Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant, Mr Tihomir Aleksić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who in born in 1946 and lives in Belgrade.

The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić.

The Serbian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right.

The applicant was an officer of the JNA, the armed forces of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”). The present case concerns his attempt to repossess his pre-war flat in Sarajevo.

The detailed background concerning socially owned flats, military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the 1992-95 war in Bosnia in Herzegovina is provided in Đokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, §§ 5-17, 27 May 2010 and Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05, 19724/05, 47860/06, 8367/08, 9872/09 and 11706/09, §§ 5-8, 3 May 2012.

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

In 1984 the applicant was allocated an occupancy right to a military flat in Sarajevo.

On 31 March 1992 he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act 1990 and paid the full purchase price in the amount of 710,117 Yugoslav dinars (approximately 8,354 German marks (DEM) at the time).

When the JNA formally withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina on 19 May 1992, the applicant continued his military career in the VJ forces and left Sarajevo. His military service was terminated in 1998.

On 2 February 1997 the Ministry of Defence of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina allocated the flat to H.G., a member of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

On 15 September 1998 the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in Sarajevo. On 2 March 2000 his application was rejected pursuant to section 3a of the Restitution of Flats Act 1998. On 8 December 2000 the competent Ministry of the Sarajevo Canton upheld that decision.

On 28 May 2002 the restitution commission, set up by Annex 7 to the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Dayton Peace Agreement”), before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings, held that he was neither a refugee nor a displaced person within the meaning of Annex 7 and declined jurisdiction. On 2 September 2003 the restitution commission rejected the applicant’s request for reconsideration of his claim.

On 31 July 2000 the applicant complained to the Human Rights Chamber (a domestic human-rights body set up under Annex 6 to the Dayton Peace Agreement) about the inability to repossess his pre-war flat.

On 6 June 2005 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) rejected the applicant’s complaint as regards the proceedings before the competent administrative bodies on non-exhaustion grounds (the applicant had failed to inform the Commission about the decisions of 2 March 2000 and 8 December 2000; see paragraph 10 above). The complaint concerning the decisions of the restitution commission was rejected as incompatible ratione personae. The Commission held that, in accordance with Annex 7, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (against which the applicant had addressed his appeal) could not be held responsible for the decisions of the restitution commission because it had not had jurisdiction to examine them.

On 21 November 2005 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Sarajevo Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) seeking to establish the validity of a purchase contract of 31 March 1992 and to register his title to the flat in the land register. On 2 April 2008 the Municipal Court concluded that the action had been withdrawn because the applicant had failed to attend a scheduled hearing without justification.

On 25 March 2011 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia informed the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that the applicant had not yet been allocated a military flat in Serbia, but that his right to such allocation had been established by the competent body of the Serbian Ministry of Defence.

On 22 December 1995 all purchase contracts concluded under the Military Flats Act 1990 were declared void (Zakon o preuzimanju sredstava bivše Socijalističke Federative Republike Jugoslavije u svojinu Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, Official Gazette of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 6/92, 13/94, 50/95 and 2/96). Thereafter, the legislation regulating this matter, the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997 (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo, Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 27/97, 11/98, 22/99, 27/99, 7/00, 32/01, 61/01, 15/02, 54/04, 36/06, 51/07, 72/08 and 23/09) and the Restitution of Flats Act 1998 (Zakon o prestanku primjene Zakona o napuštenim stanovima, Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 11/98, 38/98, 12/99, 18/99, 27/99, 43/99, 31/01, 56/01, 15/02, 24/03, 29/03 and 81/09), underwent numerous changes and all such contracts were declared legally valid.

Nevertheless, two categories of buyers are not entitled to repossess their flats and to register their title to them (see section 39e of the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997 and section 3a of the Restitution of Flats Act 1998). The first category concerns those who served in foreign armed forces after the 1992-95 war. The second concerns those who acquired occupancy or equivalent rights to a military flat in a successor State of the SFRY. However, they are now entitled to compensation under section 39e of the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997. Although the compensation was initially envisaged as the refund of the amount paid for the flats in 1991/92 plus interest at the rate applicable to overnight deposits, on 30 March 2012 the Constitutional Court (decision no. U 15/11) declared that method of determining the amount of compensation unconstitutional and ordered the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to amend it in line with Đokić (cited above, §§ 63 and 72).

For a more detailed analysis of the relevant domestic law and practice and of the relevant international documents, see Đokić (cited above, §§ 35-45) and Mago and Others (cited above, §§ 53-69).

D. Relevant Serbian legislation

It has no longer been possible to acquire occupancy rights in Serbia since 1992 (see section 30(1) of the Housing Act 1992, Zakon o stanovanju, Official Gazette of Serbia nos. 50/92, 76/92, 84/92, 33/93, 53/93, 67/93, 46/94, 47/94, 48/94, 44/95, 49/95, 16/97, 46/98, 26/01, 101/05 and 99/11). Instead, current and retired members of the armed forces and current and retired staff of the Ministry of Defence are now entitled to equivalent tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats or, in case of a lack of suitable flats, mortgage loans co-financed by the State on condition that they or their spouses or children do not have occupancy or equivalent rights to a flat in any of the former Republics of the SFRY (the Military Housing Ordinance 1994, Pravilnik o načinu i kriterijumima za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u Saveznom ministarstvu za odbranu i Vojsci Jugoslavije, Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nos. 30/94, 39/94 and 6/96; the Military Housing Ordinance 1995, Pravilnik o načinu i kriterijumima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u Vojsci Jugoslavije, Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nos. 5/95, 18/96, 56/96, 58/96, 42/97 and 9/00; the Military Housing Ordinance 2002, Pravilnik o načinu, kriterijumima i merilima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u Ministarstvu odbrane i Vojsci Srbije i Crne Gore, published in an internal gazette of the Ministry of Defence nos. 20/02, 36/03, 34/04 and 29/05; the Military Housing Ordinance 2005, Pravilnik o rešavanju stambenih pitanja u Ministarstvu odbrane, published in an internal gazette of the Ministry of Defence nos. 38/05, 16/08, 26/08 and 39/08; and the Military Pensioners Ordinances 1994 and 2010, Pravilnik o rešavanju stambenih potreba korisnika vojnih penzija, published in an internal gazette of the Ministry of Defence nos. 31/94, 19/95, 26/96, 1/97 and 45/08 and Pravilnik o rešavanju stambenih potreba korisnika vojnih penzija, published in an internal gazette of the Ministry of Defence no. 34/10). Therefore, those who occupied military flats in Bosnia and Herzegovina before the war have as a rule been required to give up their rights to those flats in order to qualify for a military flat or a loan in Serbia or Montenegro (see sections 6-7 and 87 of the Military Housing Ordinance 1994; sections 7-8 and 74 of the Military Pensioners Ordinance 1994; and sections 6-7 and 85 of the Military Housing Ordinance 1995).

Section 39(2) of the Housing Act 1992 provides that the holder of a tenancy right of unlimited duration in respect of a flat may purchase that flat under the same conditions as an occupancy right holder.


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

The applicant, Mr Sergey Marksovich Dudin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Parfino, Novgorod Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. V. Pakin, a lawyer practising in Velikiy Novgorod.

On 23 July 2007 the applicant was apprehended by police at the cargo terminal “Shushary” in Saint Petersburg under suspicion of robbery. Later that day he was transferred to Krestsy, Novgorod Region.

On 25 July 2007 the Krestetskiy District Court of Novgorod Region (the District Court) ordered pre-trial detention of the applicant. Subsequently the period of the applicant’s detention was extended on 20 September and 2 November 2007.

