Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. In each of the applications, the events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since the alleged arrests.

The applicants reported the abductions to lawenforcement bodies and official investigations were opened; however, the proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. The investigations have consisted mainly of requests for information and formal requests for operational-search measures to be carried out by counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and other regions of the North Caucasus. The requests received either negative responses or none at all.

From the documents submitted, it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions.

In their observations, the Government did not challenge the description of the circumstances of the abductions as presented by the applicants; however, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the incidents.

Summaries of the facts in respect of each individual application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to both the Court and domestic investigative authorities. The personal details of the applicants and their missing relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the Appendix I.

The applicant, Ms Maret Nazyrova, was born in 1968 and lives in Gekhi in the Urus-Martan district of the Chechen Republic. She is the sister of Mr Badrudi Nazyrov, who was born in 1973.

On 20 April 2000, during the daytime, Mr Nazyrov and his friend, Mr Said-Selim Aguyev, were at the applicant’s house in Gekhi when a group of about thirty to forty armed servicemen from the Police Special Task Unit (Отдел милиции особого назначения (ОМОН)) (hereinafter “the OMON”) comprised of servicemen from the Perm Region arrived at the settlement in several vehicles. Some of them were wearing balaclavas. They cordoned off the area and ordered the residents to stay inside. About fifteen servicemen broke into the applicant’s house and searched it. Then they beat up the applicant’s brother and his friend, pulled their T-shirts over their heads, put them into UAZ-type minivans and took them to the UrusMartan military commander’s office. The applicant and a number of local residents witnessed the events.

The Perm OMON unit was stationed on the premises of an orphanage in the vicinity of the applicant’s house. At the material time, two brothers of the Kuznetsov family were in charge of the OMON unit. It appears that they were involved in the abduction as they were not wearing masks and could therefore be identified by the applicant. The following day the military commander’s office accepted a food package for Mr Nazyrov, but the next day the servicemen denied that he had ever been detained on their premises.

The applicant has not seen Mr Nazyrov since the abduction on 20 April 2000.

The above account is based on witness statements provided by the applicant and copies of documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government.

From the documents furnished by the applicant and six pages of documents from criminal case no. 24074 submitted by the Government, information about the ensuing official investigation can be summarised as follows.

On 4 May 2000 Mr Nazyrov’s father, Mr Sh.N., reported the abduction to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office and the UrusMartan military prosecutor’s office, stating that his son had allegedly been taken to the Urus-Martan military commander’s office with Mr Aguyev, and that the two men had been detained as the latter had had no identity documents on him.

On or around 14 May 2000 the abduction report was forwarded to the Urus-Martan temporary police department (Временный отдел внутренних дел (ВОВД)) (hereinafter “VOVD”) and from there to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office.

On 16 May 2000 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office returned the complaint to the VOVD stating that it had been submitted “prematurely”.

On 17 May 2000 investigators from the VOVD refused to initiate criminal proceedings into the abduction.

On 25 November 2000 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office overruled the refusal and opened criminal case no. 24074. The decision stated that the applicant’s brother had been detained “during a special operation, the lawfulness of which has not been confirmed”.

From the documents submitted, it appears that between November 2000 and January 2007 the investigation was suspended and no investigative steps were taken. The applicant was not informed thereof.

It appears that on an unspecified date in January or February 2007 the investigation was resumed at the request of the applicant and on 2 February 2007 she was granted victim status in the criminal case.

On 1 March 2007 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was informed thereof.

On 21 August 2008 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court that the investigation into the abduction was protracted and asked for it to be resumed.

On 9 September 2008 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint, as the investigation had been resumed on 1 September 2008.

On 30 September 2008 the investigation was again suspended. The applicant was informed thereof.

From the documents submitted, it appears that the investigation is still pending.

The applicant, Ms Satsita Babuyeva, was born in 1958 and lives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. She is the wife of Mr Muma Babuyev, who was born in 1958.

At the material time, Mr Babuyev worked as a driver for the Department of Technological Equipment (Управление производственно-технологической комплектации (УПТК)) based on the premises of the main military base of the Russian federal troops in Khankala, Chechnya. On the morning of 30 August 2002, on his last day of work, he went there with the applicant to the military base to collect a year’s salary arrears. The couple arrived at the checkpoint at the entrance to the base at about 10 a.m. The applicant’s husband went inside, while she was told to wait for him at the entrance.

The applicant spent the entire day waiting for her husband but he never came out. In the evening she had to return home. She spent the next two days at the checkpoint waiting for him but to no avail. On 2 September 2002 she managed to speak to a woman from the admissions office who issued entrance passes to the military base. She confirmed that on 30 September she had issued a pass for Mr Babuyev. She had also made one for him for 1 September 2002 but he had not picked it up, which meant that he must have remained inside and not left the premises. The applicant’s husband has been missing ever since.

The above account is based on statements provided by the applicant and copies of documents from the investigation file.

The Government submitted copies of a small number of documents from criminal case file no. 52112 opened into the disappearance of Mr Babuyev, covering the period between September and November 2002. The relevant information may be summarised as follows.

On 22 September 2002 the applicant reported her husband’s disappearance at the military base to various authorities. Her statements concerning the circumstances of the incident were similar to the account she submitted to the Court.

On the same date the Grozny city prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the events, under Article 126 § 1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case file was given the number 52112. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:

“...On 30 August 2002 [Muma Babuyev] went to the military settlement of Khankala in Grozny to collect his salary arrears; other employees of [the department] saw [him] on the premises... [He] did not exit the premises and did not return home...”

On 16 October 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

On 21 October 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicant that further to her complaints, they had conducted a prosecutor’s inquiry into her husband’s disappearance which had not established the involvement of military servicemen in the incident.

On 22 November 2002 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was not informed thereof.

On an unspecified date in April and on 18 May 2003 the applicant reported her husband’s unlawful arrest and subsequent disappearance to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s office and requested its assistance in the search for him.

On 2 October 2003 the Main Military Prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that their inquiry had not established the involvement of military servicemen in her husband’s disappearance.

On 2 November 2004 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny declared Mr Babuyev missing at the request of the applicant.

On an unspecified date between 2004 and 2009 investigators replied to requests by the applicant for information by providing her with a statement to the effect that the investigation into her husband’s abduction was in progress but his whereabouts had not yet been established.

On 10 September and then on 3 November 2009 the applicant asked the investigators to inform her of the progress of the investigation and for access the case file. No replies were given to these requests.

On 4 August 2011 the investigation was resumed at the request of the applicant. From the documents submitted, it appears that it is still pending.

The applicants are Mr Adam Kagermanov, who was born in 1971 (“the first applicant”) and Ms Zura Yakhayeva (also spelled Yakhyayeva), who was born in 1977 (“the second applicant”). The applicants, who live in Gekhi in the Urus-Martan district of the Chechen Republic, are the brother and niece of Mr Ruslan Kagermanov (“Mr Kagermanov ”), who was born in 1963.

The applicants’ family home consisted of four dwellings with a shared courtyard. Mr Kagermanov lived alone in a separate dwelling. At the material time, Gekhi was under curfew. At around 4 a.m. on 4 February 2002 the first applicant learnt from a family member that Mr Kagermanov had been abducted earlier that night by a group of armed servicemen, who had arrived at his home in a Ural lorry and broken down the door. The neighbours had heard the abductors driving off in the direction of UrusMartan. The applicant thought that his brother had been taken by State servicemen, as at the time many young men had been abducted in a similar manner during curfew hours. In addition, local residents had seen servicemen driving armoured personnel carriers (APCs) in the vicinity that night.

Later that morning the applicants found Ural lorry tyre tracks and footprints of military boots in the snow next to Mr Ruslan Kagermanov’s dwelling.

At around 10 a.m. about fifty to sixty Russian servicemen in several APCs and Ural lorries arrived at the Kagermanov family home. They blew up Mr Kagermanov’s household small oil refinery in his backyard and searched the premises. According to the applicants, the servicemen had carried out a sweeping-up operation in the area and had searched other houses with oil refineries.

The applicants have not seen Mr Kagermanov since 4 February 2002.

The Government did not furnish any documents from the investigation file. From the documents submitted by the applicants, the steps taken by the investigative authorities may be summarised as follows.

