary to remand the applicant in custody because of the gravity and publicly dangerous character of the offences committed, because they carried a sanction of over two years’ imprisonment, and because there were “sufficient reasons” to believe that, if released, the applicant would abscond or obstruct the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings.

The court hearing commenced at around 7 p.m. in the presence of the applicant, his lawyers, a member of the investigation team, and one of the prosecutors working in the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office. According to the applicant, and not disputed by the Government, the prosecution did not submit the case file or the records of the applicant’s questioning to the court.

At the hearing, the applicant and his lawyers submitted that the accusation against the applicant was groundless and was not supported by any evidence. As for the applicant’s conduct, they pointed out that he had voluntarily appeared before the prosecution as soon as requested to do so and that, therefore, there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or interfere with the investigation. They argued that, for those reasons, his detention was not justified.

By a decision of 4 February 2013, the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody for a period of two months (until 4 April 2013). The part of the decision containing the court’s reasoning read as follows:

“Having examined the [prosecution’s] application and enclosed documents and having heard the oral submissions of the parties, and taking into account the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, the accused Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov would abscond from the investigation or disrupt the normal course of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the proceedings, the publicly dangerous character and gravity of the criminal offence committed, and the fact that he is charged with a criminal offence carrying a sanction of over two years’ imprisonment, the court considers that the preventive measure of remanding him in custody must be applied in his respect.”

On 5 February 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nasimi District Court, claiming that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty during the period from 11.10 a.m. to 7 p.m. on 4 February 2013. His complaint was rejected on 22 February 2013.

On 6 February 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order of 4 February 2013. He argued that he had been detained in breach of the domestic law and Article 5 of the Convention. He complained that, although the introductory part of the detention order stated that the court had reviewed preliminary evidence collected by the prosecution, no evidence or any other information giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence had been presented by the prosecution to the first-instance court. The court had issued the order solely on the basis of the decision to charge the applicant with the criminal offences and the prosecution’s request to order his remand in custody, without independently verifying whether there was a reasonable suspicion against him. He further complained that the court had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his detention by finding that he might abscond from the investigation or attempt to obstruct the proceedings. As for his conduct prior to arrest, he had been cooperative with the authorities and, on more than one occasion, had appeared for questioning after a simple phone call, even without having been formally summoned. Other factors, such as the fact that he had a wife and a small child, a permanent residence and a job in Baku, his personality, social status and professional occupation, his affiliation with the Council of Europe’s programmes, no prior criminal record, and so on, also showed that he was very unlikely to abscond and should have been taken into account by the court. In his appeal, as well as relying on the relevant domestic law, the applicant also relied extensively on the European Court’s case-law and cited a number of its judgments concerning Article 5 of the Convention.

On the same date the applicant submitted to the Nasimi District Court observations on the transcript of that court’s hearing of 4 February 2013, to be included in the case file. The observations mainly concerned the prosecutor’s inability and refusal to answer questions posed by the defence during the oral hearing. Those questions concerned the prosecution’s failure to produce any evidence on which its suspicions against the applicant were based or to identify the specific circumstances which had led it to believe that the applicant, if released, would abscond or obstruct the proceedings.

The Baku Court of Appeal’s hearing was scheduled to be held on 8 February 2013. The hearing was delayed for some hours, awaiting the Nasimi District Court’s examination of the applicant’s observations on the transcript of the hearing and the request to include them in the documents related to his pre-trial detention, which had been forwarded to the Baku Court of Appeal. During the delay, the Nasimi District Court took a decision refusing to incorporate the applicant’s observations into the transcript of the hearing.

According to the applicant, and not disputed by the Government, as at the first-instance hearing, the prosecution’s case materials were not made available to the court at the appellate hearing.

By a decision of 8 February 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Nasimi District Court’s detention order of 4 February 2013, finding as follows:

“Taking into account the personality of Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov, the publicly dangerous character and gravity of the criminal offences in question, the fact that [those offences] belong to the category of less serious crimes, that [the applicant], if released, could abscond and would disrupt the objectivity of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the criminal proceedings, the court considers that the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 4 February 2013 ordering the applicant’s remand in custody is lawful and justified and must be upheld. ...

In Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands [(19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288], the European Court of Human Rights noted that the right to a fair trial required that a court should give reasons for its decisions. This does not mean, however, that a detailed answer should be given to every argument raised by the parties.”

