CASE OF MAGOMETKHOZHIYEV AND AMALAYEV v. RUSSIA

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

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants complained of a breach of their property rights through the actions of Russian military forces in Chechnya in 2000 and the failure of the competent domestic authorities to provide them with effective remedies in respect of those breaches.

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

The application was lodged on 14 March 2008 by Mr Isa Magometkhozhiyev, who was born in 1950 and currently lives in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny.

The applicant lived at 109 Sovetskaya Street, Urus-Martan. At about 10 a.m. on 10 March 2000 a group of military servicemen arrived at the house. The servicemen drove two armoured personnel carriers (APCs), and an Ural lorry with the registration number M 105 61. The group’s commander introduced himself to the applicant as Major Iv. They seized the applicant’s GAZ-330700 petrol lorry, which was stationed in the courtyard. They did not show any documents or give any explanation in respect of the seizure to the applicant, except to tell him that they had been instructed by their commanders to do so.

The applicant followed the servicemen who drove his lorry away. They entered the compound of a military unit known as DON-100, in the south-western outskirts of Urus-Martan.

On 11 March 2000 the applicant was allowed by a soldier to enter the compound and he saw his vehicle there. The applicant states that he saw many other vehicles stationed there; some had parts missing.

Two weeks later a serviceman told the applicant that his vehicle had been transported to a military unit in Mozdok, North Ossetia.

The applicant stated that he had reported the seizure of the vehicle to the authorities immediately, but submitted no documents in this respect.

On 15 March 2001 the applicant informed the military prosecutor of Chechnya of the unlawful seizure of his lorry and asked him to intervene.

On 19 June 2001 an investigator of the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office (hereinafter “the district prosecutor’s office”) asked the Ministry of Justice to inform him of the current location of Major Iv., who was no longer stationed in Chechnya.

In July and August 2001 the Ministry of Justice replied to the investigator that no Ministry serviceman by the name of Iv. had been serving in Urus-Martan at the time in question.

On 20 January 2002 the district prosecutor’s office opened criminal investigation file no. 61001 into the alleged robbery. The decision by which the criminal investigation file was opened stated that in March 2000 a group of unidentified armed persons had, having threatened the applicant with firearms, taken his lorry from his house.

After a subsequent exchange of letters between the district prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence, it proved impossible to identify the military unit in question. On this basis, in April 2003 the military prosecutor’s office refused to take possession of the file.

Officials of the North Caucasus Military Circuit denied that the GAZ lorry with the registration and identification numbers indicated by the applicant had been registered with any of their units. This was affirmed by the Chechnya Agency of State property.

Certain documents indicated that the servicemen identified by the applicant as belonging to “DON-100” had served in military unit no. 3660 of the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior, which was permanently based in the Rostov Region.

At some point the applicant was granted victim status and information about the vehicle was entered in the national register of missing and stolen vehicles.

The applicant on numerous occasions complained to various bodies, including the civilian and military prosecutor’s offices, and the military and civilian authorities both in Chechnya and at the federal level.

The investigation was adjourned and reopened on several occasions but failed to identify the perpetrators, to find or question anyone from the military unit in question, or to locate the vehicle.

The applicant lodged a claim for compensation against the State Treasury. On 8 August 2005 the Urus-Martan Town Court refused to consider the claim on the merits. The applicant appealed, and on 30 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Chechnya quashed that decision and remitted it to the District Court for fresh examination.

In the meantime, the applicant applied to the Urus-Martan Town Court, requesting that it confirm his ownership of the vehicle in question. The applicant submitted that the vehicle and relevant documents had been taken from him by unidentified servicemen of the Ministry of Justice. The Chechnya traffic police were unable to issue any documents since their archives had burned down in 2000, but a police inspector from Urus-Martan confirmed that the applicant had had the vehicle in his possession. Two witnesses confirmed that the applicant had owned the vehicle. On the strength of the above, on 27 February 2006 the Town Court confirmed the applicant’s ownership of the vehicle in question.

By a decision dated 21 September 2006 the Urus-Martan Town Court transferred the applicant’s claim for damages to the Basmanny District Court of Moscow, the city in which the Federal Treasury was situated. The applicant appealed, and on 4 July 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya quashed the decision of 21 September 2006 and remitted the case to the Urus-Martan Town Court for fresh consideration.