On 4 February 2002 Mr Kagermanov’s mother, Ms P.K., reported her son’s abduction by military servicemen to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office.

On 18 February 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 61023.

On unspecified dates in February 2002 investigators questioned the applicants, who both stated they had discovered that Mr Kagermanov had disappeared at about 3.20 a.m. on 4 February 2002. They had found the entrance to his home broken down, footprints of military boots, his belongings scattered around and his broken watch indicating 3.10 a.m. on the floor. The applicants further stated that at about 10 a.m. the same morning a group of fifty to sixty Russian military servicemen in several APCs and Ural lorries had arrived at their house, searched it and destroyed Mr Kagermanov’s oil refinery.

In February and March 2002 investigators questioned the applicants and their family members. The statements received were similar to the account furnished by the applicants to the Court.

On 18 April 2002 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof.

On 4 May 2009 the second applicant requested access to the investigation file. Her request was refused by the investigators on 9 June 2009.

On an unspecified date between June and August 2009 she requested victim status in the criminal case. On 11 August 2009 the investigators granted this request and questioned her. Her statement was similar to the account she submitted to the Court.

On 18 August 2009 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement was similar to the account he submitted to the Court.

On various dates in August 2009 the investigators also questioned the applicants’ relatives and neighbours, Mr Z.K., Ms R.G., Mr M.I. and Ms P.K., whose statements were similar to those of the applicants. No new information was obtained.

On 25 August 2009 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

On 11 September 2009 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof.

On 15 September 2009 the second applicant complained to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court that the investigation had been ineffective and requested access to the investigation file.

On 12 October 2009 the second applicant’s complaint was partially allowed by the Achkhoy-Martan District Court. It noted, inter alia, that for seven years, between 2002 and 2009, the proceedings had been dormant and no tangible steps had been taken by the investigators. The court instructed the investigators to provide her with access to the case file.

From the documents submitted, it appears that the investigation is still pending.

The applicant, Ms Khedi Tchapanova, who was born in 1974, lives in Nice, France. She is the wife of Mr Eduard Zaynadinov (also spelled Zainadinov), who was born in 1974.

According to the applicant, her husband was an active member of illegal armed groups between 1994 and 1996 and then between 1999 and 2000. During the more recent period, the applicant and her two children lived in Shali. In January and February 2000 Russian servicemen regularly visited their dwelling. They searched for firearms and asked the applicant questions concerning her husband’s whereabouts. Fearing for her family’s safety, the applicant moved to the “Kavkaz” neighbourhood in Shali. In June 2002 her husband joined them there. On 24 June 2002 servicemen in APCs took him from his home. He was released a week later.

Between 3 and 4 a.m. on 30 July 2002 a group of armed servicemen in balaclavas broke into the applicant’s flat in Shali. They pulled a plastic bag over Mr Zaynadinov’s head and took him to an unknown destination in an APC.

Several days later the servicemen returned to the applicant’s house. They searched the premises and asked her about her husband’s involvement in illegal armed groups. During the search they found a list of members of illegal armed groups and a number of identity documents, as well as firearms hidden in the garden.

The applicant has not seen Mr Zaynadinov since 30 July 2002. In 2007 she moved to France.

The Government submitted copies of seventeen pages of documents from criminal case file no. 59229 opened into the abduction of Mr Zaynadinov. The information concerning the criminal proceedings as submitted by both parties may be summarised as follows.

On 6 August 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the abduction report lodged by Mr Zaynadinov’s father, Mr A.Z. to the Shali district department of the interior (Шалинский районный отдел внутренних дел (РОВД) (hereinafter “ROVD”).

On 6 September 2002 investigators questioned Mr A.Z., who stated that at about 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. on 30 July 2002 armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in two APCs at their house. They had broken in and checked some identity documents. Afterwards they had taken his son outside, put him into one of the APCs and driven off.

On 7 September 2002 two of the applicant’s neighbours (their names were illegible on the documents submitted) stated that on the night of 29 July 2002, they had been woken up by the sound of women crying. They had gone outside and had seen their neighbours on the street and several APCs driving off. They had then learnt that Mr Zaynadinov had been abducted.

On 16 September 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59229 into the abduction and informed the applicant thereof.

On 16 November 2002 the investigation was suspended. The applicant and her relatives were not informed thereof.

On 10 June 2004 the Shali ROVD replied to a request by the applicant for information stating, amongst other things:

“ ... in connection with the abduction of Mr E. Zaynadinov, the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59229... the police operational search unit opened search file no. 71373 and has been taking measures to search for Mr E. Zaynadinov, whose whereabouts as of 10 June 2004 have not yet been established [...]”

According to the applicant, on 16 November 2004 she had to leave the Chechen Republic out of fear for her and her children’s lives. Since January 2007 she has resided in France.

On 16 May 2007 the Shali Town Court declared Mr Zaynadinov missing.

On 18 March 2008 Mr A.Z. asked the investigators to provide him with copies of documents from the investigation file. His request was granted on 19 March 2008.

On 28 October 2008 the Shali Town Court declared Mr Zaynadinov dead at the request of the applicant’s representative.

On 12 December 2011 the investigation was resumed further to a complaint by the applicant’s relatives.

On various dates in December 2011 and then in February 2012 the investigators questioned several of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours and examined the crime scene. No new information was obtained.

On 13 February 2012 the investigation was again suspended. From the documents submitted, it appears to be still pending.

The applicant, Ms Ayna (also spelled Aina) Alkhotova, was born in 1975 and lives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. She is the wife of Mr Ayndi (also spelled Aindi) Diniyev, who was born in 1971.

At the material time Grozny was under curfew. The applicant and her husband resided in a block of flats at 186 Pugacheva Street in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny.

At about 1 a.m. on 16 August 2003 a group of about ten to fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the flats in three grey UAZ vehicles and an APC. They broke into the applicant’s flat, quickly searched it, dragged Mr Ayndi Diniyev outside, forced him into one of their vehicles and drove off through checkpoint 24 in the direction of the city centre.

The applicant has not seen her husband since his abduction on 16 August 2003.

The above account is based on a statement provided by the applicant and copies of documents from the criminal case file.

On 18 August 2003 the applicant reported her husband’s abduction to the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD stating, amongst other things, that the abductors had arrived in three UAZ minivans and an APC without registration numbers.

On 18 August 2003 investigators from the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office (“the prosecutor’s office”) examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

On the same date the investigators questioned the applicant and her relatives, Mr R.E. and Ms M.A., whose statements concerning the incident were similar to the account the applicant submitted to the Court.

On 29 August 2003 the prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 50094 into the abduction of Mr Diniyev.

On 22 September 2003 the investigators questioned the applicant’s mother Ms M.A., whose statement was similar to the account the applicant submitted to the Court.

On 22 September 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. Her statement was similar to her earlier statement of 18 August 2003. In addition, she stated that she would not be able to identify any of the abductors as their faces had been covered.

On 29 October 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was not informed thereof.

On 7 December 2004 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny declared Mr Diniyev missing.

On 12 May 2005 the investigation was resumed.

On 28 May 2005 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who reiterated her earlier statements.

On 12 June 2005 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was not informed thereof.

On 8 April 2008 the Leninskiy inter-district investigations department in Grozny replied to a request by the applicant for information and provided her with copies of two documents from the investigation file.

It appears that on 20 August 2010 she was again granted victim status in the criminal case at her request.

On 1 June 2011 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigators for their failure to take basic steps and ordered that the investigation be resumed. On 7 June 2011 the proceedings were resumed.

On 24 June 2011 the investigators again questioned Mr E.R. and the applicant, who reiterated their earlier statements. In addition, the applicant stated that about a month prior to the abduction unidentified armed men had robbed her mother-in-law and had even fired several shots at her.

On 7 July 2011 the investigation was suspended.

On 14 July 2011 the applicant complained to the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny that the investigation of the abduction had been ineffective and asked for the proceedings to be resumed. On 2 August 2011 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint as the investigation had been resumed earlier the same day.

On 2 September 2011 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 23 April 2012.

The criminal proceedings are still pending.

The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application, but submitted that the applicants’ allegations were based on assumptions as there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions, or that the applicants’ relatives were dead.