Having provided the above reasoning, the Baku Court of Appeal did not address any of the specific arguments raised by the applicant against the necessity of detention (see paragraph 34 above).

On 11 March 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court to change the preventive measure of remand in custody to house arrest. He argued that his previous conduct had showed that he did not intend to avoid the investigation. Furthermore, his personal circumstances (his family situation, the fact that he had a permanent job and a permanent place of residence, his active political career in Baku, and so on) made it very unlikely that he would abscond. Lastly, in his case, “persons involved in the criminal proceedings” lived in Ismayilli, and not in Baku where he resided. Therefore, it was unlikely that he would unlawfully influence them.

At the hearing on 12 March 2013 the prosecution submitted that the request was “groundless” and reiterated that there was a risk that if the applicant were not detained, he would abscond or disrupt the investigation. On the same day the Nasimi District Court rejected the applicant’s request. The reasoning provided by the court was as follows:

“Having examined the counsel’s request, having heard the persons participating in the hearing, and having examined the case material, the court considers that the request cannot be granted because the grounds for detaining the accused person have not ceased to exist.”

The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. On 27 March 2013 his appeal was dismissed by the Baku Court of Appeal.

In the meantime, on 13 March 2013 the prosecution requested an extension of the applicant’s detention (originally authorised until 4 April 2013), noting that, despite the fact that a number of investigative measures had been taken, the case was complex and more time was needed to complete the investigation. According to the applicant, and undisputed by the Government, apart from that request, the prosecution did not submit to the court any other material relating to the criminal case. At the hearing of 14 March 2013 concerning the extension request, the prosecution gave no answer to the defence’s questions as to what specific evidence served as grounds for suspecting the applicant of having committed a criminal offence, what specific investigative measures had been taken so far and what further measures needed to be taken. Following the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer formally requested that the judge include the above questions and the (lack of) answers in the transcript of the hearing, but to no avail.

On 14 March 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by two more months (until 4 June 2013), providing the following reasoning:

“Taking into account the fact that the accused is charged with offences belonging to the category of less serious crimes, the complexity of the criminal proceedings, the need for more time to complete the investigation, and the necessity to carry out a number of investigative measures, the court considers that [the prosecution’s] request must be granted and the period of the accused’s detention extended ... to 4 June 2013.”

The applicant appealed, reiterating in detail all the arguments against his detention that he had previously raised before the courts. He also argued that it was not permissible, under the domestic law and the Convention, to justify prolonging his pre-trial detention on the ground that the prosecution needed more time to do its job. Again, he cited a number of relevant judgments of the European Court concerning various issues relating to pretrial detention.

On 19 March 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the extension decision of 14 March 2013 and providing the same reasoning as the first-instance court.

On 5 April 2013 the applicant applied to the Nasimi District Court for bail, reiterating his previous arguments against his detention. On 8 April 2013 the Nasimi District Court rejected his request, finding that the grounds justifying his detention, as specified in its decision of 14 March 2013, “had not ceased to exist”.

The applicant appealed, reiterating in detail his arguments for release. On 15 April 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 5 April 2013.

On 30 April 2013 the head of the investigation team decided to charge the applicant with new offences, this time under Articles 220.1 (mass disorder) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code. In essence, the charge under Article 220.1, which carried a much heavier sentence (four to twelve years’ imprisonment), replaced the previous charge under Article 233. No changes were made in the original description of the accusations against the applicant (see paragraph 27 above).

One of the effects of the new charge under Article 220.1 of the Criminal Code was that the applicant could no longer apply for bail, because the law did not permit individuals accused of deliberately committing “serious criminal offences” to be released on bail (see paragraphs 71 and 74 below). Moreover, as a person charged with a “serious criminal offence”, the applicant’s pre-trial detention could now be extended for a longer overall period (see paragraphs 71 and 73 below).

On 15 May 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention (which had been authorised until 4 June 2013) by another three months (until 4 September 2013). At the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer reiterated his specific arguments for release and further argued that there were no relevant factors justifying the applicant’s detention. In its decision, the District Court justified the applicant’s continued detention as follows:

“Having heard the parties, having examined the [prosecution’s] request on the basis of the case material, and taking into account the scope of the investigative measures to be taken and the fact that the grounds for [the applicant’s] detention have not ceased to exist, the court considers that [the prosecution’s extension] request must be granted and the period of [the applicant’s] detention extended ...”