In the order of 2 November 2007 the District Court authorised extension of the applicant’s detention “until and including 24 December 2007”.

On 11 December 2007 the District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for the applicant’s trial in order to decide on his further detention. The relevant section of the operative part of the decision read as follows:

“[The court] ORDERED

To schedule a preliminary hearing in the criminal case of Mr Dudin ... on 25 December 2007 at 10.00 a.m. ...

To transfer [from the detention facility] the accused Mr Dudin for the hearing at the set date and time.

To keep the measure of Mr Dudin’s restraint – pre-trial detention – unchanged.”

On 25 December 2007 between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. the District Court held a preliminary hearing ordering the criminal case to be send to trial and the applicant’s further detention. During the hearing the applicant and his representative raised the objection regarding unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention between 24 December 2007 and the time of the hearing, but the District Court dismissed it without advancing any specific reasons in this regard. The applicant appealed.

On 21 February 2008 the Novgorod Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision. In the relevant part the Regional Court’s decision read as follows:

“Mr Dudin’s and his representative’s arguments regarding unlawfulness of the detention ... at the moment of the adoption of the decision [are unfounded] ... [T]he present criminal case was transferred to court on 11 December 2007, i.e. within the period of [the accused’s detention ordered during investigation] and according to section 2, Article 255 of the Criminal Procedure Code the period of the defendant’s detention is calculated from the date when the case was transferred to court and until the judgment is pronounced and may not exceed six months.”

On 27 May 2008 the District Court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. On 10 July 2008 the conviction was upheld on appeal by the Novgorod Regional Court and the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 23 June 2007 and the day of conviction was fully counted towards execution of his sentence.

On 2 March 2011 the applicant was released before serving his full sentence on probation.

The applicant lodged a civil action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation seeking non-pecuniary damages for his allegedly unlawful detention without a court order between 24 and 25 December 2007.

On 24 April 2008 the Novgorodskiy Town Court of Novgorod Region found that between midnight 24 December 2007 and 11.00 a.m. on 25 December 2007 the applicant’s detention was unlawful and violated his rights under Article 22 of the Russian Constitution and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant was awarded non-pecuniary damages of 2000 Russian roubles (50 euros). During the hearings the representative of the Ministry of Finance acknowledged that the applicant’s detention during the abovementioned period was not secured by a court order. The representative of the Ministry of the Interior (intervening in the proceedings) admitted that the authorisation for the detention expired on 24 December 2007. The representative of the regional Prosecutor’s Office (also intervening in the proceedings) maintained that the applicant’s detention was lawful, but stated that any detention without a court order would be unlawful.

On 11 June 2008 the Novgorod Regional Court annulled the lower court’s judgment on appeal and adopted a new judgment dismissing the applicant’s claims. The Regional Court argued that while the order of 2 November 2007 set the period of detention “until and including 24 December 2007”, the decision of 11 December 2007 to schedule a preliminary hearing to 25 December 2007 essentially ordered the detention until that date, because it left it “unchanged” (see paragraph 6 above).


Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant, Mr Goran Marčan, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Rijeka.

The applicant is a lawyer practising in Rijeka.

In the period between September 2002 and January 2004 the applicant acted as a privately-appointed defence lawyer for B.P., who was indicted in the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) on charges of abuse of power and authority and aiding and abetting the conclusion of onerous contracts.

The applicant in particular, together with another lawyer, assumed B.P.’s defence at the hearings before an investigating judge. He also lodged several appeals concerning the decisions on B.P.’s pre-trial detention and he lodged an objection against the indictment. In this period he also had a number of meetings and consultations with his client in detention.

During the trial B.P. retained the services of another lawyer, and the applicant was no longer representing him. On 18 April 2008 the Rijeka County Court acquitted B.P., and this was upheld on 16 October 2008 by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).

When acquitting B.P. the Rijeka County Court did not rule on the entirety of the costs and expenses of the proceedings, reserving its decision in respect of further possible claims.

On 26 February 2009 the applicant lodged a request with the Rijeka County Court seeking remuneration for his legal representation of B.P. during the period between September 2002 and January 2004. He relied on the 2004 Scale of Lawyers’ Fees (see paragraph 20 below) and claimed a total of 40,748 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately EUR 5,500) as his fees in the proceedings, enumerated as follows:

- HRK 7,600 for attending fifteen hearings before the investigating judge and four hearings before the three-judge panel (item 4 of the fee scale) between 9 September 2002 and 29 January 2004;

- HRK 2,800 for drafting seven appeals lodged during the proceedings (item 5 of the fee scale);

- HRK 300 for drafting an objection against the indictment (item 5 of the fee scale);

- HRK 12,000 for 104 visits and consultations with his client in detention, amounting to some 120 hours, in the period between 9 September 2002 and 4 June 2003 (item 31 of the fee scale);

- a special increase of 100 percent in respect of the complexity of the case for the first three amounts (item 37 of the fee scale); and

- 22 percent VAT.

On 4 March 2009 the Rijeka County Court awarded the applicant HRK 5,100 (approximately EUR 700) for attending the fifteen hearings before the investigating judge and drafting the appeals and objection against the indictment, and dismissed the remainder of his claim. The relevant part of the decision reads:

“... [item 48 of] the 2004 fee scale ... provides that the 1993 fee scale applies to any work carried out before the former scale entered into force...

The fee scale applicable at the investigation stage did not provide that the lawyer was entitled to VAT, this [being] covered for the first time in the 2004 fee scale. Besides, according to the applicable 1993 fee scale ... item 3 provided that for preliminary proceedings lawyers were entitled to a single defence fee for the hearing under item 4.1, plus the hourly rate for every subsequent hour worked in the amount of 10 points, while under item 50 the value of one point was HRK 8 ...

The hearings lasted a total of 28 hours and 55 minutes, and since the lawyer is entitled to a single defence fee of 40 points and the value of one point is HRK 8, the single defence fee amounts to HRK 320, while the hourly rate amounts to 280 points – 10 points per hour ... meaning that the lawyer is entitled to ... HRK 2,560 in total.

As regards the part of the lawyer’s claim [for the four hearings before the three-judge panel] it is to be noted that these were hearings before the ... first-instance court, and for such hearings the lawyer was not entitled to remuneration according to the applicable fee scale.

As regards ... the drafting of the seven appeals, the lawyer requests HRK 2,800 which is not entirely reasonable given that the value of one point at the relevant time was HRK 8, which means that the lawyer is entitled to HRK 2,240 and no VAT.

The claim of HRK 300 for drafting the objection against the indictment is reasonable, but the claim of HRK 12,000 for the meetings with his client is [not]. The lawyer is relying on item 31 of the fee scale which provides that for conferences and meetings where factual and legal matters were discussed with the client, opposing party and other participants in the client’s case, the lawyer shall be remunerated 50 points for every hour. It is clear that the lawyer did not attend any conferences where factual and legal matters were discussed ‘with the client, opposing party and other participants in the client’s case’ and the requested amount cannot be awarded to [him]. In addition, the applicable fee scale did not anticipate remuneration for every conversation [he had] with the defendant in detention ... as it is provided under the Scale of Lawyers’ Fees (Official Gazette, nos. 91/2004, 37/2005, 59/2007) and therefore he cannot be remunerated on this ground either.

As regards the lawyer’s claim under item 37 for a special increase in respect of the ‘complexity of the case’, such a claim is manifestly unreasonable ... as this particular case was not complex ...

From all the above-mentioned considerations it is to be concluded that the lawyer is entitled to HRK 5,100 but no VAT, as it was not covered in the applicable fee scale.”