The applicants submitted that it had been established “beyond reasonable doubt” that the men who had taken their relatives had been State agents. In support of that assertion, they referred to evidence contained in their submissions and documents from the criminal investigation files disclosed by the Government. They also submitted that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by State agents, but the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government. Given the lack of any news about their relatives for a long time and the lifethreatening nature of unacknowledged detention in Chechnya at the relevant time, they asked the Court to consider their relatives dead.

A summary of the principles concerning assessment of evidence and establishment of facts in disappearance cases and the life-threatening nature of such incidents may be found in Sultygov and Others (cited above, §§ 39396).

Witness statements collected by the applicant, along with documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government, confirm that her brother, Mr Nazyrov, was abducted in Gekhi on 20 April 2000 by a group of servicemen during a special operation (see, for example, paragraphs 16 and 20 above). In view of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her brother was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by her.

The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof.

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Nazyrov was taken into custody by State agents on 20 April 2000. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), it also finds that Mr Nazyrov may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

Witness statements collected by the applicant, along with documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government, confirm that her husband, Mr Babuyev, was abducted in Khankala on 30 August 2002 by State servicemen (see, for example, paragraphs 33 and 34 above). In view of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by her.

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Babuyev was taken into custody by State agents on 30 August 2002. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), it also finds that Mr Babuyev may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

Witness statements collected by the applicants and copies of part of the investigation file submitted by them to the Court confirm that their relative, Mr Kagermanov, was abducted from his home in Gekhi on 4 February 2002 during curfew hours by a group of servicemen during a special operation (see, for example, paragraphs 52 and 53 above). In view of the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by them.

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Kagermanov was taken into custody by State agents on 4 February 2002. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the life-threatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), it also finds that Mr Kagermanov may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

Witness statements collected by the applicant, along with a small number of documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government, confirm that her husband, Mr Zaynadinov, was abducted in in Shali on 30 July 2002 by a group of servicemen (see, for example, paragraphs 71 and 75 above). In view of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by her.

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Zaynadinov was taken into custody by State agents on 30 July 2002. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), the Court also finds that Mr Zaynadinov may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

Witness statements collected by the applicant, along with documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government, confirm that her husband, Mr Diniyev, was abducted in Grozny on 16 August 2003 by a group of servicemen (see, for example, paragraphs 88 and 92 above). In view of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out by her.

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that Mr Diniyev was taken into custody by State agents on 16 August 2003. Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention (see paragraph 128 above), it also finds that Mr Diniyev may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention.

The Court finds that in all the cases presently before it, the applicants’ allegations are supported by both the witness statements collected by them and the domestic investigations. In their submissions to the authorities, the applicants maintained that their relatives had been abducted by State agents. The investigative authorities accepted as fact the primary versions of events presented by the applicants and took steps to check whether State servicemen were involved in the abductions.

In summary, the facts of all the applications contain sufficient evidence to enable the Court to make findings about the carrying out of security operations and thus about the State’s exclusive control over the detainees (see, among many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 114). The Government’s arguments stand in contradiction to the evidence reviewed by the Court and are insufficient to discharge them of the burden of proof which has been shifted to them in such cases.

The detention in life-threatening circumstances of Mr Badrudi Nazyrov, Mr Muma Babuyev, Mr Ruslan Kagermanov, Mr Eduard Zaynadinov and Mr Ayndi Diniyev, together with the lack of any news about them for a number of years, leads the Court to conclude that they may be presumed dead.


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

The applicant, Mr Christian Peter Puusep, is an Estonian and Australian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Mentone, Australia. He is represented before the Court by Mr C. Ginter, a lawyer practising in Tallinn.

The Estonian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

In 1991 Y., the applicant’s father, claimed restitution of his family’s property, an apartment building in Tallinn, which had been unlawfully expropriated in the 1940s. His property restitution claim, filed in the context of the ownership reform process taking place in Estonia at that time, gave rise to a number of administrative and court proceedings. The main issues in the proceedings, in brief, were the following: on which grounds Y.’s father, M., had left Estonia in 1941; whether he had already received compensation for the property left in Estonia and unlawfully expropriated by the Soviet authorities; and what the legal implications of these facts were.

By a judgment of 28 December 2006 (case no. 3-02-18) the Tallinn Administrative Court found for Y. in his complaint against a decision of 5 December 2005 of the Tallinn City Committee for the Return of and Compensation for Unlawfully Expropriated Property (Õigusvastaselt võõrandatud vara tagastamise ja kompenseerimise Tallinna linnakomisjon).

On 9 March 2007 Y. died and the applicant pursued the proceedings as his successor.

Following an appeal by the Committee, on 19 December 2008 the Tallinn Court of Appeal quashed the Administrative Court’s judgment. It annulled the decision of the Committee on the ground that pertinent evidence had not been assessed and ordered the Committee to re-examine Y.’s claim for the return of the property. The Court of Appeal noted in its judgment that it did not instruct the Committee to reach any particular outcome in resolving the matter. The Committee appealed. On 19 February 2009 the Supreme Court declined to examine the Committee’s appeal and the Court of Appeal’s judgment became final.

On 3 June 2009 the applicant, dissatisfied with the Committee’s delayed examination of his claim, requested that the Tallinn Administrative Court impose a fine on the Committee for its failure to comply with the judgment of 19 December 2008.

On 9 February 2010 the Committee decided to postpone the examination of Y.’s claim pending the receipt of information from the German archives on whether Y.’s father had received compensation for the property in question from Germany.

On 9 March 2010 the Tallinn Administrative Court fined the Committee 100,000 kroons (EEK) (approximately 6,391 euros) for its failure to resolve the matter. It noted that the Committee had taken certain measures in order to gather the information required to reach a decision, but found that the delay was unjustified.

On 19 May 2010 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the Committee’s appeal against that decision. The Committee appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to examine the appeal on 12 August 2010.

In the meantime, on 9 June 2010, the Committee issued a decision by which it declared that the property in question was subject to the ownership reform process and that Y.’s successors (that is, the applicant) were “legally entitled subjects” (õigustatud subjektid) in respect of the property. The decision contained a summary of the prior proceedings including, inter alia, reference to the Tallinn Court of Appeal’s judgment of 19 December 2008, by which the Committee had been ordered to reexamine Y.’s claim for the return of the property.

On 31 August 2010, having, in the meantime, received information from the German archives, according to which Y.’s father had received compensation in the 1960s from the Federal Republic of Germany for his property left in Estonia, the Committee invalidated its decision of 9 June 2010 and dismissed Y.’s request for the return of the property. The decision also contained a summary of the prior proceedings, similar to the decision of 9 June 2010 (see paragraph 12 above).

On 29 October 2010 the applicant challenged the Committee’s decision of 31 August 2010 before the Tallinn Administrative Court.

On 4 March 2011 the Administrative Court annulled the Committee’s decision of 31 August 2010.

The Tallinn City Government, the Committee’s legal successor, appealed.

On 15 June 2011 the Tallinn Court of Appeal quashed the Administrative Court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the Committee’s impugned decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the Committee’s finding that Y.’s father had already received compensation for the property concerned from Germany. It also found that the Committee had been entitled to re-examine the case after the new facts had arisen and to take a new decision. The applicant did not appeal.

On 19 December 2011 the Supreme Court declined to examine an appeal lodged by P., another claimant in the proceedings alongside the applicant.

In the meantime, and parallel to the above-mentioned administrative court proceedings, the parties were involved in civil litigation. Following the annulment of certain administrative decisions, as a result of which Y. had acquired title to the property in question, the City of Tallinn brought an action against Y., later succeeded by the applicant. The City of Tallinn claimed title to the property.

On 14 June 2004 the Harju County Court found for the City of Tallinn and recognised their title. Y. appealed.

On 7 March 2007 the Tallinn Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the administrative court proceedings in case no. 3-02-18. On 25 June 2009 the examination of the case was resumed.

On 10 November 2009 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the County Court’s judgment. It took note of the applicant’s argument that the question of the return of the property had not been finally resolved in the context of the ownership reform and that the administrative courts had ordered the City of Tallinn to re-examine the matter. Nevertheless, the court found that it was not within its jurisdiction to resolve administrative matters and that it was still for the City of Tallinn to decide in administrative proceedings whether the property was to be returned to the applicant.


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 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

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

The applicant was born in 1964 and is detained in Krems.