The applicant appealed, reiterating his previous arguments. On 27 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the extension order, providing reasoning similar to that given by the courts previously.

On 14 August 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention (previously authorised until 4 September 2013) by another two months (until 4 November 2013). On 20 August 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the detention order on appeal. The arguments made before the courts and the courts’ reasoning were essentially the same as in the previous extension hearings and decisions.

No further extension decisions are available in the case file.

The applicant’s criminal trial began in November 2013. On 17 March 2014 the Sheki Court of Serious Crimes convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The conviction is not yet final and the appeal is pending.

The applicant’s case generated wide publicity. Some of the select reactions to the case are summarised below.

Immediately after the applicant’s arrest, a number of domestic NGOs, as well as international NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Article 19, condemned the authorities’ actions, assessing them as a “politically motivated persecution” on “trumped up” charges.

On 6 February 2013, Pedro Agramunt and Joseph Debono Grech, PACE Monitoring Committee co-rapporteurs on Azerbaijan, expressed their concern at the arrest of the applicant, noting that it “gave rise to justified doubts and legitimate concerns” and urging the authorities to release the applicant and Tofiq Yagublu.

On 8 February 2013, Thorbjørn Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, made the following official statement: “I am concerned by ... the heavy-handed response of the police to the protests. I am particularly disturbed by the arrest on 4 February of Tofig Yagublu and Ilgar Mammadov, in relation to recent events in Ismayilli. Mr Mammadov is the Director of the Baku School of Political Studies, a close co-operation partner of the Council of Europe. Today’s decision of the Baku Court of Appeal not to release these two men and its refusal to allow the Council of Europe’s representative to be present during the court proceedings is of particular gravity”. In his further statement of 3 May 2013, Thorbjørn Jagland “expressed his concern and disappointment” at the new charges against the applicant.

On 9 February 2013, the spokespersons of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, and the European Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy, Štefan Füle, issued a statement expressing concern over the applicant’s arrest and urged the authorities to ensure a fair, transparent and independent investigation of the charges against him.

On 13 June 2013, the European Parliament adopted a resolution entitled “Azerbaijan: Case of Ilgar Mammadov” (2013/2668(RSP)). Inter alia, the resolution assesses the applicant’s detention as “unlawful” and “an apparent attempt to keep him behind bars pending the forthcoming elections”, “strongly condemns the detention of Mr Mammadov, calls for his immediate and unconditional release and an end to his prosecution”, and “expresses serious concern over reports by human rights defenders and domestic and international NGOs about the alleged use of fabricated charges against politicians, activists and journalists”.

The process of registration of candidates for the presidential elections started on 4 August 2013. The Electoral Code required candidates to submit their initial eligibility documents to the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”), which would then issue them with official signature sheets in order to collect a minimum of 40,000 voter signatures in support of the nomination. The deadline for submission of the signatures and all other documents was 9 September 2013.

Since the applicant needed an authorised representative to deal with various matters concerning his nomination, on 1 August 2013 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office to set up a meeting between the applicant and a notary public in the Baku Detention Facility, in order to prepare a power of attorney for his representative in electoral matters. The permission for a notary public’s visit was given on 21 August 2013. The notary public visited the detention facility and certified the power of attorney on 23 August 2013.

Pending a response to the above request, on 10 August 2013 the applicant sent his initial eligibility documents to the CEC from the detention facility’s post office. According to the applicant, the documents were not delivered to the CEC until 22 August 2013.

On 23 August 2013 the CEC returned the applicant’s initial eligibility documents, having found that they had shortcomings. After rectification of the shortcomings, the applicant’s representative resubmitted the documents on the same day.

On 27 August 2013 the CEC preliminarily accepted the applicant’s nomination as a candidate in the elections, pending the verification of the required voter signatures (see paragraph 62 above) due by 9 September 2013. The applicant’s representatives submitted the required signature sheets.

On 13 September 2013 the CEC refused to register the applicant as a candidate, finding that his signature sheets contained a number of invalid signatures and that the number of valid signatures in support of the applicant was below the minimum (40,000) required by law.


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Poznań.

On an unspecified date A.R., a member of the political party SelfDefence of the Republic of Poland (“Samoobrona”) sent Gazeta Wyborcza, a daily newspaper, an electronic mail containing information about an alleged “sex scandal” in the party.

The following day the applicant, who is a journalist, contacted A.R. on the telephone. After their conversation he informed her that he had recorded the call and that he intended to use the transcript for an article.