On 21 December 2006 the Urus-Martan Town Court considered the substance of the case and concluded that the evidence submitted by the applicant and adduced during the pending criminal investigation had failed to establish conclusively the implication of State agents in the crime.

The applicant appealed, and on 30 January 2007 the Supreme Court of Chechnya quashed the judgment of 21 December 2006 and again remitted the case to the Urus-Martan Town Court for fresh consideration.

The applicant lodged a claim seeking compensation for the cost of the lorry (which he estimated at 170,000 Russian roubles (RUB)) and lost income, together with compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 1 August 2007 the Urus-Martan Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, referring to the absence of conclusive proof that State servicemen had seized the vehicle. On 18 September 2007 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld that ruling, referring to the fact that the criminal investigation remained pending.

The application was lodged on 6 October 2008 by Mr Ismail Amalayev, who was born in 1960 and currently lives in Kiel, Germany.

In the evening of 14 October 2000 the applicant, his wife and aunt travelled in the applicant’s KAMAZ 53-20 lorry from the village of Starye Atagi to the Chiri-Yurt district of Grozny, Chechnya. At about 5 p.m. the applicant’s lorry got stuck on the road, not far from a security roadblock. The applicant tried to seek help from the passing drivers, but they were either unable to tow the lorry or didn’t want to stop, in view of the approaching curfew.

An armoured personnel carrier (APC), with the hull number 233, belonging to military unit no. 205 was passing by, and the applicant signalled to it by flashing his headlights. The APC stopped within 200-300 metres of the applicant’s lorry. Several servicemen got out but did not approach the lorry. Soon afterwards the applicant’s lorry was shot at from the direction of the APC; the applicant, his wife and his aunt escaped unhurt and ran to Starye Atagi.

In the morning on 15 October 2000 the applicant went to the lorry and found it burnt out and looking as though it had suffered from an explosion. The applicant immediately informed the local police, the head of the local administration of Starye Atagi and the local military commander’s office.

On 19 October 2000 the applicant drew up a description of the destroyed lorry, which was co-signed by two traffic police officers from Starye Atagi. The description concluded that the lorry had been “blown up and burned during curfew hours not far from the roadblock manned by the [servicemen of the] 205th motorised rifle regiment”. The applicant submitted a copy of this document to the Court, with some handwritten corrections.

On the same day a senior inspector of the state traffic police of the Grozny district department of the interior (ОВД Грозненского района Чеченской Республики) concluded that the applicant’s KAMAZ lorry had been destroyed by fire as a result of being fired at and could not be repaired.

In a decision dated 24 October 2000, the Grozny district prosecutor’s office stated that it would not open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations. It concluded that the applicant had left his lorry on the road and that the car had been destroyed by fire as a result of an electrical short circuit. In 2001-2002 the applicant lodged a number of complaints against that decision.

On 25 March 2001 the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations that his KAMAZ lorry had been shot at and been destroyed by fire by unidentified servicemen driving APC no. 233. The investigation was adjourned on several occasions.

In March 2006 the applicant, his wife and aunt were granted victim status. The value of the lorry was put by the applicant at RUB 280,000. It does not appear that the investigation progressed beyond the facts communicated by the applicant.

On 8 May 2008 the Grozny District Court refused to consider the applicant’s complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation, since on 1 May 2008 the latest decision to adjourn the investigation had been quashed. On 11 June 2008 the Supreme Court of Chechnya confirmed this decision.

On 1 June 2008 the applicant was, once again, informed that the investigation had been adjourned.

The applicant lodged a claim, seeking to recover the cost of the lorry directly from the military unit. On 15 November 2006 the Grozny District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed, and on 19 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya quashed the District Court’s decision and remitted the case to the District Court. The Supreme Court pointed out that the case-file material in respect of the pending criminal case, the applicant’s submissions and the evidence produced all pointed to the Ministry of Defence as the possible tortfeasor. It considered that the District Court had failed to elucidate the circumstances of the events in question and to inform the Ministry of Defence of the hearing of 15 November 2006.