On 9 February 1983 the applicant shot his cousin, P.D., three times in the chest and stomach. His victim died. The applicant then decapitated P.D. and disposed of his head.

On 15 February 1983 the applicant shot dead two women, namely his former girlfriend, U.E., as well as her mother, S.E., using the same gun as he had used for the previous murder.

The applicant was arrested on 26 February 1983 and remanded in custody.

On 14 March 1984 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Straflandesgericht – hereinafter, “the Criminal Court”), sitting as an assize court (Geschworenengericht), convicted the applicant of triple murder and disturbing the peace of the dead (Störung der Totenruhe). He was found to be criminally responsible for his acts and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. In addition to the sentence, the Criminal Court ordered his detention in an institution for mentally ill offenders in accordance with Article 21 § 2 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch; see paragraph 31 below). A psychiatric expert, Dr Q., had found in his expert opinion that the applicant presented a distinctive picture of secondary personality defence mechanisms, in the sense of suppression of fear, emotion and sexuality. His potential for aggression was increased and he was emotionally unstable and could easily become aggressive. Moreover, there were clear signs of an identity disorder.

The above judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on 27 September 1984.

The applicant has been detained in institutions for mentally ill offenders since 27 September 1984. He served his prison sentence until 26 February 2003 (as the time he had spent in pre-trial detention – see paragraph 9 above – was counted towards his prison sentence). Thereafter, he remained in preventive detention, subject to yearly review proceedings in accordance with Article 25 § 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 32 below). He was first detained in the units for mentally ill offenders of the Vienna-Mittersteig Prison and Graz-Karlau Prison (Justizanstalt), and since 2008 has been detained in the respective unit of Stein Prison in Krems.

On an unknown date in 2008, the applicant applied for release from the institution for mentally ill offenders. He argued that he had completed individual therapy with Professor G. in the Vienna-Mittersteig Prison as well as specialised therapy preparing him for his release with an external therapist. Two psychiatric experts had attested that the danger emanating from him had abated or was significantly reduced. Even though different entities had suggested that he be granted privileges (Vollzugslockerung) under section 126 of the Execution of Sentences Act (Strafvollzugsgesetz – see paragraph 41 below), he had not yet been granted any. The applicant claimed that his lawyer had offered him a job and a small apartment if he were released.

On 25 February 2009 the Krems a.d. Donau Regional Court (Landesgericht – hereinafter, “the Regional Court”) ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention in the institution for mentally ill offenders. It referred to an expert opinion of 25 January 2009 by Dr L., who had stated that the applicant’s condition had stabilised and that the danger emanating from him had considerably abated in respect of the closed and protected living environment of the prison. However, the same could not be said with certainty for a life outside prison. The director of the prison did not recommend releasing the applicant either, as the special therapy he needed in order to be prepared for release was only available in the ViennaMittersteig Prison. The applicant waived his right to appeal against that decision.

On 20 September 2009 the applicant again applied for release, reiterating that Dr L. in his expert opinion of 25 January 2009 had attested that a process of mental stabilisation had taken place and that it was highly likely that the danger emanating from him was significantly reduced. The applicant claimed that he had successfully completed psychotherapy, which he considered as sufficient preparation for life outside of prison. He emphasised that he was willing to be treated, but that currently he was not receiving any therapy. Moreover, he reminded the court that his lawyer would be able to supply a flat and a job for him if he were released. He complained that the prison authorities had refused his requests to be granted privileges, and as a consequence the domestic courts had dismissed his previous applications for release as he had not been prepared for it.

On 15 March 2010 the Regional Court, having held an oral hearing, ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention. It confirmed that Dr L., in his additional expert opinion of 24 February 2010, had referred to the fact that the applicant’s condition had stabilised. Even though the applicant had developed an aversion to psychotherapy, he did not refuse to talk to psychiatrists. He was actively seeking a dialogue with them. However, Dr L. also found that no protection and support would be provided for the applicant after his release. Without such support, conditional release would be too risky from a psychiatric point of view. The stress caused by the overwhelming feeling of unpreparedness for release could lead to near-psychotic or micropsychotic disorders, the danger of which was unpredictable.

The Regional Court also referred to the expert opinion of Dr H. of 31 October 2006 and the forensic expert opinion by the Vienna-Mittersteig Prison of January 2007, as well as the most recent expert opinion by Dr B. (the resident psychologist of Stein Prison, where the applicant was held at that time) of 3 March 2010. The latter had come to the conclusion that the applicant still suffered from a pronounced combined personality disorder with paranoid, schizoid, emotionally unstable and narcissistic elements. Dr B. responded to the generally positive tenor of Dr L.’s opinion and found that the stabilisation process was rather a reaction to the “enemy” institution, namely the prison, in which the applicant was being held, and was not to be considered real or rendering the applicant capable of surviving the challenges of daily life outside prison. Moreover, at that time, Dr B. did not recommend further therapy for the applicant, who was not prepared for any self-reflection and was not ready to process the experiences and challenges of normal social interaction, and thus was still likely to present a danger to others. The director of Stein Prison also recommended the continuation of the applicant’s detention, adding that his institution was not equipped to deal with the preparation of his release, which it considered to be a complex and risk-prone task. Only the Vienna-Mittersteig Prison was capable of preparing the applicant for his release. The applicant in any event refused to undergo any more therapy.

The Regional Court found that owing to the applicant’s negative approach to therapy, it was impossible to prepare him for release, even though his counsel had confirmed the offer of a flat and a job, and the applicant appeared to be stable. In line with the argumentation of the expert opinions of Dr B. and Dr L., the court held that in the light of the gravity of the underlying criminal offences, there was a danger that an unprepared release would overwhelm the applicant and could have unpredictable consequences. Therefore, the application for conditional release had to be dismissed.

On 26 July 2010, the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht – hereinafter, “the Court of Appeal”) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. It referred to the expert opinions obtained in 1983, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2009 and 2010, and confirmed the decision of the first-instance court. It also reiterated that Stein Prison’s psychology service had recommended a transfer to the Vienna-Mittersteig Prison, where the necessary therapy was available.

The applicant lodged an application for release with the Regional Court on 20 August 2010 and submitted additional observations on 16 November and 3 December 2010. In essence, he repeated the arguments he had made in the previous review proceedings (see paragraphs 13 and 15 above). He also requested that a new expert opinion be obtained from Dr L.

On 7 December 2010 the Regional Court, ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention in an institution for mentally ill offenders, referring to the most recent expert opinion by Dr B. of 3 March 2010 (see paragraph 17 above). It found that there had been no changes in his circumstances and therefore declined the request for a new expert opinion. Recently obtained information from Stein Prison’s psychology service stated that the applicant still refused to undergo further therapy at their institution and requested preparation for his release. It reiterated that the necessary preparation was not available in Stein Prison, but only in the Vienna-Mittersteig Prison. However, the latter had not yet responded to a request for the applicant’s transfer. The Regional Court further referred to the reasoning in previous review decisions to avoid repetition, in particular the one by the Court of Appeal of 26 July 2010 (see paragraph 19 above). It stressed that the applicant still refused to deal with his offences in a therapeutic setting, which in turn was a prerequisite for being granted privileges. In the light of the gravity of the underlying offence, the statements obtained from the various prison services as well as the recent expert opinions, the Regional Court concluded that the applicant still presented a danger to society.

On 25 January 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded, as it was evident that there had not been a change in his negative attitude towards further therapy.

On 8 September 2011 the applicant applied for conditional release from the institution.

On 23 January 2012 the Regional Court held an oral hearing and subsequently ordered an expert opinion in the framework of the yearly judicial review proceedings. On 1 February 2012 the applicant submitted his observations on the review. He stated that the expert opinion of Dr B. (see paragraph 17 above) had been wrong and the court should therefore rather rely on Dr L.’s expert opinion (see paragraphs 13-16 above). As the applicant refused to be examined by any expert, the court held another hearing on 23 April 2012. On that occasion, the presiding judge reproached the applicant with the fact that he could not expect to be granted privileges if he did not collaborate with the experts and the authorities. The applicant replied that previously one of the experts had found that privileges were a prerequisite for his release, and that another expert had even come to the conclusion that he could already be released. He explained that he had refused to be examined by a psychiatrist because he was not suffering from a mental illness. The applicant repeated that his lawyer had offered him a small apartment and work in his law firm. He was not willing to live in an assisted-living facility or to follow psychotherapy after his eventual release, but would agree to work with a probation officer.