On 6 December 2006 the applicant published an interview with A.R. in the Gazeta Wyborcza. The interview, entitled “Payment for sex, the choice is yours” (“Płaca ze seks, wybór należy do pani”) concerned the “sex scandal” story which had broken in Poland earlier in 2006. Public figures, including Samoobrona activists, had offered and accepted sexual favours in the course of exercising public functions. A.R. told the newspaper that she had begun working with the party through her contacts with A.K. Initially, she had been unpaid and when she had demanded payment, one of the activists, K.Z., had told her:

“I will pay if you go to bed with me”

She also said that in July 2004 during a party organised by A.K. a prominent Samoobrona activist, B.S., had offered to find a post for her in a parliamentary deputy’s office – specifically R.C.’s – in return for sexual favours. According to A.R., B.S. was so forward that she had to ask K.S. for help. K.S. then called a taxi to take B.S. home

Then the applicant asked A.R.:

“Did you get the job?”

A.R. replied:

“No, the job was given to M.C.’s daughter”.

On the same page, to the right of the article, the newspaper quoted three prominent Samoobrona activists referred to in the interview, namely K.Z., B.S. and K.S. They all, denied that there had been any sexual propositions made to A.R.

Also on the same page the newspaper published a short interview with A.K. who confirmed that she knew A.R. but had never recommended her for any work. When asked about the “sex scandal” A.K. said:

“What are you saying? I have never heard of it. This cannot be true.”

On 30 November 2007 M.C., a Member of the European Parliament, lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant. He demanded that the applicant be charged with defamation. According to the indictment the defamation consisted of the publication of the interview with A.R. in which she said that B.S. could arrange a job for her in M.C.’s office in return for sexual favours. According to M.C. this suggested to readers that he had been involved in the “sex scandal”. He also claimed that he had been defamed in the published interview at the point where A.R. had accused him of nepotism by saying that he had employed his own daughter.

On 16 March 2010 the Warsaw District Court ruled the indictment partially accurate: it then discontinued the proceedings for a probationary term of one year and ordered the applicant to pay 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – 232 euros (EUR)) to charity and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The District Court found the applicant guilty of the defamation of M.C. with respect to his publication of the statements made by A.R. concerning nepotism (see paragraph 23 below). According to the court the applicant neglected his professional obligations because he did not verify that the job had been offered to M.C.’s daughter. At the trial it became clear that this information could not be accurate because M.C. did not have a daughter. It did not accept the applicant’s argument that he had acted with due diligence because before publication he had sent the text of the interview to A.R. who had accepted its contents and returned it to the applicant without making any objection or comment (autoryzacja).

The District Court did not hold that the applicant was guilty of defamation when he had suggested that M.C. had been involved in the “sex scandal”. It found that in this respect the applicant had fulfilled his professional obligations because he had published the statement of B.S., who had denied propositioning A.R. For the above reasons, in the District Court’s view, the average reader should not have had the impression that M.C. was involved in the “sex scandal”.

The applicant and M.C.’s lawyer appealed against the firstinstance judgment.

On 18 June 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the challenged judgment, repeating in essence the same reasoning as the District Court. Regarding the applicant’s arguments concerning his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, it noted that “in the light of the journalist’s right to publish critical comments (prawo do krytyki dziennikarskiej), an individual’s right to legal protection of good name and reputation should also be taken into account”.

On 3 February 2011 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Ombudsman to lodge a cassation appeal on the applicant’s behalf.

On 6 May 2011 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that she had found no grounds to lodge a cassation appeal.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the village of Suzak, situated in the Jalal-Abad Region of Kyrgyzstan. He is currently staying in Krasnoarmeysk, the Moscow Region, Russia, where he is subject to a measure of restraint applied in the course of extradition proceedings.

The applicant is an ethnic Uzbek.

In June 2010 inter-ethnic violence between Kyrgyz and Uzbek groups broke out in the southern areas of Kyrgyzstan, including the city of Osh and the Jalal-Abad Region. The applicant claimed not to have taken part in any violent actions. He left Kyrgyzstan for Russia, allegedly fleeing ethnically motivated violence. It appears that his next-of-kin remain in the country.

In July 2010 the applicant arrived in Russia. In 2010 and 2011 he did not lodge any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum. By a final judgment of 16 September 2011 the Moscow Meshchanskiy District Court (“the Meshchanskiy court”) convicted the applicant of robbery. The applicant served a prison term and was released on 19 January 2012.