The case was then transferred to Moscow, where the Ministry of Defence headquarters is located. On 2 March 2007 the Presnensky District Court dismissed the claim. It pointed out that the circumstances of the events in question were the subject of pending criminal proceedings and that “military unit no. 205” did not exist, according to the General Staff of the Ministry of Defence. It is not clear if the applicant appealed.

It appears that in March 2013 the applicant left Chechnya and, via Poland, moved to Germany.


Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

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

The applicants were born in 1980 and 1964, respectively, and live in Hajdukovo.

On 12 February 2007 the applicants and their friend S.K. were indicted for allegedly having stolen a wine press (presu za grožđe).

On 25 January 2008 the Subotica Municipal Court acquitted all three defendants of these charges. In so doing, it explained that while there was evidence that they had been in possession of a press, there was nothing to suggest that they had obtained it through any criminal activity. The applicants themselves maintained that they had found the press abandoned, while S.K. denied the charge and thereafter exercised his right to remain silent. No material evidence was introduced during the trial and, apart from the statement by the alleged victim ‒ who maintained that the press worked and had been kept in a locked yard ‒ the statements of two witnesses supported the applicants’ defence.

On 8 April 2008 the prosecution lodged an appeal against this judgment, emphasising, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to take into account a statement given to the police by S.K. on 26 January 2006 (albeit in the absence of the applicants and their counsel, who had not been invited to attend).

On 12 May 2008 the Subotica District Court quashed the impugned judgment and ordered a retrial. The court explained that the statement referred to by the prosecution was particularly important because on this occasion S.K. had confessed ‒ in the presence of his counsel ‒ that he had stolen the press together with the applicants. S.K. had subsequently revoked this confession claiming that it had been given under the influence of alcohol and then refused to answer any further questions, and all of these circumstances needed to be reconsidered by the Municipal Court, even though the prosecution itself had initially failed to request that S.K.’s statement of 26 January 2006 be admitted as evidence. The court found this failure by the Municipal Court to be “unclear and inexplicable”.

On 12 October 2008 S.K. died and on 29 December 2008 the Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings against him.

On 19 February 2009 the Municipal Court, having held a hearing and read out S.K.’s statement of 26 January 2006 before the parties, found the applicants guilty. The first applicant was sentenced to an effective prison term of six months while the second applicant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of two years. In its reasoning the court primarily relied on S.K.’s statement of 26 January 2006. No evidence different from that admitted during the first trial was introduced during the retrial.

On 29 July 2009 the District Court upheld this judgment on appeal, and on 7 October 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ further appeal on points of law (zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude).

In the meantime, on 11 September 2009, the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, alleging that their conviction had been based on the testimony of a person whom they had never had a chance to cross-examine and who had, in any event, revoked it subsequently.

On 14 October 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ appeal as manifestly ill-founded, adding that ‒ as a consequence of the death of S.K. ‒ the lower courts had had no choice but to accept his prior statement given to the police and, clearly, could no longer accommodate the applicants’ objection regarding his cross-examination.


CASE OF B.K.M. LOJISTIK TASIMACILIK TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI v. SLOVENIA

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant company B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi has its registered office in Istanbul.

On 13 November 2008 customs officers stopped and checked the applicant company’s lorry, in which they found packages of unknown content. A preliminary test of the content revealed that the packages contained heroin. The customs officers informed the police accordingly.

On 14 November 2008 the police inspected the lorry and its trailer and found 105 kg of heroin. The driver, a Turkish citizen, was arrested and detained. The lorry was seized and the trailer and its goods became the object of a customs procedure. On an unspecified date the applicant company received documents enabling the goods contained in the trailer to be delivered to their destination. The trailer was returned to the applicant company. Subsequently, the police filed a criminal complaint against the driver with the Ptuj District State Prosecutor’s Office.

On 15 November 2008 the Ptuj District State Prosecutor’s Office charged the driver with the production and trafficking of illegal drugs under Section 186(1) of the Criminal Code. The District State Prosecutor further requested that the applicant company’s lorry be confiscated under Section 186(5) of the Criminal Code since it had been used for the transportation of illegal narcotic drugs.