On 23 April 2012, the Regional Court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention. Based on the information on file, the latest expert opinion of Dr B. of 3 March 2010 and the information from the director of the prison, it concluded that the danger emanating from the applicant still persisted and therefore his application for release had to be dismissed.

That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 30 July 2012. The court summarised the genesis of the case so far and the applicant’s complaints, and reiterated the lower court’s findings. As to its own conclusion, it almost exclusively referred to its previous decisions in the applicant’s case of 26 July 2010 and 25 January 2011, holding that there had been no significant changes in the applicant’s situation, in particular that he still refused any further therapy.

On 26 March 2013 the applicant applied for release from the institution for mentally ill offenders.

On 20 June 2013 the Regional Court again ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention, essentially reiterating the reasoning it had given in its decision of 23 April 2012 (see paragraph 25 above). It appears that the Regional Court did not hold an oral hearing prior to that decision. It referred to the “current” expert opinion of Dr B. of 2010 (see paragraph 17 above) and statements by the prison administration and the social service of the prison (Maßnahmenteam) that the applicant should not be released, as he refused to undergo therapy and still posed a threat. The Regional Court reiterated that the applicant could only be prepared for his release at the Vienna-Mittersteig Prison, but found that it would be unreasonable to order his transfer because of his negative attitude towards therapy.

On 19 July 2013 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded. It held that the Regional Court had had no choice but to take into consideration the expert opinion of 2010, as in the course of the 2011/12 review proceedings the applicant had refused to be examined by an expert. The Court of Appeal again referred to the reasoning it had given in its three previous decisions relating to the applicant.

At the time of the above decision, the applicant was almost fortynine years old and had spent some twenty-nine years of his life in different institutions for mentally ill offenders.


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Ljubljana. She has suffered from a psychotic disorder for a number of years and has been admitted to psychiatric hospitals for treatment several times since 2000. The present case concerns two consecutive periods of confinement in such hospitals between July 2005 and January 2006.

On 10 July 2005 the applicant’s family physician received a telephone call from the local police informing him that the applicant had broken into an unoccupied house, apparently with the intention of sleeping there, and that they were having trouble communicating with her. He referred her to the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital, a public healthcare institution, indicating that she was disturbing the environment and behaving psychotically.

On the same day the applicant was admitted to the closed ward of the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital. On admission, she signed a consent form for confinement and psychiatric treatment. In her exchange with the hospital staff, the applicant said that she was “possessed by energetic and physical people sent to her through the lens of cameras operated by President Bush”. The psychiatrists treating her diagnosed her with schizophrenia and noted that she exhibited “delusional interpretations and perceptual anomalies as well as features of depersonalisation and derealisation”. The applicant was started on medication consisting of 10 mg of Moditen three times a day, three Akineton tablets a day, 5 mg of Apaurin three times a day, and an ampoule each of Haldol and Akineton a day. No mention was made in her medical records of her having refused to take any medication.

On 11 July 2005 the applicant started to ask how long she would have to stay in the hospital and told the psychiatrists that she would resist. The hospital notified the Idrija Local Court of her confinement, indicating the reasons given by the family physician for referring her to the hospital.

On 13 July 2005 the Idrija Local Court appointed a lawyer, I.R.P., to represent the applicant in proceedings it had commenced in her respect. It also scheduled a confinement hearing for 15 July. A notification of the hearing, addressed to the applicant, was sent to the hospital; however, it is not clear when or whether it was received by the applicant.

On 15 July 2005 a hearing was held regarding the applicant’s confinement. The applicant and one of the psychiatrists treating her were heard. The psychiatrist stated that the applicant had apparently been living in a garage and had broken into a house, and that she had been found wandering around and had been psychotic and uncontrollable. The applicant stated that she would rather be at home, that she did not understand why she had been taken to the hospital, but that other people she named, including a former politician, might have more of an idea. She provided an account of the events which had taken place prior to her confinement, in which she made no mention of having broken into a house. She also stated that she missed her father, and that she had been taking medication while at home.

In the weeks that followed, the applicant continued her treatment and, according to the medical records, also continued to agree to therapy. On 4 August 2005 the Haldol was replaced with Leponex and the dosage of Apaurin was reduced to 5 mg a day. Eventually, the applicant was taken off the Apaurin altogether.

Meanwhile, on 30 July 2005 the applicant gave D.P., a lawyer from Ljubljana, power of attorney. She told the representative that she was receiving treatment against her will, but was afraid to refuse it for fear that medication would be administered to her by force.

On 2 August 2005 the applicant’s representative D.P. notified the hospital that the applicant did not consent to her medical treatment and requested the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital to inform the applicant of her treatment and its side effects. She also pointed out that the applicant had the right to express her own free will and to refuse the treatment if she so wished.

On 5 August 2005 the applicant, through her representative D.P., lodged a constitutional complaint against the “material act” of her involuntary confinement and an application for a review of the constitutionality of section 49 of the Health Services Act, and of sections 70 to 81 of the Non-Contentious Civil Procedure Act. She alleged, inter alia, that she was unable to effectively enforce her right to judicial review in the involuntary confinement proceedings, as no formal decision had been rendered until that time. She therefore argued that the Constitutional Court should examine the alleged violations of her human rights committed through the “material act” of her confinement, as any other interpretation would constitute a breach of her right to judicial review within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. In addition, she requested that the disputed legislation be repealed with immediate effect, and that she be released from the hospital pending a decision on her confinement.

On 6 August 2005 D.P. wrote to the hospital again, asking it to stop forcibly administering medication to the applicant.

On 8 August 2005 the applicant was transferred from the closed to the open ward of the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital. On the same date the Idrija Local Court was informed of the applicant’s transfer and terminated the proceedings regarding her confinement.

On 12 August 2005 the applicant was discharged from the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital at her own request. In this regard, it was noted by her psychiatrists that she no longer exhibited any manifestly psychotic symptoms, but that she should continue medical treatment to prevent herself from having a psychotic relapse with violent outbursts. The final diagnosis listed in the applicant’s medical records was disorganised (hebephrenic) schizophrenia.

On 15 September 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional complaint of 5 August 2005 against her involuntary confinement in the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital for failure to exhaust the available remedies. It also rejected a further constitutional complaint she had lodged on 21 August 2005 relating to her confinement in the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital on the same grounds (see paragraph 19 below). It found that these complaints had been lodged even before the first-instance decisions on the involuntary confinement were rendered. As regards the applicant’s application for a review of the provisions of the Non-Contentious Civil Procedure Act, the Constitutional Court reiterated its findings in an earlier decision (no. U-I-60/03) that the thirty-day time-limit for issuing a court order for confinement could be too long (see paragraph 64 below). However, it was not possible to repeal the disputed legislation with immediate effect, as that would leave a sizeable gap in the legal system, so the application was dismissed.

On 15 August 2005 the applicant was taken to the emergency medical services by the police. On arrival, she stated that she was being “raped by the police, the emergency medical technicians, everybody”. The emergency physician referred her to the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital, a public healthcare institution, where she was taken by ambulance. It was noted in her admission record that her speech was dissociated and that she exhibited signs of paranoia and megalomaniac delusions. Under the heading “the degree of the patient’s rejection of hospitalisation” the emergency psychiatrist circled the statement that the applicant “accepted hospitalisation owing to the situation (the staff being present)”. Under the heading “the need to use compulsory measures on patients rejecting hospitalisation” the psychiatrist circled the statement “negative attitude, no compulsory measures necessary”. It is evident from the applicant’s medical records that during the first days of her admission, she was restless, talkative and unable to follow the activity programme. She spent the first two days of her treatment in the admission ward.

As of 17 August 2005 the applicant was placed in the closed ward. Based on her medical records, it appears that she remained talkative but found it somewhat difficult to engage in meaningful discussion. She still exhibited delusions of persecution and was convinced that her father had bribed the doctors and the police to keep her in the hospital. She was also convinced that the garage where she had been living was bugged by the CIA. On 19 August 2005 the applicant was visited by her representative D.P.