On 16 March 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal with a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court. He argued that he should have been awarded a single fee for each hearing before the investigating judge and that his claim should have been calculated on the basis of HRK 10 per point. Moreover, under item 42 of the fee scale he had been entitled to a lump sum increase of 25% on his remuneration. The applicant contended that the lengthy preparation of his client’s defence in detention which, in his view, had been crucial for a successful defence, had been unaccounted for. He also pointed out that the case file consisted of more than 10,000 pages, that the proceedings had lasted for more than seven years and that the trial court itself had released a public statement characterising the case as complex. Lastly, the applicant argued that he should be awarded VAT.

On 27 January 2010 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court awarded the applicant an additional amount of HRK 1,122 (approximately EUR 150) in respect of VAT, and dismissed the remainder of his complaints. In particular, the three-judge panel explained that the applicant was not entitled to any remuneration for the visits to his client in detention under item 31 of the fee scale as it had not concerned conferences involving other participants in the proceedings. He was also not entitled to a lump sum increase of 25% as it was not clear for what ancillary actions he should be granted such an increase.

On 5 March 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske

“... when a request for remuneration of costs by a defence lawyer is not recognised, the defence rights are breached. [B.P.’s] lawyer was a lawyer of his own choosing. A person of his confidence. In order for the defence to be on equal footing with the prosecution, the defence lawyer must be remunerated for his work. ... When the accused is acquitted the costs for all actions aimed at the defence of his innocence must be remunerated. Only then are the parties to the proceedings on an equal footing. Only then is there equality before the law. A refusal to remunerate the lawyer for his fees breaches Articles 14 § 2 and 29 §§ 1 and 2 of the Constitution. A trial where the lawyer is brought into a position that the costs of his work are not recognised is not and cannot be a fair trial.

Perhaps it would be best if the lawyer would not even be there?

By not recognising the lawyer’s costs according to the fee scale, Article 27 of the Constitution is breached. If the lawyer’s right to a fair remuneration is not recognised the autonomy and independence of the legal profession is disturbed. Autonomy and independence presuppose remuneration [of work]. The legal profession cannot be autonomous and independent if the court without any reasons or arguments refuses to recognise the lawyer’s right to remuneration for his work. How can the principle of autonomy and independence [of the legal profession] be secured when the court considers that such autonomy and independence should not be remunerated. And this all [occurs] in a situation where the defendant was acquitted. ...”

On 27 May 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the ground that the contested decisions did not concern any of his civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him. The relevant part of the decision reads:

“Article 62 of [the Constitutional Court Act] reads:

‘Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court if he or she deems that the individual act of a state body ... concerning his or her rights and obligations, or a suspicion or an accusation of a criminal offence, has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms ... guaranteed by the Constitution (hereinafter “a constitutional right”).’

It follows that only a decision by which the competent court decided on the merits of a legal matter, that is to say on the rights and obligations, or a suspicion or an accusation of a criminal offence, is an individual act within the meaning of section 62 § 1 of the Constitutional Court Act, in respect of which the Constitutional Court is obliged, upon a constitutional complaint, to protect the human rights or fundamental freedoms of an appellant guaranteed under the Constitution.

In the proceedings before the Constitutional Court it was established that the impugned decisions are not individual acts within the meaning of section 62 § 1 of the Constitutional Court Act, in respect of which the Constitutional Court is obliged to provide constitutional protection.

It was therefore decided, under section 72 of the Constitutional Court Act, as noted in the operative part of this decision.”

This decision was served on the applicant on 23 June 2010.


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

The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Viktorovich Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Moscow. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. I. Trepashkin, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. O. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

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

In June 2009 the applicant, a former policeman, was committed to the Kapotnya detention centre (Следственный изолятор № 7 Капотня) on bribery charges.

The applicant was visited nine times by his lawyer before his release on 12 November 2009. During the visits, the applicant was locked inside a metal enclosure which he interchangeably called a partition or a cage, but which the Government called a partition. Two photographs of the visiting area taken by the lawyer, which were not disputed by the Government, show an empty room lit with fluorescent lights, with tiles on the floor and one wall. Against that wall stands an upright, three-sided enclosure about one and a half times a man’s height and 1 by 1.5 m at the base. Its panels are made of finger-thick iron rods crossing at right angles. Mounted on the centre panel is a door secured with a lock. There is a stool inside.

The applicant’s lawyer protested against this manner of detaining his client, but the prison guards justified their actions by saying that they were acting on the instructions of the prison governor.

Rules for prison visiting areas are regulated by the Ministry of Justice. The Regulations on Remand Prisons (Правила внутреннего распорядка следственных изоляторов уголовно-исполнительной системы, утверждены приказом Минюста РФ от 14 октября 2005 г. № 189) allow an inmate to meet his lawyer one-on-one, with no partition between them. A prison guard may supervise the meeting but may not listen to the participants (§ 145).

At the material time, Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowed for judicial review of the acts of executive authorities which impinged on individual rights (Article 254). A court also had the power to order the executive authority to remedy any breaches (Article 258).


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-e - Free assistance of interpreter) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Van.

On 30 April 2001 the applicant went to Muş prison during visiting hours to see her brother, who was being held there in connection with a case related to the PKK, an illegal armed organisation.

The staff responsible for body searches found on the applicant “close to the left side of her abdomen”, a piece of paper that had been folded several times and wrapped in tape. It was an unsigned letter dated 24 April 2001, written by a member of the PKK and addressed to another member.

The applicant was taken into police custody on the same day and questioned in Turkish by the gendarmes the following day. During the interview she stated that she had picked up the object in question in Van at the bus stop where she was waiting for the bus to Muş. She had thought that the object might have some value and had intended to remove the wrapping once she was alone.

On 1 May 2001 she gave a statement to the same effect before the public prosecutor and then before the District Court. As she was illiterate, she signed the statements with her fingerprint.

She was remanded in custody after being examined and was released on 5 July 2001.

On 27 September 2001 the State Security Court of Van acquitted the applicant, considering her version of events to be credible.

On 17 December 2001 the applicant visited her brother again in Muş prison during a religious festival. After the visit she was taken into police custody.

The police report drawn up that same day stated that the staff responsible for body searches had discovered, hidden in the lining of the applicant’s dress, a sixteen-page document consisting of rolled-up onionskin paper protected by adhesive tape. According to the report, the document contained, in particular, information about the PKK’s strategy and its activities in prisons, about the conduct to be adopted vis-à-vis the prison authorities and about prison staff.

She was questioned in Turkish by two gendarmes on 18 December 2001. The report stated that she had been reminded of her right to the assistance of a lawyer but had waived that right. As to the facts, she had stated that she had seen a wrapped object in the prison waiting room and had picked it up out of mere curiosity, placing it in her bra. She added that, during the search, the prison officers had discovered the object and had unwrapped it. She had noticed pieces of paper covered in writing. During her visit to her brother she had told him about the incident but he had not said anything about it. The gendarmes had then arrested her as she was leaving the prison.

In response to a question about her personal status, she replied that she was married to G.I. on the basis of a religious marriage, not a civil one, and that they had had five children together. Her husband had another partner with whom he had had six children.

When asked whether she worked for the PKK, she replied in the negative. She added that, on the first occasion, she had picked up the object thinking it might contain gold and that it was with the same thought in mind that she had taken the paper in the waiting room.

In response to a question about ten pieces of gold discovered on her during the search, she stated that half of them belonged to her daughter and the other half were hers.

After she had been questioned, the public prosecutor called for her to be remanded in custody. As a result she was brought before the District Court judge.

Finding that she did not speak Turkish with sufficient fluency, the judge asked a member of the applicant’s family who was waiting in the corridor outside the courtroom to act as interpreter. The relative accepted.