On 25 November 2008 the applicant company asked the Ptuj District Court to provide it with the case-file concerning the charges against the driver. It also enquired when it would be able to retake possession of the seized lorry. On 8 December 2008 the court informed the applicant company of the charges against the driver. It further informed the applicant company that the lorry had been seized in accordance with Section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act read in conjunction with Section 186(5) of the Criminal Code and that no decision could be made on the return or confiscation of the lorry until a decision on the merits had been issued. On 23 December 2008 the applicant company informed the court that it opposed the District State Prosecutor’s request for confiscation of the lorry.

On 29 December 2008 the Ptuj District Court found the driver guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. It ordered that the lorry be returned to the applicant company. It held that confiscation was possible only if one of the conditions set out in the second paragraph of Section 73 of the Criminal Code were met, namely the existence of reasons of general security or morality. The District Court considered that that condition had not been met, taking into account the fact that there was no indication that the applicant company knew about the transportation of the illegal material.

Both the driver and the Higher State Prosecutor appealed. On 21 May 2009 the Maribor Higher Court modified the first-instance judgment and, relying on Sections 73(3) and 186(5) of the Criminal Code, ordered the confiscation of the lorry. It held that the legislative framework provided for mandatory confiscation in cases of drug-related criminal offences since the nature of their commission, their magnitude and the dangerous consequences thereof called for the extension of coercive measures to persons who were not the perpetrators of the criminal offence, irrespective of whether or not the owners of the vehicle knew what the perpetrator had been transporting. The Higher Court explained that in accordance with Section 73(2) of the Criminal Code, objects used in the commission of a criminal offence could be confiscated even when they did not belong to the perpetrator, in so far as the third party’s right to claim damages from the perpetrator was not thereby affected. Moreover, Section 73(3) provided for the possibility of mandatory confiscation in cases provided for by the statute. Thus, Section 186(5) of the Criminal Code implemented those two provisions by providing mandatory confiscation of the means of transport used for transportation and storage of illegal substances.

On 17 July 2009 the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint against the aforementioned decision and an initiative for review of the constitutionality of Section 186(5) of the Criminal Code, alleging a violation of its property rights. It complained in particular that it had not known that the lorry was being used for illegal purposes, adding that the first-instance court had explicitly established its non-involvement in the commission of the criminal offence at issue. Claiming that it had not had an effective possibility to prevent the abuse of its property for criminal purposes, the applicant company stressed that the lorry had been subject to regular controls concerning possible vehicle modifications and hidden compartments. Thus, according to the applicant company, the measure complained of constituted a punishment and an unjustified and disproportionate interference with its property and that it had not had the opportunity to participate in the criminal proceedings.

On 29 September 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed both the constitutional complaint and the initiative. In reviewing the contested legislation, the Constitutional Court confirmed the Higher Court’s view that Section 186 of the Criminal Code provided for mandatory confiscation of vehicles used for the transportation and storage of drugs or illegal substances in sport, regardless of their ownership. According to the Constitutional Court, drug-related criminal offences sanctioned under Section 186 of the Criminal Code represented a great evil and an extremely high degree of threat not only from the perspective of the individual, but also from the perspective of society as a whole; the purpose of the impugned measure was to prevent the commission of such criminal offences in the future and thus to protect important legal values in society, such as health and life – especially of young people. The Constitutional Court stressed that the nature of the criminal offences in question, the manner in which they were committed and their consequences justified the interference with the ownership rights of all owners of the means of transport used for drug-trafficking, regardless of their potential involvement in the criminal activities at issue, adding that a different regulation governing the confiscation of goods would diminish considerably the possibilities for effectively preventing the criminal offences in question.

Balancing the general interests in question with the property rights of the applicant company, the Constitutional Court held that the measure complained of did not amount to an excessive interference despite the fact that the applicant company had had no effective possibility for preventing the misuse of its property for criminal purposes and had not participated in the commission of the criminal offence. In this connection, the Constitutional Court pointed out that legal certainty required that every instance of legally recognised damage be adequately protected. Thus, by virtue of Section 73(2) of the Criminal Code, the confiscation did not affect the right of third parties to claim compensation from the offender. Under the general rules of tort law, the injured owner had the possibility and the right to exact compensation from the person responsible for the damage. The Constitutional Court added that it was for the regular courts to establish in each individual case whether all the elements required for recognition of the alleged damage and thus for payment of compensation were fulfilled.