In the meantime, on 24 August 2010 the Osh Region Prosecutor’s Office (Kyrgyzstan) charged the applicant in absentia with a number of serious violent offences committed in June 2010 in the course of interethnic rioting in the village of Suzak.

On 25 August 2010 the Suzak District Court, the Jalal-Abad Region of Kyrgyzstan, ordered the applicant’s remand in custody. On an unspecified date the applicant’s name was placed on an international wanted list.

On 25 March 2012 the applicant was arrested by the Russian police while he was travelling by train in the Moscow region, on the basis that he was wanted in Kyrgyzstan.

On 26 March 2012 the transport prosecutor’s office for the MoscowYaroslavl railway (“the transport prosecutor’s office”) ordered the applicant’s remand in custody pending receipt of an extradition request pursuant to Article 61 of the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 1993 and on the basis of the Kyrgyz court’s decision of 25 August 2010.

On 18 April 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kyrgyzstan sent an official extradition request to their Russian counterparts.

On 25 April 2012 the transport prosecutor’s office again ordered the applicant’s remand in custody.

On 28 April 2012 the applicant sought refugee status in Russia. He claimed, among other things, that the criminal case against him had been opened exclusively because of his ethnic origin and that he would face a real risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan if returned there. He referred to reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

On 10 May 2012 the applicant’s lawyer wrote to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia, indicating that extradition should be refused on account of the substantiated risk of ill-treatment in respect of the applicant in Kyrgyzstan. On 14 June 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia replied that the above submissions would be taken into account in the decision-making process on the extradition request.

On 22 May 2012 the Meshchanskiy court extended the term of the applicant’s detention up to six months, that is to say, until 25 September 2012. On 4 June 2012 the Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal brought by the applicant and upheld the detention order.

By a decision of 21 August 2012 the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia (“Moscow migration authority”) refused to grant refugee status to the applicant. It held, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“Mr Saliyev has based his refugee application in Russia on the allegations that in his country of nationality he would be persecuted by State agencies on [the basis of] fabricated criminal charges [brought] because of his ethnic origin. ...

It is evident from the available materials that Mr Saliyev left his country of nationality for reasons which fall outside the scope of section 1(1)(1) of the Refugee Act, and that he does not wish to return to his country, fearing lawful prosecution for a criminal offence ...

During his interview Mr Saliyev failed to refer to any facts capable of proving his persecution on the grounds of his ethnic origin.

The Kyrgyz law-enforcement agencies ... do not have the specific purpose of persecuting Mr Saliyev because of his belonging to a particular social group, ethnic origin, religion or political views.”

On 21 September 2012 the Kyrgyz authorities issued an amended list of charges against the applicant, which included illegal use of firearms and other weapons, murder, robbery, destruction of property and involvement in rioting aggravated by ethnic hatred.

On 24 September 2012 the Meshchanskiy court extended the applicant’s detention until 25 December 2012 for the reason that an extradition check was underway. On 24 October 2012 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 24 September 2012.

On 4 October 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kyrgyzstan submitted a letter to their Russian counterparts, containing assurances that the applicant would benefit from legal assistance; would not be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment; and the extradition request was related to ordinary criminal offences and was not aimed at persecuting the applicant on religious, political grounds or grounds relating to his ethnic origin.

On 22 October 2012 the Federal Migration Service of Russia (“FMS”) upheld the refusal to grant refugee status of 21 August 2012, without providing any detailed reasons.

On 25 December 2012 the Meshchanskiy court extended the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition until 25 March 2013. The applicant appealed on 27 December 2012. On the same date the case was transferred to the Moscow City Court, which received it on 25 January 2013. On 13 February 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order.

On 18 February 2013 the Moscow Basmannyy District Court (“the Basmannyy court”) upheld the FMS’s decision of 22 October 2012. The applicant appealed.

On 20 February 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan amended the extradition request, stating that following the applicant’s extradition Russian diplomatic staff would be given an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility and that the applicant would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as prohibited by the 1984 UN Convention against Torture.

On 27 February 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant’s extradition, without making any findings on the issue of the risk of ill-treatment in the event of the applicant’s extradition.

The applicant appealed against the extradition order, claiming, in particular, that he would face risks of torture and ill-treatment since, according to various international reports, ethnic Uzbeks were a particularly vulnerable group following the June 2010 violence in the southern regions of Kyrgyzstan.