The applicant stated once again that she had found the document in question in the waiting room. Immediately afterwards, she claimed that this statement, and the one previously taken by the gendarmes, concerned events that had occurred seven months earlier; that no document had been discovered on her person when she last visited the prison; that she had thought the gendarmes were questioning her about earlier events; and that, not being able to read or write, she had signed the police report with her fingerprint without knowing what it said. When she was informed of the report’s content she disputed its veracity.

On 18 December 2001, after the hearing, the applicant was remanded in custody and criminal proceedings were brought against her before the State Security Court of Van for membership of an illegal armed organisation and, in the alternative, for aiding and abetting such an organisation.

At the various hearings before that court the applicant was assisted by a lawyer and an interpreter.

In the course of the proceedings, the defence disputed the prison officers’ version of events. Counsel argued that no document had been found on the applicant, adding that, according to her, a document had certainly been found on a female visitor during the search carried out on entering the premises and that person had nevertheless been authorised to visit on the grounds that it was a public holiday. The prison officers had failed to arrest her when she left the prison on account of the large number of visitors that day. Having realised that the visitor in question had evaded their control, the officers had decided to arrest the applicant instead, because they knew that a similar accusation had already been made against her. In addition, the defence stated that in her statement to the gendarmes the applicant had said that the impugned object had been found in her bra, whereas the record of the incident indicated that it had been found in the lining of her dress.

On 12 May 2002 two female prison officers were interviewed on the basis of a warrant. The first, C.A., stated that she had personally found the impugned document in the lining of the applicant’s dress during the body search. The second, F.A., confirmed this version and stated that she had been called immediately by her colleague after the discovery.

Testimony was also taken from a number of defence witnesses. Two women who were visiting the prison on the day of the incident stated that they did not know if the applicant had been searched on entering the prison. Another testified that she had entered the prison at the same time as the applicant but not had seen her being searched. One of the applicant’s brothers testified that he had arrived at the prison with her but that they had become separated during the body search before coming together again to visit their brother. In their conversation with the latter, the applicant had never mentioned any incident during her body search.

On 29 May 2002 the applicant was given a prison sentence of three years and nine months for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation. In its reasoning, the State Security Court observed that, in the first case, the applicant had claimed to have found the impugned document at a bus stop in Van, and that, in the second, she had stated during the investigation that she had found the document in the prison waiting room. It noted that the applicant had reiterated this statement to a district judge before claiming that she had been talking about the first case and that no document had in fact been found on her during the body search of 17 December 2001. The court took the view that there were some serious inconsistencies in the applicant’s explanations. It noted that if she had really believed that the questioning by the gendarmes and the district judge concerned the events of 30 April 2001 she should logically have stated that she had found the impugned document not in the waiting room of Muş prison but in Van. It concluded that the version of events given by the applicant and the defence witnesses was not credible, and it accepted the testimony of the two prison officers, which confirmed the findings in the relevant police report. The court thus found the applicant guilty as charged.

On 7 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed that judgment on a procedural ground.

On 18 April 2003 the State Security Court convicted the applicant again and handed down the same sentence. Moreover, taking into account the time she had already served, it ordered her release.

That judgment was quashed on 19 January 2004 on an appeal on points of law by the applicant. The Court of Cassation took the view that the offence with which she was charged had been incomplete and had remained at the attempt stage. It dismissed the applicant’s other grounds of appeal on points of law, including the question of the absence of an interpreter in police custody.

On 3 May 2004 the State Security Court sentenced the applicant to one year and three months’ imprisonment for attempting to aid and abet an illegal armed organisation. It adopted the same reasoning as that of its previous judgments.

On 6 June 2005 the Court of Cassation referred the case back to the first-instance court stating that, in accordance with Law no. 5252, setting out the rules and procedures for the application of the new Criminal Code which had recently entered into force, the case had to be re-examined in the light of that new code to determine whether the applicant could be granted the benefit of a more lenient provision.

On 19 September 2005 the Van Assize Court (formerly the State Security Court) convicted the applicant once again, adopting the same reasoning as that of its previous judgments, and specifying that the provisions of the former code were more lenient.

The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment, submitting in particular that she had not been assisted by an interpreter while in police custody.

Her appeal was dismissed on 31 October 2006.


Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

Following the establishment of the communist regime in Romania in 1947, the State proceeded to nationalise buildings and agricultural land on a large scale. After the fall of the communist regime, the State enacted a series of laws aimed at affording redress for breaches of property rights by the former regime (see paragraphs 43-51 below).

Laws nos. 112/1995 and 10/2001 established the principle of restitution of nationalised residential property and compensation in cases where restitution was no longer possible. Law no. 112/1995 introduced a cap on compensation, but this was subsequently abolished by Law no. 10/2001.

Law no. 247/2005 attempted to harmonise the administrative procedures for restitution of properties covered by the above-mentioned laws and by the special legislation concerning restitution of agricultural land.

On 12 October 2010, the Court adopted a pilot judgment in the case of Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (nos. 30767/05 and 33800/06, 12 October 2010), in which it singled out the deficiencies of the restitution mechanism, indicating to the respondent State under Article 46 of the Convention that new steps needed to be taken in order to process the restitution claims with more efficiency.

On 15 May 2013 Law no. 165/2013 came into force, setting out various procedures available to petitioners seeking settlement of their restitution claims.

Based on the parties’ observations and comments regarding the new remedies set out by Law no. 165/2013, on 29 April 2014 the Court found in its judgment in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 134-40, 29 April 2014), that the mechanism established by the new law offered a range of effective remedies that needed to be exhausted by those claimants whose complaints referred to one of the following situations: the existence of concurrent titles to property with respect to the same plot of agricultural land; the annulment of such title to property without any compensation; the delivery of a final judgment confirming the right to compensation in respect of the unlawful seizure by the State of any type of immovable property, without fixing the amount; the failure to pay such compensation awarded in a final judgment; and the prolonged failure to give a decision on a restitution claim.

However, the Court also held that Law no. 165/2013 did not contain any provisions of a procedural or substantive nature capable of affording redress on the matter of the existence of final judgments validating concurrent titles to property with respect to the same residential property. Furthermore, no procedure was available to former owners who, in the absence of restitution, would have been entitled to compensation but who did not to have access to it because the circumstances rendering restitution impossible had become known after the expiry of the time-limit for lodging compensation claims (ibid., § 124).

The complaints set out in the present applications reflect the circumstances described above (see paragraph 11). In particular, the applicants have alleged that their title to the property (building and appurtenant land) had been acknowledged by the domestic courts; however, owing to the sale of the property by the State, the applicants were prevented from enjoying their respective right. They claimed that this deprivation, together with the total lack of compensation for it, had imposed on them an excessive and disproportionate burden.

In 1950, under Decree no. 92, the State nationalised the building and its appurtenant land located at 22 Şoseaua Giurgiului in Bucharest, which belonged to the applicant’s predecessors.

In 1997 the applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts for restitution of the above-mentioned property, alleging that its nationalisation had been unlawful and that therefore the property right had left her predecessors’ rightful ownership only when it had been transferred to her as heritage. The claim was formulated against Bucharest City Council and B., a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State.

In its judgment of 6 June 1997 the Bucharest Fourth District Court allowed the claims and ordered that the property be returned to the applicant, in her capacity as sole heiress of its rightful owners. The court held that the immovable property had been nationalised unlawfully, since the applicant’s predecessors had not belonged to any of the social categories covered by the nationalisation decree and thus their right of property had been valid and continuous, being transferred as heritage to the applicant; the State could not therefore claim a valid title to the property.