Meanwhile, on 29 June 2009 the Ptuj District Court informed the applicant company that the lorry was to be sold at a public auction and that it could submit written comments in this respect. On 6 July 2009 the applicant company replied that it was willing to buy the confiscated lorry. On 20 October 2011 the court ordered the sale of the lorry and informed the applicant company thereof. On 30 November 2011 the lorry was sold at public auction for 12,000 euros (“EUR”). According to the Government the lorry was sold to the applicant company. In this regard, they submitted a document stating that the lorry had been sold to “B.K.M. LOJISTIK, TAS.VE TIC.LTD.STI”, a company from Istanbul. However, the applicant company contested that statement, alleging that it was another company that had purchased the lorry. The Government did not reply to this submission.


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Hajdúnánás. He is a shareholder of a limited liability company registered under Hungarian law, with its seat in Hajdúnánás.

On 10 October 2001 the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court ordered the liquidation of the company. On 23 December 2005 the first instance court declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal quashed the judgment.

The first-instance court re-heard the case and on 5 June 2009 it declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal quashed the judgment on 2 March 2010.

The first-instance court re-heard the case and on 12 February 2013 it declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company. The decision of the court became final on 27 March 2013.


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

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

The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Bucharest.

On 19 September 1999, at approximately 1 a.m., a police patrol from the Ilfov Police Inspectorate pulled the applicant over in his car and asked him to produce an identity card. He replied that he did not have his identity card with him but that his name was Vasile Stoian and he was a lawyer and a former police officer. The applicant was invited to get out of the car.

After a few minutes, he got back into his car and drove off abruptly. According to the police officers, their colleague, A.A., was hit by the applicant’s car while he was trying to stop him.

The applicant alleged that he had left because the police officers had physically abused and insulted him.

The four police officers involved in the incident contested the applicant’s account of events. They stated that because the applicant had smelled strongly of alcohol, they had asked him to accompany them to a forensic laboratory to determine his blood alcohol content. The applicant had refused, got into his car and left the scene.

The police officers got into their car immediately and began chasing him. They also asked the police station for reinforcements. After about five kilometres the police car collided with the applicant’s car, forcing him to stop. The police officers immobilised and handcuffed the applicant.

As the applicant again refused to show an identity card, the police officers carried out a body search and a search of his car.

The applicant tried to escape, running towards the field to the left side of the road. Being handcuffed, he moved with difficulty. After about twenty metres, the police officers immobilised him again. The applicant claimed that he had been repeatedly kicked by the police officers.

One of the police officers had the idea to invite reporters from the “Antena 1” television channel to come to the scene in order to film the incident. Within thirty minutes a group of television reporters had arrived and started taking images of the applicant handcuffed and covered in blood.

The police officers continued their search, checking the contents of a bag found in the applicant’s vehicle. Inside the bag they found the applicant’s driving licence.

The applicant claimed that the police officers had carried out the search of his bag after breaking its lock despite the fact that he had expressed his intent to open the bag and give them his identity documents. This allegation was confirmed by witness statements and the images filmed by the television reporters.

In the end the applicant was taken to the forensic laboratory, where his blood alcohol content was tested.

The applicant underwent a medical examination at the National Forensic Institute. According to the medical certificate issued on 19 September 1999, he presented injuries that could have been caused by being hit with a hard object and would need twelve to fourteen days of medical treatment.

A few hours after the incident, the four police officers drafted an incident report, presenting their version of the events. The report was signed by V.L. and C.G., who allegedly eye-witnessed the incident.

The police officers also drafted a search report describing the items found in the applicant’s bag and car. This report was signed by C.G. and B.F., who were allegedly present when the search was carried out.

Other police officers arrived at the scene of the incident, carried out an investigation and drafted an on-site investigation report (raport de constatare la fața locului). According to their report, the Ilfov Police Inspectorate had asked for their intervention because their colleague, A.A., had been hit by a car driven by a person under the influence of alcohol. Their report was signed by V.L., who also signed the incident report. The report presented the same version of events as the incident report.