The applicant was given thirty drops of Haldol three times daily, three Akineton tablets a day and 2 mg of Lorsilan three times a day. The Haldol was subsequently replaced with 10 mg of Moditen three times a day. In the latter stages of her treatment, the applicant received Lorsilan and 100 mg of Leponex three times a day. Eventually, the applicant was only treated with Leponex. During the treatment she often complained of various physical pains and discomfort, in particular painful muscle spasms and toothache.

On 21 August 2005 the applicant informed the Ljubljana Local Court of her confinement and lodged an application for an interlocutory order that her medical treatment be discontinued and that she be released from the hospital pending a final decision on the matter. On the same day the applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint against the “material act” of her confinement and an application for a review of the constitutionality of section 49 of the Health Services Act and of sections 70 to 81 of the Non-Contentious Civil Procedure Act. The applicant’s notification of involuntary confinement was received by the local court on 22 August 2005.

On 23 August 2005 the Ljubljana Local Court appointed a lawyer, P.C., to represent the applicant in the involuntary confinement proceedings. On the same day a hearing was held which took twenty-five minutes. The applicant’s court-appointed representative was present, but, according to the applicant, did not participate actively. At the hearing, the applicant was examined by an expert from another healthcare institution, who immediately upon examination submitted an opinion stating that the applicant’s narrative showed signs of a paranoid delusional system which had probably lasted for a long time and to which she was uncritical. She considered that the applicant needed treatment in a closed ward for up to one month.

Based on this expert opinion, the Ljubljana Local Court ordered that the applicant be confined in the closed ward of the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital until 23 September 2005.

On 24 August 2005 the applicant’s application for an interlocutory order was dismissed by the Local Court on the grounds that personality rights could not be protected by injunctive relief.

On 27 August 2005 the applicant was visited by her court-appointed lawyer P.C., who wanted her to give him the power of attorney. According to the applicant’s medical records, the psychiatrist on duty was informed of the visit and gave his consent for the applicant to sign the document.

On 2 September 2005 the applicant appealed against the Ljubljana Local Court’s order regarding her continued confinement and the dismissal of her application for an interlocutory order.

On 3 September 2005 the applicant spoke to the then head of the hospital, complaining that there was no reason for her to remain there. She also stated that she did not understand why she was on medication, although she did confirm that she was taking Akineton as part of her outpatient treatment.

According to the Government, which relied on her medical records, later that day the applicant was transferred to the open ward of the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital. The applicant, however, maintained that the transfer took place on 4 September 2005. On 6 September 2005 the applicant’s representative D.P. notified the Ljubljana Local Court of the applicant’s transfer.

During the course of her stay in the open ward of the hospital, on 7 September 2005 the applicant was allowed by her psychiatrist to withdraw some of the money she had received as social assistance. In addition, on 13 September she was permitted to recover her clothes. She was allowed to leave the hospital premises for a few hours several times during her stay, on 20, 23 24, 27 and 28 October, and 9, 11, 13 and 30 November 2005. Her psychiatrists noted that she was disciplined in her outings and always returned to the hospital at the designated time.

On 9 September 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court allowed the applicant’s appeal against the Ljubljana Local Court’s decisions of 23 and 24 August 2005 and remitted the case to the first-instance court. The higher court pointed out that the court’s reasoning lacked reference to the decisive factors which would indicate that it was necessary to deprive the applicant of her liberty. As regards the dismissal of the applicant’s application for an interlocutory order, the higher court rejected the lower court’s interpretation that no legal basis existed for an interlocutory order for the protection of the applicant’s personality rights. The court also pointed out that the applicant’s request for her medical treatment to be stopped warranted separate consideration.

On the same day the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the Ljubljana Higher Court’s decision and a request for a procedure to be initiated for the review of the constitutionality of section 49 of the Health Services Act and of sections 70 to 81 of the Non-Contentious Civil Procedure Act. She insisted that remitting her case to the first-instance court without ordering her release from the hospital had violated her right to personal freedom.

As already stated (see paragraph 18 above), on 15 September 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional complaints of 5 and 21 August 2005 against both periods of her confinement.

On 22 September 2005 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Ministry of Justice regarding the proceedings before the Ljubljana Local Court. On 5 October the Ministry informed the applicant that the local court had set the date of the hearing for 11 October 2005. The summons to the hearing was sent to the applicant’s home address.

On 7 October 2005 the father of the applicant, I. M., informed the local court that he had been served a summons addressed to the applicant for a hearing scheduled for 11 October 2005. The judge agreed to allow the applicant’s father to attend the scheduled hearing.

On 10 October 2005 the applicant’s representative D.P. informed the local court that the summons to the hearing of 11 October was unclear as to whether the representative herself had been summoned, or whether the applicant had been summoned by way of her representative. In addition, she proposed that a new summons be served in which the reasons for the hearing be set out.

The next day the applicant’s court-appointed representative P.C., the applicant’s father I.M. and her chosen representative D.P. were present at the hearing. D.P. proposed that the hearing be rescheduled since the applicant had not been properly summoned. She also informed the local court that the applicant was being held in the open ward of the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital but that the hospital was refusing to release her, or to discontinue her medical treatment. On the same date the local court appointed another expert to give an opinion on the applicant’s condition.

On 12 October 2005 the Ljubljana Local Court again ruled on the applicant’s application for an interlocutory order concerning the termination of her medical treatment and her immediate release from the psychiatric hospital. Contrary to the reasoning of the Ljubljana Higher Court’s decision of 9 September 2005, the application was again dismissed on the grounds that no legal basis existed for an interlocutory order for the protection of a person’s personality rights. The applicant appealed against this decision.

On 14 October 2005 the applicant requested that the judge sitting on the case be removed on the grounds, inter alia, that he had refused to adjourn and reschedule the hearing of 11 October despite the fact that she had not been properly summoned. Furthermore, she alleged that the judge had violated her right to privacy by allowing her father to attend the hearing. She also requested that the appointed expert be withdrawn. She further requested the court to decide on her immediate release and to exclude her father from the proceedings. On 26 October 2005 the applicant’s request for the withdrawal of the judge was dismissed.

On 2 November 2005 the Ljubljana Local Court amended its decision of 12 October 2005 by also including in its operative part the dismissal of the applicant’s application that her father be prevented from participating in the hearing.

On 10 November 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court again allowed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 12 October 2005 and remitted the case to the first-instance court. It reiterated that a valid legal basis did exist for an interlocutory order for the applicant’s release from the psychiatric hospital and that her request for her medication to be stopped deserved separate consideration. Moreover, the court took note of information in the case file that the applicant had meanwhile been transferred to the open ward. Accordingly, it pointed out that the rules of non-contentious procedure regarding involuntary confinement only applied to closed wards of psychiatric hospitals. It ordered the lower court to examine the question of whether the conditions for continuing the non-contentious proceedings still applied. Otherwise, the applicant was supposed to apply for injunctive relief against infringement of her personality rights.

On 14 November 2005 the applicant, through her representative D.P., lodged an appeal against the decision of 2 November 2005 on the dismissal of the application concerning her father’s participation in the hearing. The court-appointed representative P.C. responded to the appeal lodged by D.P., arguing that it should be dismissed. On 21 November 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the decision of 2 November 2005.

On 30 November 2005 the Ljubljana Local Court sent a letter to the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital, requesting information about when the applicant had been transferred to the open ward.

On 8 December 2005 the local court received a reply from the hospital stating that the applicant had been transferred to the open ward on 3 September 2005.

On 12 December 2005 the Ljubljana Local Court terminated the proceedings regarding the applicant’s involuntary confinement in the psychiatric hospital because of her transfer to the open ward.

Meanwhile the applicant renewed contact with her father, who arranged for her to spend some weekends at his home. Arrangements were subsequently made for the applicant to move in with him after her release from the hospital.

On 12 December 2005 the applicant and her father visited the Sežana Social Work Centre, where the applicant declared that she wished her father to act as her guardian in financial and health matters, and her father declared himself willing to provide her with a home and to assume responsibility for her medical treatment and finances. A record was made of the applicant and her father’s declarations and they were informed that they could address any possible disagreements regarding the arrangement to the centre.

On 15 December 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decision of 9 September 2005 and her application for constitutional review (see paragraph 32 above) for lack of legal interest. It observed that the applicant was no longer confined in the closed ward of the psychiatric hospital.