The judgment was not appealed against and thus became final.

On 12 May 1998 the Mayor of Bucharest issued a restitution decision in respect of the immovable property located on Şoseaua Giurgiului, in compliance with the operative part of the judgment of 6 June 1997.

Under the terms of contracts entered into in accordance with Law no. 112/1995, company B., managing the building (see paragraph 14 above), had sold the flats located therein to the tenants.

The sale contract in respect of the first-floor flat was concluded on 5 November 1996 between B., representing the State, and the tenants, S.N. and S.P.

The sale contract in respect of the ground-floor flat was concluded on 23 June 1997 between B. on behalf of the State, and the tenant, S. A.-L.

On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant lodged before the domestic courts two civil actions seeking the rescission of the sale contracts of 5 November 1996 and 23 June 1997 respectively, in so far as the State had sold property which it had not owned.

The final judgment of 7 February 2002 given by the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the claim in respect of the first-floor flat, holding that the applicant did not have legal standing to ask for the rescission of the sale contract, in so far as she had not been a party thereto.

In its final judgment of 14 October 2003, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of the ground-floor flat, holding that the buyer had acted in good faith and had thus acquired a valid title to the property, in accordance with the provisions of Law no. 10/2001, which had entered into force in the meantime. The court also held that the applicant was eligible for compensatory measures pursuant to the notice of claim (notificare) lodged with the administrative authorities under Law no. 10/2001 (see paragraph 25 below).

On 12 August 2002 the applicant lodged another action before the domestic courts, seeking again the rescission of the sale contract concerning the first-floor flat. This time, however, she based her claim on the provisions of Law no. 10/2001. In its final judgment of 1 February 2006 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s claim, holding that in so far as the sale contract had been concluded by the buyers in good faith, it was in compliance with the law.

On 12 October 2001 the applicant lodged a notice of claim with the Bucharest City Hall under Law no. 10/2001, seeking reparatory measures in respect of the two flats. Several documents were appended to the application, including a copy of the judgment of 6 June 1997 and a copy of the inheritance certificate attesting to the fact that the applicant was the sole heiress of her predecessors.

On 23 and 24 April 2015 the Bucharest City Hall requested the applicant to complete her administrative file with documents related to her claim. However, the request did not reach the applicant, as the contact information mentioned in the 2001 application was no longer valid.

As far as the Court is aware, no decision has been taken in respect of this claim.

On 6 May 1977 flat no. 30, located in building A/4, Victoria Street, Piteşti – the applicants’ property – was seized by the State under Decree no. 223/1974, following the applicants’ decision to leave the country. They were not notified of the administrative decision to confiscate the property.

Between 1991 and 1995, the applicants wrote several letters to various domestic authorities, including the Piteşti City Council, the Piteşti Prefect’s Office and the director of company R., which managed the building on behalf of the State, seeking to obtain possession of the flat. The replies stated that the applicants’ claims could not be granted, as no relevant legislation had yet been enacted concerning reparatory measures in respect of previously nationalised property. In one of the replies sent by the Piteşti City Council on 1 May 1995, the applicants were informed that flats which had been nationalised under Decree 223/1974 could not be purchased by their current tenants from the local authorities.

On 9 July 1996 the applicants lodged a claim with the administrative authorities, seeking reparatory measures in respect of flat no. 30, in accordance with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995.

On 17 January 1997 company R. sold the flat to the tenants, S.C. and S.M.

On 16 May 1997 the administrative authorities dismissed the applicants’ claims lodged under Law no. 112/1995, in view of the fact that the flat had already been sold to its tenants.

On 30 August 1999 the applicants lodged before the Argeş County Court an action against Piteşti City Council, aiming to recover possession of flat no. 30. They claimed that the confiscation of the property had been unlawful, as on the one hand it had been in breach of the Constitution in force at the time, and on the other hand, they had not been notified of the administrative decision to confiscate it.

On 22 May 2000 the County Court allowed the applicants’ claims. The defendant appealed. On 23 March 2001 the Piteşti Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because no statement of appeal had been submitted. The decision thus became final.

On 19 September 2002 the applicants, assisted by a bailiff, recovered possession of flat no. 30; the relevant minutes mentioned that the flat was empty and unfurnished.

On 1 October 2002 S.C. and S.M. challenged the enforcement of the judgment of 22 May 2000 (see paragraph 34 above). They claimed to be the rightful owners of flat no. 30, having bought it in good faith in 1997; furthermore, in so far as they had not been parties to the proceedings terminated by the outstanding judgment of 22 May 2000, they were not bound by it (inopozabilă).

By a final judgment of 25 June 2003, the Piteşti Court of Appeal allowed the claims of S.C. and S.M. In its reasoning, the court essentially held that the sale contract had been validly and lawfully concluded by the tenants, who had acted in good faith at the time of the sale. Moreover, the judgment of 22 May 2000 awarding the applicants title to the property was unenforceable (inopozabilă) against the buyers, because they had not been parties to the respective proceedings.

On 22 November 2006 the applicants lodged an action against S.C. and S.M. seeking to recover possession of flat no. 30 and urging the courts to find the sale contract unlawful. Their claims were allowed by the Piteşti District Court on 23 January 2008.

An appeal lodged by the defendants was allowed by the Argeş County Court on 16 June 2008. The court considered that the sale of the flat had been lawful. At the same time, it held that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the flat, equivalent to its market value at the date of payment.

The applicants have not lodged any claims under Law no. 10/2001.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Poltava.

On 16 September 2004 the applicant, who at that time was undergoing inpatient medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital, was arrested in connection with an offence of fraud.

On 6 October 2006 the Kyivskiy District Court of Poltava found the applicant guilty of having committed fraud as part of a group, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.

On 14 September 2007 and 20 January 2009 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine respectively upheld that judgment.

From 4 October 2004 to 2 October 2007 the applicant was detained in Poltava Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 23 (“the SIZO”).

During his detention in the SIZO in Poltava, the applicant was held in various cells of the same type. Each cell measured 7 sq. m. and was occupied by three to four people. The window was covered by a metal shield and metal bars, preventing daylight and fresh air from reaching the cell. There was no ventilation in the cell, and most of the detainees were smokers. In the summer it was extremely hot, and this forced everyone to wear very little clothing, and during the winter it was very cold. The light in the cell was very poor, with only an electric bulb of 25-40W positioned above the front door. It was always switched on. A centrally operated radio loudspeaker was constantly on from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., playing loud and unvaried music. Detainees had no access to television or newspapers.

The cells had poor sanitary conditions and were infested with rats, mice, bedbugs, lice, spiders and cockroaches. They were very damp and the walls were covered with mould and stained with smoke. The toilet was not separated from the living area, had no flush, and emitted a foul smell that lingered in the air. Detainees were forced to eat their meals in close proximity to the toilet. No toiletries, apart from soap, were distributed to them. Bed linen was issued once and for the whole period of detention, which was three years in the applicant’s case. His mattress was dirty and torn. The food was of poor quality, often made from products which had spoiled, and was unvaried. It smelled bad. No meat, fresh fruit or vegetables were provided. Detainees were allowed to take a shower once every seven to ten days, or even once a fortnight, and then only for ten to fifteen minutes. In order to get to the shower area or investigation rooms, or to be transferred to court, detainees had to pass through an underground tunnel which had poor lighting and was flooded with sewage. The shower was dirty and the water flow could not be adjusted. The floor was flooded with dirty water, as the drainage system did not work properly. The hairdresser at the SIZO used the same hair clippers on all of the detainees, without disinfecting them. Only one pair of scissors was available for cutting their nails, and these were also not disinfected. The applicant’s cellmates were often suffering from tuberculosis, hepatitis, and scabies, or were HIV-positive.