V.L. produced a written statement immediately after the incident, confirming the police officers’ version of events. In later statements made on 7 July 2000, 19 September 2002 and 15 January 2004, he changed his initial version of events, claiming that he had not been present at the scene of the incident. In this regard he admitted that on the night of 19 September 1999, he had been stopped by a police patrol and asked where he was going. After informing them that he was going to the nearby village, the police officers asked him to come back later. He alleged that he had not gone back but that on the following morning, at about 11 a.m., two of the police officers he had met the previous night accompanied by three other police officers had visited him at home. They had dictated a statement to him and asked him to sign it. They also asked him to sign an incident report and a search report, both of which were blank.

On 16 August 2004 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal initiated a criminal investigation against him for false testimony. It noted that after he had signed the incident and on-site reports and produced a written statement which confirmed the version of events presented by the police officers, he had changed his position, stating that he had not been present at the scene of the incident.

On 25 January 2006 the criminal investigation was discontinued because other witnesses present at the scene of the incident stated that they had not seen V.L. on the night of 19 September 1999.

On 21 February 2000, C.G. changed his initial statement, claiming that it had been dictated to him by police officers. According to his latest statement he was stopped by police officers only after most of the events had already occurred. He had seen the applicant’s car in a ditch and three police officers approaching with the applicant from a nearby field. He had noticed that the applicant was handcuffed, had blood on his face and appeared to have an injury on his right temple. C.G. had heard the applicant telling the police officers his name and that he was a lawyer.

C.G. also stated that he had been present when the police officers invited reporters from the “Antena 1” channel to come and film the incident and that V.L had not been present at the scene of the events.

B.F. had been in the same car as C.G. on the night of 19 September 1999.

On 22 June 2000 she stated that on the night of the events she had seen the applicant with blood on his face and obvious signs of violence. She also mentioned that she had heard the applicant asking the police officers not to force his bag open because he would open the bag and give them his identity card himself. In her statement of 20 October 2003 she mentioned that the whole of her initial statement, made immediately after the events, had been dictated to her by the police officers.

In a statement made on 30 May 2000, E.I. contended that on the night of 19 September 1999 he had seen a police car following a white car. He had also seen the police car forcing the other car to stop and enter a ditch. He had left his car and gone closer to see what had happened. He claimed that he had seen the applicant on the ground and the police officers kicking him. He also claimed that he had heard the applicant crying out in pain and asking them not to kill him because he had children at home. All the police officers had been hitting and insulting him. Afraid to be caught watching the scene by the police officers, he had left, taking the opposite direction in order to avoid a possible meeting with the police car.

The following day, he had seen the footage taken by the “Antena 1” reporters and decided to make a statement before the prosecutor.

According to the chief prosecutor’s decision of 24 September 2004, on 30 June 2004 E.I. changed his initial statement, admitting that he had not been present at the scene of the events of 19 September 1999 but had been trying to help the applicant.

On 20 September 1999 the television channel “Antena 1” broadcast its weekly programme, “the Mobile Squad” (Brigada mobilă). Most of it concerned the applicant’s case.

The filmed images were broadcast to a large audience and the applicant was recognised by a large number of people, notably because of his profession as a lawyer. The footage was broadcast again on 23 September 1999 by the same television channel.

On 20 September 1999 a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant for driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, causing bodily harm and using insulting behaviour.

On 2 August 2000 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court discontinued the criminal investigation.

It held that the offence of driving under the influence of alcohol had not been factually substantiated because according to a forensic report drafted on 19 September 1999, the applicant’s blood alcohol content had been 0.6 %. In connection with the body injury of police officer A.A., it noted that no medical certificate had been included in the file and held that the applicant had had no intent to harm him. In respect of the alleged insulting behavior, it held that no offence had been made out. It also noted that the applicant had got into his car and left the scene because he had been insulted and hit by the police officers.

The prosecutor’s decision stated that the police officers “had beaten the applicant, forced his bag, containing personal valuable items, open and invited the television channel “Antena 1” to report on the incident”. It concluded that the applicant had not committed any offence and that the police officers had breached their duties. It indicated that its findings were supported by the witness statements. It concluded by noting that the four police officers had behaved abusively towards the applicant and in order to cover up their actions they had fabricated false evidence. It appears that this decision remained final, as its findings were not challenged

On 20 September 1999 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the four police officers involved in the incident for theft and bodily injury. He claimed that they had beaten him and stolen 1,600 United States dollars from his bag. He also claimed that he had been handcuffed and unlawfully kept in the police car for about two hours. He added that the police officers had carried out unlawful searches of his car and bag. On 12 November 1999 the applicant added to his initial criminal complaint a new complaint for insult and slander against two of the police officers. The applicant alleged that they had made insulting comments about him while the television reporters were filming him. He based his complaint on Articles 205 and 206 of the Criminal Code in force at that time.