On 21 March 2013 the Moscow City Court examined the matter of the applicant’s continued detention and extended it until 25 September 2013. The applicant appealed on 25 March 2013. On the same date the case was transferred to the appeal section of the Moscow City Court, which received it on 29 April 2013. On 16 May 2013 the appeal section upheld the extension order.

In the meantime, on 28 March 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the Basmannyy court’s judgment of 18 February 2013.

On 16 April 2013 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant’s appeal against the extradition order. The court heard Ms Ryabinina, the applicant’s representative before the Court, as a witness, and refused to examine a number of pieces of evidence adduced by the applicant in relation to his arguments regarding the risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan, in particular a number of reports from international organisations. By a judgment of the same date, the Moscow City Court upheld the extradition order in the following terms:

“... The applicant’s arguments relating to persecution by the Kyrgyz authorities on the grounds of his nationality were examined and dismissed by the decision of 22 October 2012 concerning his application for refugee status.

The above decision was upheld by the now final judgment of 18 February 2013 ... This court dismisses the argument concerning the issuing of the extradition order before the examination of the refusal to grant refugee status. As is clear from the materials concerning the extradition check procedure, [the applicant] lodged an application for refugee status after his arrest in Russia. Judicial review proceedings in respect of a refusal to grant such status do not impede the issuing of an extradition order ...

The Prosecutor General’s Office of Kyrgyzstan guarantees that [the applicant] would be given all opportunities to defend himself, including legal assistance; that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment... In addition, the requesting country guarantees that following [the applicant’s] extradition Russian diplomatic officers would be afforded an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility in order to be satisfied that his rights are being respected, [and] that the principles of the equality of arms and the adversarial nature of court proceedings are being respected... The court dismisses as unfounded the arguments relating to inability for [the applicant to undergo] a medical examination or [have] confidential meetings with diplomatic officers ...

It follows from Ms Ryabinina’s witness statement that she has not visited Kyrgyzstan since 2006 and was not present during the events of June 2010. Her knowledge of the current situation in Central Asia is based on reports by foreign human-rights organisations describing an imprecise group of people. ...

The court dismisses as unproven the references to the findings made by the Russian Supreme Court and the European Court in individual cases or the references to the reports of international organisations assessing the general human-rights situation in Kyrgyzstan. The above references are refuted by the real guarantees from the Kyrgyz authorities, such guarantees relating directly to [the applicant] and being sufficient to exclude the risk of cruel treatment in respect of him ...”

On 22 April 2013 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Russia against the decision of 16 April 2013.

On 19 June 2013 the Supreme Court of Russia, sitting as an appeal court, examined the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 16 April 2013 upholding the extradition order. The appeal court admitted to the file a number of documents, including international reports regarding Kyrgyzstan. By a judgment of the same date, the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court. It held as follows:

“... Judicial review proceedings in respect of a local migration authority’s refusal to grant refugee status do not impede the decision-making process in respect of an extradition request ... The available materials do not disclose that [the applicant] is being persecuted on political grounds by law enforcement agencies in Kyrgyzstan ... The prosecution against [the applicant] concerns ordinary criminal offences and does not contain indications of any political motivation or discrimination on the grounds of ... social origin, nationality or race ... The Kyrgyz Prosecutor General’s Office submitted guarantees that [the applicant] would be provided with all [necessary] facilities for [preparing] his defence, including legal assistance; that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ... Thus, the court accepts as correct the conclusion that the Republic of Kyrgyzstan has fully complied with the requirements of Article 462 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition, as regards the provision of the required guarantees ...”

The text of the appeal decision did not contain any reference to any avenues of further appeal. It appears that the extradition order became enforceable on 19 June 2013.

On 28 June 2013 the Moscow migration authority dismissed the applicant’s application for temporary asylum. The applicant appealed to the FMS, which informed him on 8 October 2013 that the decision of 28 June 2013 had been quashed and that his application would be re-examined. It remains unknown whether the re-examination in question has taken place.

On 4 September 2013 the transport prosecutor’s office ordered the applicant’s release from custody for the reason that the Court had applied interim measures pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in respect of the applicant, and applied a different measure of restraint on the basis that the applicant’s lawyer, Ms Biryukova, had provided a personal guarantee that the applicant would be available for questioning and other actions related to the extradition check once released.

The applicant was then released from remand.