Outside walks were at the discretion of the SIZO authorities. Sometimes they took place every other day, and sometimes they took place once a week.

On 9 June 2006 the applicant slit his wrists in protest against the conditions of detention.

From 19 to 26 April 2007 the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell. The cell had a concrete floor and was flooded with cold water in order to make him suffer more. As a result, he got a fever and had to spend a week at the SIZO’s medical unit. No food or hot water was provided.

On unspecified occasions in 2007 the applicant was taken to court for hearings or to examine his case file. On each occasion his journey took a whole day. He did not receive any food or water during the trips. He was transported in a prison van, which was originally designed to carry a maximum of ten passengers, but which actually contained fifteen to eighteen detainees whose hands were handcuffed behind their backs. Before being placed in the van, the detainees were held in a small, airless and smoky preliminary reception cell. Upon returning to the detention facility, the detainees had to wait for a long time in the van before being transferred to the preliminary reception cell, where they also had to wait to be escorted to their cells. It was very cold in the prison van in winter and hot in summer. During the court hearings the applicant was not taken to the toilet. He had to take an empty plastic bottle with him so that he could relieve himself during hearing breaks.

To support his application, the applicant submitted, inter alia, photos showing the poor sanitary conditions of different cells he claimed to be cells in the SIZO. He also presented written statements from his cellmates.

The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the SIZO had been adequate, mainly referring to the statutory regulations on detention. They argued that the applicant had been held in seventeen cells of the same type during his detention in the SIZO, and it was unclear which of them he was referring to in his complaint to the Court. The Government provided no details as to the exact size of the cells, but stated that an inspection carried out at some point after the complaint had been communicated to the Government had determined that each cell in the SIZO allowed each detainee at least 2.5 sq. m of personal space, which was in compliance with the relevant domestic standards. A toilet was located in the corner of each cell, separated from the living area by fixed partitions. The windows were protected by metal bars, and allowed daylight and fresh air to reach the cells. All cells were equipped with artificial ventilation and lighting, as well as a radio. The food the applicant received met the standards set by domestic law, and he was provided with bedding in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The Government further denied that there had been rats and insects in the cells, as three times a year thorough measures against rats were implemented and the entire SIZO facility was disinfected. The statutory regulations also provided that the SIZO detainees had weekly access to bathing facilities. The conditions of those facilities were appropriate. Toiletries were available at the SIZO shop, which the applicant was free to use. The applicant’s right to a one-hour daily walk was never breached.

The Government could not provide any information about the dates and conditions of the applicant’s transport to and from the court hearings, because the time-limit for keeping the relevant documents had expired and the records had been destroyed. However, they provided a description of the general transport arrangements and advised that prison vans had been in use in 2004-2007. The vans were designed to accommodate twenty-one people in three compartments (two larger ones and one designed for single occupancy). The vans had no windows, but they were equipped with ventilation grills and had metal bars integrated in the lower and upper part of the vehicle door. The Government further submitted that, on average, it took up to ten minutes to transport detainees from the SIZO to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Poltava (a distance of 7 km), and about twenty minutes to transport them to the Kyivskiy District Court of Poltava (a distance of 10 km). The latter court was not equipped with a room for defendants, and the detainees were therefore held in the courtroom. They were able to use public toilets. At the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Poltava the detainees were kept in the rooms for defendants, which were equipped with all the necessary sanitary facilities.

From 2 October 2007 to 22 September 2009 the applicant was serving his sentence in Kremenchuk Correctional Colony no. 69 (“the prison”).

Upon his arrival, the applicant was put in the admission ward (карантин) for fourteen days. The cell measured 13 sq. m and accommodated ten to twelve prisoners. Some of them were suffering from HIV and tuberculosis. There was no daylight in the cell, as the only small window was covered with metal bars, and a grid was attached to it from the outside. The artificial light in the cell was very poor, and there was only an electric bulb of 40W. It was always switched on. There was no natural or artificial ventilation in the cell. The toilet was not separated from the living area, had no flush, and emitted a foul smell that lingered in the air. The cell was infested with rats, mice and cockroaches. Outside walks did not take place on a daily basis, but at the discretion of the prison authorities, and lasted about twenty to thirty minutes.

During his time in the prison, the applicant was placed in the admission ward four times, each time for fourteen days.

The applicant was placed in disciplinary cells three times: from 17 to 22 January 2009, from 2 to 17 March 2009, and from 25 March to 26 June 2009, and on some occasions with people who were suffering from tuberculosis. The cells were dark, damp and cold. The toilet had no flush and emitted a smell. Outside walks lasted about twenty to thirty minutes and took place in very small yards on and under the prison roof, and were allowed to take place three times per week. Once per week the applicant had access to a shower. There was no hot water in the shower and the floor was flooded with dirty cold water. No visits or exchanges of correspondence were allowed. The applicant’s plank bed was chained to the wall from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m., so he had to stand during this time, although this went against his medical prescription. There was no chair in the cell and his walking stick was taken away.

The applicant spent the remainder of his sentence in the sociopsychological unit of the prison (unit no. 5) in the following conditions.

His cell measured 120 sq. m and accommodated seventy to eighty prisoners. Many of them were HIV-positive, suffering from tuberculosis, hepatitis and fungal diseases. The cell was dirty and infested with parasitic insects. The light in the cell was very poor, with eight electric bulbs of 40W, half of which did not work. The artificial ventilation in the cell did not work, and most of the prisoners were smokers. In summer it was extremely hot in the cell and during the winter it was very cold. The prisoners had to cook their food using an open flame, because of power cuts in the unit from 7.30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

No disinfection products were available, and all cellmates shared water containers, scissors and a needle. Shower, toilets and dining rooms were also in an unhygienic state. The toilets had no flush and emitted a foul smell. The food was of poor quality and was often made from products which had spoiled.

Prisoners could use the showers once a week. The bathroom was equipped with fifteen shower taps and it was not possible to adjust the water flow or temperature. 120-150 prisoners had only one hour to complete the whole process, including getting to the bathroom, which was 700 metres away from the cell. Thus, ten prisoners had to share one shower tap at the same time. The floor was flooded with dirty water, as the drainage system did not work properly. The hairdresser at the prison used the same hair clippers on all the prisoners, and these were not disinfected.

To support his allegations, the applicant submitted photos which he claimed were of a disciplinary cell and the exercise yards of the prison. He also referred to interviews former prisoners had given to newspapers, in which they provided, inter alia, a similar description of their detention conditions, including the disciplinary cells. In order to support this part of his application, the applicant also made reference to a complaint to an MP by his former cellmate, who was HIV-positive, and to the newspaper articles mentioned above, which contained interviews with other prisoners. Lastly, he relied on a report by the Ombudsman regarding the general unsatisfactory detention conditions of prisons in Ukraine.

The Government referred to the statutory regulations governing detention in particular types of cells, and submitted the following.

The quarantine cell at the prison measured 27 sq. m and could accommodate up to twelve prisoners. It had two windows, which were not covered with metal bars and could be opened at any time. Four artificial ventilation channels were also available. The artificial light in the cell was ensured with two electric bulbs of 100W and one of 40W. The cell was disinfected on a daily basis and measures against rats were implemented no less than twice a year. The duration of daily outside walks was not less than two hours.

The isolation unit consisted of eight disciplinary cells, two of which were for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis. The concrete floor of all the isolation wards was covered with wooden planks. An appropriate temperature in the cells was ensured by radiators, and daily outside walks lasted not less than an hour.