On 19 February 2001 a criminal investigation was initiated against the four police officers from Ilfov Police Inspectorate for abuse of authority, forgery of official documents, use of forged documents and instigation to false testimony. The military prosecutor held that on the night of 19 September 1999, while on duty, the police officers had subjected the applicant to ill-treatment, causing him injuries which needed between twelve and fourteen days of medical treatment. He also held that the police officers had tried to cover up their criminal activity by drafting reports which did not reflect what had actually happened and had forced the witnesses to make false statements.

On 29 March 2003 the military prosecutor discontinued his investigation in connection with the alleged theft. For the rest of the offences imputed to the police officers, he relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

On 12 November 2003 the applicant asked for the criminal investigation against the police officers to take other offences into account. He claimed that they had destroyed his bag, mobile phone, and watch bracelet. He again claimed that his honour and reputation had been damaged by the remarks made by the police officers in front of the television camera.

The applicant also asked the prosecutor to start an investigation against the police officers who had drafted the on-site report, claiming that they had forced V.L. to sign their report despite the fact that he had not witnessed the events.

On 19 August 2004 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal decided to discontinue the investigation on the ground that there was no evidence that the police officers had subjected the applicant to illtreatment. Furthermore, he stated that the applicant’s injuries had been self-inflicted and that he had destroyed the bracelet of his watch and his mobile phone himself. The applicant’s complaint for insult and slander was dismissed on the ground that it had not been lodged within the legal time-limit of two months provided by Article 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”). In respect of the insulting remarks addressed to the applicant by the police officers, the prosecutor held that they had been justified by the applicant’s attitude.

He also pointed out that the body search and the search of the applicant’s bag had been necessary in order to establish his identity. As regards the on-site report, the prosecutor admitted that it had been forged but noted that it could not be established who had signed the report as the police officers denied that they had signed it. Therefore, in order to ensure the identification of the persons who had forged the report, he decided to sever those proceedings and concluded that the offences of forgery and use of forged documents had not been made out. He also held that V.L. had changed his initial statement under the influence of the applicant. His presence at the scene of the incident on the night of 19 September 1999 had been confirmed by all the police officers.

The prosecutor decided to sever the proceedings initiated by the applicant against the television reporters and to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court.

On 24 September 2004 the chief prosecutor dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and confirmed the prosecutor’s decision.

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Bucharest Court of Appeal on the basis of Article 2781 of the CCP. On 31 May 2006 the firstinstance court dismissed the complaint, holding that the applicant’s injuries had not been caused by the police officers but had been selfinflicted when he was trying to take off the handcuffs. It based its findings on the initial statements given by witnesses C.G. and B.D. It also held that he had been handcuffed and made to sit in the police car because of his own behaviour.

The applicant appealed, claiming that the firstinstance court had simply reiterated the prosecutor’s decision without providing its own reasons.

On 22 January 2008 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the judgment of the firstinstance court.

On 7 October 1999 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the reporters and the owners of the “Antena 1” television channel. He claimed a violation of Article 2 of Law 48/1992 (“the Audiovisual Act”). He claimed that the police officers had invited the reporters to film him handcuffed, with his face covered in blood and his clothes torn and dirty. The images had been broadcast without his consent on the following day at peak viewing time and again on 23 September 1999. He also claimed that the images had been accompanied by insulting comments presenting him as an offender despite the fact that he had not committed an offence, as proved by the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings against him. He joined a civil claim to the criminal complaint.

On 22 January 2001 the prosecutor decided not to open a criminal investigation.

On 4 February 2002 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the decision not to initiate a criminal investigation.

The applicant’s appeal against the prosecutor’s decision was dismissed by the Bucharest District Court on 13 February 2004 on the ground that the investigating authorities had not obtained the authorisation of the Telecommunications Ministry and the Audio-visual Council. It held that such authorisation was mandatory for the initiation of a criminal investigation against a television channel under the Audio-visual Act.