On 22 December 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 December, stressing, inter alia, that her transfer to the open ward of the hospital did not change the fact that she was confined there against her will. She also complained about the lack of an effective remedy. Moreover, she pointed out that no decision had been made regarding the necessity of her confinement and that she had not been informed of the grounds on which her continuing confinement was based. She further lodged an application for her court-appointed representative P.C. to be taken off the case for failure to act in her interests.

On 5 January 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that, since the applicant had been placed in an open ward, the rules of non-contentious procedure were no longer applicable. The court referred the applicant to the rules of contentious procedure, under which it was possible to apply for injunctive relief against infringement of personality rights.

On 19 January 2006 the applicant was released from the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital. The diagnosis listed on her release form was paranoid schizophrenia.

On 23 January 2006 the Ljubljana Local Court rejected the applicant’s application for an interlocutory order owing to the fact that the proceedings on the merits had been terminated.

On 14 February 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of 5 January 2006. She invoked, inter alia, Article 5 of the Convention, and maintained that the fact that she had been placed in the open ward did not imply that she was held there voluntarily. She alleged that any attempt on her part to leave the hospital, while in the open ward, could result in her being brought back to the hospital by force and placed back in the closed ward, as in practice the transfer to the open ward constituted a privilege enjoyed by compliant patients. In this regard the applicant pointed out, relying on section 49 of the Health Services Act (see paragraph 58 below), that the legal basis for involuntary admission and treatment in a psychiatric hospital did not specify in which ward patients are to be placed. She also pointed out that psychiatric hospitals were not required to notify the competent courts of patients’ possible readmission to the closed ward in cases such as her own, where they had already been transferred to the open ward while the order of confinement was still in effect. In her opinion the provisions on involuntary confinement in a psychiatric hospital and the related procedure were still applicable and she was entitled to obtain a decision on the lawfulness of her earlier confinement.

On 13 April 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law on the grounds that the applicant lacked legal interest, since the confinement proceedings had been terminated and she had been released from the hospital.

On 6 July 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court’s decision to reject her appeal on points of law in connection with the Higher Court’s decision of 5 January 2006 and the Ljubljana Local Court’s decision of 12 December 2005 to terminate the proceedings regarding her involuntary confinement in the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital. She reiterated the complaints made regarding her stay in the open ward of the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital and those relating to the alleged breaches of procedural rules in the confinement proceedings. Further, she pointed out that she was entitled to obtain a decision on the merits with regard to her complaints, having regard to the importance of her constitutionally guaranteed right to personal liberty.

On 27 February 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court’s decision as unfounded, and rejected her complaint against the Higher Court’s decision on the grounds that it had been lodged out of time. The court pointed out that the lodging of an inadmissible appeal on points of law had not suspended the time-limit for lodging the constitutional complaint.


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant, Mr Andrija Marjanović, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1970. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. V. Radović and Mr A. Pašić, lawyers practising in Foča and Sarajevo, respectively.

The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms Z. Ibrahimović.

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

On 4 February 2005 the applicant killed his mother.

On 26 May 2005 the Zenica Cantonal Court found the applicant not guilty by reason of insanity (paranoid schizophrenia) and referred the case to the Kakanj Social Work Centre (“the Social Work Centre”). The judgment took effect on or about 30 June 2005 (the applicant has not indicated the exact date).

On 28 July 2005 the Kakanj Social Work Centre provisionally placed the applicant in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex (“the Psychiatric Annex”) as from 31 July 2005.

In his application to the Court, the applicant claimed that he was still detained in the Psychiatric Annex on the basis of the administrative decision, despite the fact that the social work centres did not have jurisdiction to order psychiatric detention.

The Government disputed the facts as submitted by the applicant as incomplete and misleading. They informed the Court of the following facts.

On 17 May 2010 the Social Work Centre initiated proceedings before the Zenica Municipal Court on the necessity of the applicant’s detention.

On 15 November 2010 the Zenica Municipal Court established that the applicant’s mental disorder warranted continued detention in the Psychiatric Annex, for a maximum period of one year. The court further held that the applicant would eventually be transferred to the new psychiatric clinic Podromanija in Sokolac, once it was ready and functional.

On 4 November 2011, 15 May and 14 November 2012, and 14 May 2013, respectively, the Zenica Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention. The applicant did not appeal against any of these decisions.

The Government submitted a copy of the decision of 15 November 2010 as well as the copies of the subsequent decisions.

It would appear that the applicant is still detained in the Psychiatric Annex.

Under the Criminal Code 2003 of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Krivični zakon Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine; Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 36/03, 37/03, 21/04, 69/04, 18/05, 42/10 and 42/11), an offender who has been acquitted on the grounds of insanity can be placed in psychiatric detention only by the competent civil court if this is considered necessary for the protection of the offender and/or the public from serious harm. Any such acquittal is therefore reported to the competent social work centre which must initiate the appropriate procedure in which the competent civil court would decide whether to prolong the detention of any such mental health patient (Article 420 of the Criminal Code 2003 and Article 410 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2003; Zakon o krivičnom postupku Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine; Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 35/03, 37/03, 56/03, 78/04, 28/05, 55/06, 27/07, 53/07, 9/09, 12/10 and 8/13).


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicants were born in 1964, 1991 and 1982 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Timişoara, while the third applicant lives in Lantosque (France). The applicants are the wife, the daughter and the niece of S.T. respectively.

On 13 March 2014 a criminal investigation was opened by the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the prosecutor”) against S.T., a medical doctor and employee of a State pension office, on suspicion of bribe-taking. On the same day a search was conducted at the common residence of S.T. and the first applicant, in the first applicant’s presence, accompanied by her lawyer. Documents and money found on that occasion were seized. The first applicant objected to that measure, claiming that some of the assets seized did not concern the ongoing investigation. The objection was included in the search record drawn up by the police on the spot and signed by the first applicant and her lawyer.

According to the prosecutor’s decision of 17 March 2014 the movable assets taken away at the search of 13 March, as well as other movable and immovable assets belonging to S.T. and his wife (the first applicant), had been seized under Article 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code (see paragraph 36 below) for the purpose of subsequent special and extended confiscation provided for by Article 1121 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 35 below). The decision listed, among the assets found during the searches conducted in the case, the sum of 107,915 euros (EUR) found in cash. Cash in other currencies had also been seized as well as several items belonging to the second applicant. The prosecutor based the decision on the nature of the crimes under investigation and the need to recover the damages, as well as on the need to investigate possible money-laundering crimes.

On 19 March 2014 S.T. was handed a copy of the seizure decision of 17 March 2014 in the presence of his lawyer. On that occasion, after he had been informed of his rights and obligations, he stated that he had no observations or objections in connection with the seizure.

On 20 March 2014 the second applicant, represented by her lawyer, was informed of her rights and obligations in connection with the seizure of her property and received a copy of the decision of 17 March 2014.

On 25 March 2014 the second applicant, represented by two lawyers of her choice, lodged a complaint with the Caraş-Severin County Court against the prosecutor’s decision of 17 March 2014. She claimed that the seizure of assets for the purpose of subsequent special or extended confiscation provided for by Article 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code, taken together with Articles 112 and 1121 of the Criminal Code, could be ordered only with respect to assets belonging to a suspect or accused. She further explained that the assets listed in the prosecutor’s seizure decision included two flats, two garages and two cars, which had been lawfully acquired by her with money lent by members of her family and should not have been seized. She joined copies of sale contracts and a written statement given by a member of the family.

On 10 April 2014 the Caraş-Severin County Court decided with final effect that the seizure decision of 17 March 2014 had been in compliance with the provisions of Article 249 § 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code (see paragraph 36 below), which clearly stipulated that measures such as seizure may be ordered with respect to assets belonging not only to the suspect or accused, but also to any other person. Furthermore, the second applicant had not proved that she had an income or that she had purchased the assets in question with her own money. Therefore, taking into account also the fact that the prosecutor mentioned in the impugned decision that there were suspicions of money laundering, the court concluded that the seizure measure had been lawful and justified for all the assets concerned.

On 26 May 2014 S.T. was indicted on 291 counts of bribe-taking committed between 3 February and 13 March 2014 in his capacity as an employee in a public institution, more specifically the chief expert on matters regarding capacity to work and invalidity at the Caraş-Severin County State Pension Office (Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Caraş-Severin).