Each prisoner in unit no. 5 had about 2.2 sq. m of living space. The number of beds corresponded to the number of prisoners, and two prisoners shared one bedside table. HIV-positive prisoners, as well as those suffering from tuberculosis, were held separately from healthy prisoners. The unit had four windows, which could be opened to let in fresh air; artificial ventilation was also available. Artificial light in the cell was ensured with eight electric bulbs of 100W and two of 40W, and the temperature in the unit was never lower than 18˚C. Smoking was only allowed in smoking areas, and those who breached the rules faced administrative punishment. The Government denied the applicant’s allegations that there had been power cuts and that the prisoners had had to use an open flame to prepare their food. In this respect, they argued that cooking in the unit had been prohibited by law.

Prisoners were provided with soap and could buy other necessary toiletries, such as toilet paper, toothbrushes and toothpaste, at the prison shop, as the relevant regulations made no provision for these items to be provided by the State. Prisoners had access to bathing facilities once a week, and could use the services of a hairdresser. The hairdresser’s tools were disinfected. The quality and quantity of the food corresponded to the domestic standards, and no cases of poisoning had been registered.

In 1996 and 1998 the applicant sustained head injuries, and in 2004 he suffered spinal trauma. As a result, he experienced neurological dysfunction and his eyesight deteriorated. When arrested, the applicant was undergoing inpatient medical treatment for his health problems at a psychiatric hospital.

On 5 October 2004, upon his arrival at the SIZO, the applicant underwent an initial medical examination by a general practitioner, a psychiatrist, a dentist, a dermatovenereologist, and a tuberculosis specialist. He also had an X-ray. No particular health problems were noted.

According to the applicant, from January 2006 onwards he started experiencing severe pain in his back and legs, and he sought assistance from the medical unit at the SIZO.

On 22 February 2006 the applicant was examined by a neurologist from Poltava Hospital no. 1. The applicant’s mother arranged the appointment with the neurologist, as the SIZO did not have the relevant medical specialist. He was diagnosed with severe after-effects of closed head injuries (in 1996 and 1998), stomping gait syndrome, post-traumatic spinal osteochondrosis, and vertebrogenic left-side polyradiculitis, and was prescribed treatment (нейровітан, тіоцетам).

On 23 February 2006 the applicant had an X-ray of his spine and was diagnosed with post-traumatic osteochondrosis and spondylarthrosis deformans.

On 10 March 2006, following an X-ray, the applicant was diagnosed with early arthrosis of the left knee.

On unspecified dates in March 2006 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment at the SIZO medical unit on account of his neurological problems and vegetative-vascular dystonia, chronic gastroduodenitis, myopia, and arthrosis of the left knee.

On 26 March 2006 the applicant was registered with a psychiatrist as a result of his going on hunger strike (from 26 March to 12 October 2006) and self-harming (9 June 2006), and he was regularly examined by the psychiatrist.

On 13 April 2006 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner at the SIZO.

On 15 April 2006 the applicant had an X-ray and was diagnosed as having ribs which were too close together.

On 12 October 2006 the applicant was examined by the head of the neurological department of the hospital located at prison no. 100. He was diagnosed with osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine, right-sided lumbodynia, radicular pain syndrome, the after-effects of head injuries, asthenoneurotic syndrome, and toxic polyneuropathy. He was prescribed treatment (пентоксифілін, піроксікам, нейровітан).

On 27 October 2006 the applicant had an X-ray of his chest and was found to be healthy

On 1 November 2006 the applicant was given a walking stick.

Between 20 February and July 2007 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist, a surgeon and a general practitioner. They confirmed the earlier diagnosis relating to the problems with his spine.

On 26 July 2007 the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and was found to be healthy.

On 6 September 2007 the applicant was examined by a neurologist from Poltava Hospital no. 1. His mother had arranged the appointment. The neurologist confirmed the diagnosis of 22 February 2006 and prescribed treatment (діклак, нейровітан).

After his transfer to the prison on 2 October 2007, the applicant had a medical examination which confirmed the previous diagnosis. He was advised to undergo inpatient treatment at the neurological department of the hospital at prison no. 100. He stayed at the hospital from 6 to 27 November 2007 and from 12 to 26 February 2008.

On 22 February 2008 the applicant was classified as having group III disability status (group III being the least severe category). He was expected to remain in this category for one year.

On 27 February 2008 the applicant was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C.

On 11 March 2008 the applicant decided to have an HIV test. According to the results of this test dated 26 March 2008, the applicant had HIV antibodies. He was also diagnosed with persistent generalised lymphadenopathy and registered as an HIV-positive person.

On 10 April 2008 the applicant had an X-ray of his chest and was found to be healthy.

On 12 June 2008 the prison authorities informed the applicant about the results of the HIV test. According to the applicant, the authorities tried to conceal the situation, and he lodged a number of complaints in order to find out about the test results.

In July and August 2008 the applicant complained to different authorities that, despite his requests, no further measures had been taken to specify his diagnosis and provide him with the relevant medical treatment.

On 21 August 2008 the applicant was examined by an infectious disease specialist. He was diagnosed with clinical stage 2 HIV and persistent generalised lymphadenopathy. It was decided that he should be transferred to the hospital at Daryivska Correctional Colony no. 10 in the Kherson Region, which specialised in HIV treatment (“the HIV Treatment Facility”), in order to decide whether he had to have antiretroviral therapy (ART). The applicant was further prescribed a CD4 cell count at Poltava City Aids Prevention and Control Centre (“the AIDS Centre”) on 8 October 2008. The Court has not been informed of the results of that test, if any exist.

From 14 October to 13 November 2008 the applicant had a medical examination at the HIV Treatment Facility.

On 1 February 2009 the applicant was diagnosed with a chronic duodenal ulcer at an acute stage.

On 27 February 2009 he was further diagnosed with HIV, chronic compensated hepatitis, a chronic duodenal ulcer in remission, chronic cholecystitis and pancreatitis in remission, and the after-effects of closed head injuries.

On 25 March 2009 the applicant was rediagnosed with clinical stage 1 HIV.

On 3 April 2009 the applicant was examined by a neurologist, who confirmed the earlier diagnosis.

From 27 June 2009 until an unspecified date the applicant had medical treatment at the HIV Treatment Facility on account of his clinical stage 2 HIV, onychomycosis of the feet, vertebrogenic radiculopathy in unstable remission, toxic polyneuropathy, slight myoparesis of the feet, tardive after-effects of closed head injuries, chronic viral hepatitis B in remission and duodenal ulcer in remission.

On 8 July 2009 the applicant was reclassified as having group III disability status for another year, on account of the diagnosis relating to his central nervous system.

On 20 July 2009 the applicant was rediagnosed with clinical stage 2 HIV and onychomycosis of the feet.

On 20 August 2009 the applicant was diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer in remission and chronic hepatitis in remission.

On 22 September 2009, upon being released from the prison, the applicant was declared to be in a satisfactory state of health. He was advised to register with an infectious disease specialist based near his home.

In September 2009 the applicant consulted a neuropathologist, a surgeon and an eye specialist. He was diagnosed with second-degree discirculatory encephalopathy, vestibular-atactic and cephalic syndromes, spinal osteochondrosis, radiculopathy with slight paresis of the right foot, stage 1-2 arthrosis of the knee, hyperopia, phacosclerosis, retinal angiopathy and amblyopia of both eyes.

On 15 October 2009 the applicant was also diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B, a chronic duodenal ulcer in unstable remission, chronic bronchitis and cardiosclerosis.