On 23 October 2014 S.T. admitted his guilt in a statement before the Arad County Court. He chose to benefit from the special fast-track procedure provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code for such situations.

In his written plea submitted to the court, S.T. explained that some of the assets seized by the prosecutor belonged to his wife and daughter (the first and second applicants), who had not committed any criminal acts. In addition, he alleged that his family’s assets had been acquired with funds obtained from real-estate transactions in 2007 and 2013, and that the prosecutor had failed to prove that the seized assets had been unlawfully acquired. He also mentioned that out of the money seized in cash, the sum of EUR 40,400 had come from the sale of a flat in 2013. A copy of a contract had been submitted in support of that allegation, showing that a flat owned jointly by S.T. together with the first and third applicants had been sold for EUR 40,400. In conclusion, he asked the court to exclude the assets belonging to his family from the confiscation order.

On 6 November 2014 the Arad County Court found S.T. guilty on all counts of bribe-taking and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, the minimum sentence applicable in the light of his admission of guilt.

On the basis of the provisions of Article 289 § 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 35 below), the court also ordered the confiscation of various amounts of money and goods received by S.T. as bribes during the above-mentioned period and which had been seized during the investigation.

In addition, the court decided to apply the provisions of Article 1121 §§ 1 (m), 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 35 below) and to confiscate, on the grounds that they had been acquired as a result of S.T.’s criminal activity, additional money and property belonging jointly to S.T. and the first applicant (the equivalent of EUR 124,000 in cash in various currencies, a dental practice, a flat and a vehicle), as well as property belonging to the second applicant (a flat and two vehicles). All confiscated property had been previously seized by virtue of the prosecutor’s decision of 17 March 2014.

In reply to S.T.’s arguments concerning the assets belonging to his family, the court held that the total value of the seized property could not be justified by the lawful income earned by S.T. together with the first applicant in the five years before the commission of the crimes in question. In addition, the second applicant was a student and did not have any income. An analysis of the documents and expert reports included in the file showed that the annual income of S.T. and his wife, the first applicant, amounted to EUR 35,000, whereas the value of the assets acquired by the family in the preceding five years – the equivalent of EUR 300,000 in bank accounts or in cash, fifteen flats and plots of land, five garages and four vehicles – grossly exceeded their lawful income. However, referring to Decision no. 356 of 25 June 2014 of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 37 below), the District Court explained that the confiscation measure would apply only to the assets acquired after April 2012. The court therefore decided to lift the seizure order in respect of the assets belonging to the family which did not fall within the scope of the case, having been acquired before April 2012.

S.T. and all the applicants lodged appeals against the judgment of 6 November 2014.

In her reasons for appeal, the third applicant explained that she had asked her uncle, S.T., to keep for her the EUR 40,400 she had obtained from the sale of her flat in 2013. She claimed that that amount had been found in S.T.’s residence during the search of 13 March 2014 and had been wrongfully confiscated by the Arad County Court.

The first two hearings were scheduled for 19 January and 16 February. The applicants’ lawyer requested the postponement of the trial because she could not be present. The next hearing was scheduled for 16 March 2015.

On 10 March 2015 the prosecutor submitted to the file a report prepared by the National Integrity Agency (Agenţia Naţionala de Integritate), verifying the assets statements submitted by the first applicant, on the basis of Law no. 176/2010 on integrity in the exercise of functions in public office. The report concluded that there were serious discrepancies between the first applicant’s lawful income and her assets, and said that the information would be sent to the commission for the verification of assets of the Timişoara Court of Appeal for a decision on the further steps to be taken.

The applicants submitted to the file an accountant’s report which provided a calculation of the net income earned by S.T. and the first applicant from their salaries between 1991 and 2014. The total amount determined by the accountant was EUR 281,071. They also submitted numerous copies of sale contracts for various properties, as well as a written statement from C.T., a family member who declared that he had lent money to the second applicant.

At the hearing of 16 March 2015 the applicants’ lawyer requested that another person be invited to testify as a witness before the court that he had also lent money to the second applicant. With respect to the first applicant, the lawyer applied to the court for an accountant’s report in order to establish the exact difference between her lawful income and the value of the property confiscated from her, taking into account the family’s expenses.

The requests were discussed during the hearing, in the presence of all parties. The prosecutor argued that the request to hear a witness should be rejected, since the family’s income could not be established with witness statements.

The court of appeal decided to refuse the requests, holding that there were enough elements in the file allowing for the exact calculation of both the family’s income and the value of their assets. In any case, the court held that several hearings had taken place in the appeal proceedings and the applicants had had enough time at their disposal to prepare their defence and submit written evidence.

On the merits of their appeal, the applicants’ lawyer argued that all property confiscated had been acquired from the legal income earned jointly by S.T. and the first applicant. In this connection, he referred to the accountant’s report included in the file. As regards the sum of EUR 40,400, the lawyer explained that it had been confiscated by mistake, since it belonged in fact to the third applicant, who had asked her uncle, S.T., to keep it for her. The money had come from the sale of a flat belonging to the third applicant. The lawyer concluded that the confiscation of property belonging to the applicants had been an unlawful and excessive measure.

The court postponed the pronouncement of the judgment to 24 March 2015.

In the meantime, the first and second applicants submitted written pleadings complaining that the second applicant had never been summoned to appear before the Arad District Court and had never been asked by the courts to submit evidence on how she had acquired the confiscated property. They also claimed that all their assets had been acquired through the efficient management of the family’s lawful income.

On 24 March 2015 the Timişoara Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. The court held that from the high number of criminal acts committed by S.T. it could be inferred that he had established a habit in taking bribes which could have started long before the period that had been investigated. At the same time, S.T. and his family, the first and second applicants, had accumulated a considerable fortune in the past five years. The Court of Appeal further observed that it was clear from the evidence in the file that part of the confiscated goods were the direct proceeds of S.T.’s crimes, whereas other assets belonged to the first and second applicants. The court concluded that it could be inferred from an analysis of the lawful income of the first applicant and the lack of income of the second applicant that the assets found in their names had also been acquired through S.T.’s criminal activity.

The Court of Appeal observed that there was a considerable discrepancy between the family’s lawful income and its assets, and that S.T. and the applicants had not supplied proof that the confiscated assets had been lawfully acquired. The court reasoned as follows:

“Between 03.02.2014 and 13.03.2014 while the defendant was under surveillance he received various sums of money and other goods from 291 people who had come to his office for a medical examination in order to obtain a decision on retirement due to loss of capacity to work or to obtain an official certification of their degree of disability in order to benefit from social security benefits. As the lower court also held, the defendant has confessed to all the charges against him and he has been convicted to three years’ imprisonment.

As a result of this criminal conviction, the first-instance court considered that the requirements of Article 1121 of the Criminal Code had been fulfilled and ordered the extended confiscation of money, flats and vehicles, items which had a value exceeding the income of the defendant and his family in the last five years ....

As regards the income of the defendant and his family, the court observes that he submitted an accountant’s report showing the family’s income starting with January 1991, but without mentioning their expenses for the same period.

In order to establish whether there was a discrepancy between the family’s income and their properties and other goods acquired, the court must compare the amounts of money spent during the period of the acquisition of the properties in question with the income. Based on the documents submitted to the file, including an evaluation report submitted by the National Integrity Agency on 10 March 2015, the court concludes that there is a significant difference between the income and the assets accumulated. The above-mentioned report evaluated especially the assets acquired by the defendant’s wife [the first applicant] mostly from her salary. Even if this salary had been higher than the defendant’s and even assuming that they also had earnings from real-estate transactions, they could not have accumulated enough money to acquire such a large number of properties and vehicles.”

As regards the second applicant, the court held that she was currently a student and there was no proof in the file to show that she had ever had an income. Her allegations that the property found in her name had been acquired from donations from other members of the family had not been proved. Therefore, the conclusion of the first-instance court that the property she owned had been purchased with money from her parents was considered correct.

As regards the appeal submitted by the third applicant, the court held that no evidence had been submitted to the file to show that EUR 40,400 belonged to her and had been given to S.T. for safekeeping.

The Timişoara Court of Appeal concluded with final effect that the first-instance court had correctly applied the legal provisions in the case and had even decided to lift the seizure order in respect of certain items.