In November 2009 the applicant had a CD4 cell count, the result of which was 761 cells. On 14 December 2009, at the AIDS Centre, the applicant was diagnosed with clinical stage 2 HIV, recurrent infections of the lower respiratory airways, tuberculosis, chronic viral hepatitis C and a chronic inflammation of the gallbladder. Following this examination, the applicant received unspecified medical assistance at the AIDS Centre and was advised to go before a medical commission which could decide on his assignment to a disability group.

On 13 January 2010 the applicant was classified as having group II disability status. On 31 January 2013 he was confirmed as having this status.

Referring to, inter alia, the medical evidence he had submitted to the Court, the applicant alleged that his health had seriously deteriorated while he was in detention, in particular owing to the poor conditions of his detention, combined with the absence of medical care.

The Government stated that the medical assistance provided to the applicant throughout his detention had been adequate. They provided no medical evidence in this regard, mainly referring to the fact that the SIZO registers for the relevant years on medical assistance provided to detainees by the SIZO medical specialists had been destroyed because the time-limit for keeping those documents had expired.

At the same time, the Government provided some factual information regarding some of the applicant’s medical examinations in both detention facilities. These submissions appear to be based on the information contained in a reply to the applicant’s complaint regarding the lack of medical treatment in prison, which was given by a prosecutor in 2008. The Government asserted that the relevant medical documents had been studied by prosecutors during their inquiries into the applicant’s complaints regarding the lack of medical assistance, and no proof had been found.


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Hertfordshire.

The applicant has a son, S., who was born in April 2000. The applicant was not married to the child’s mother, G., and the relationship ended a few months after S.’s birth. After the separation, S. continued to live with G. and the applicant maintained contact with him. On 17 August 2003 G. stopped the applicant’s contact with S.

In October 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings before Alloa Sheriff Court seeking parental rights and responsibilities and residence or, alternatively, residential contact.

In early July 2004 the applicant and G. agreed that the S. should reside with G. and that the applicant should have contact. The agreement was set out in a joint minute of agreement, on the basis of which the Sheriff Court, in an interlocutor dated 7 July 2004, granted the applicant parental rights and responsibilities in respect of S.; found that the applicant was entitled to residential and non-residential contact with S. on a basis and on dates specified in the interlocutor; and held that G. was to consult with the applicant when making decisions of importance with respect to the health, welfare, education and upbringing of S. The interlocutor did not provide for the dates upon which the regular contact was to begin or when during each four-week period it was to occur. It also failed to take into account pre-arranged holidays.

Because of the ambiguity in the interlocutor, the relationship between the applicant and G. quickly deteriorated. On 17 December 2004 the applicant lodged two minutes at the Sheriff Court: one to vary the July 2004 interlocutor by seeking a residence order in respect of S.; the other seeking a finding that G. was in contempt of court for breaching the July 2004 interlocutor. A curator ad litem was appointed by the Sheriff to represent S.’s interests.

The applicant was granted legal aid and was represented before the Sheriff Court by Mr Halley (counsel). The instructing solicitors were Jardine Donaldson.

Following a number of procedural hearings, a substantive hearing began on 9 September 2008 and concluded on 2 November 2009, after fifty-two non-consecutive court days.

The Sheriff’s decision on the application to vary the July 2004 interlocutor was issued on 22 January 2010. He considered that having regard to S.’s age, the history of the case and the influences at work on S., he would derive no benefit from contact in such circumstances. The Sheriff therefore concluded that there had been a material change in circumstances since the interlocutor of 7 July 2004; that it was in S.’s best interests that he did not have contact with his father; and that the interlocutor of 7 July 2004 required to be recalled.

The applicant appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session. He contested the Sheriff’s decision and complained, inter alia, that the action had not been concluded within a reasonable time.

The applicant was granted legal aid to pursue his appeal. He was represented before the Inner House by Mr Andrew Smith QC and Mr Halley (counsel). The instructing solicitors were Drummond Miller LLP, for Jardine Donaldson.

The Inner House delivered its judgment on 22 October 2010. It did not uphold the applicant’s appeal. However, it varied the January 2010 interlocutor to make it clear that it in turn only varied the July 2004 interlocutor in respect of contact but did not make any change to the finding that the applicant enjoyed parental rights and that he had to be consulted on matters concerning S.’s health, welfare, education and upbringing.

In November 2010 a note was prepared by counsel supporting an application for legal aid to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court. On 2 December 2010 a full application for legal aid was submitted to the Scottish Legal Aid Board, with counsel’s note in support. Shortly afterwards an appeal to the Supreme Court was lodged and the appeal process was suspended pending the determination of the legal aid application.

The curator ad litem objected to legal aid being granted to the applicant. The applicant responded to the observations of the curator ad litem.

By January 2011 the legal aid application had not yet been determined. The applicant expressed concern about the delay and the impact it would have on his chances of contact being re-established with S. He was told that there would be no meeting of the committee charged with making the legal aid decision until 7 March 2011.

On 5 April 2011 the Scottish Legal Aid Board intimated its refusal of legal aid to the applicant. On 6 April 2011 the applicant lodged an application for internal review.

On 5 July 2011, after reconsideration, the Board again refused legal aid. It found that there was no substantive issue of law arising to merit an appeal and that no practical benefit to the applicant could ensue.

On 22 July 2011 the applicant’s counsel and solicitors considered commencing judicial review proceedings in respect of the refusal to grant legal aid. It was decided on the applicant’s behalf that, as the delay involved in judicial review was likely to be extensive and given that legal aid for judicial review proceedings would almost certainly not be granted, no judicial review proceedings would be commenced. Counsel and the solicitors were not prepared to act pro bono in judicial review proceedings since the prospects of success would be low. However, they agreed to act pro bono in pursuing the appeal before the Supreme Court without legal aid. The Supreme Court waived its fees in respect of the appeal.

The applicant was represented before the Supreme Court by Mr Andrew Smith QC and Mr Halley. The instructing solicitors were Jardine Donaldson.

On 23 May 2012 the court handed down its judgment. It refused to uphold the applicant’s appeal.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Positive obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Petroşani.

She married N.C. in 1979 and they had four children, born in 1980, 1988, 1992 and 1999. According to the applicant, N.C. was violent towards her and their children on numerous occasions throughout their marriage. In 2007, assaults against the applicant intensified during their divorce proceedings. The divorce was finalised on 6 December 2008.

On 24 June and 3 September 2007 the applicant was physically assaulted and threatened by her husband.

According to a forensic medical certificate issued on 28 June 2007, the applicant had numerous bruises on her face, arms, back and thorax, which required five to six days of medical care. A second forensic medical certificate, issued on 6 September 2007, stated that the applicant had an excoriation (scratches) on her ear lobe and several bruises on her arm and thighs. It was possible the injuries had been caused on 3 September. They required two to three days of medical care.

On 8 September 2007 the applicant was again physically assaulted by her husband. After the arrival of the police, she was taken to hospital by ambulance. She was diagnosed with an open facial trauma and a contusion of the nasal pyramid. According to a forensic medical certificate issued on 13 September 2007, the injuries might have been caused by impact with or on a hard object and required nine to ten days of medical care.

In their duty reports for the above dates, the police officers called by the applicant noted that she had been injured in a domestic dispute and that they had informed her that she could lodge formal complaints against N.C. In the report drafted on 24 June 2007, the police officer on duty also mentioned that when he had arrived at the scene of the incident he had found that N.C. had locked the applicant out of their joint residence.

On 3 August and 2 October 2007 the applicant lodged complaints with the prosecutor’s office attached to the Petroşani District Court, alleging that she had been physically assaulted by her husband in their home, in the presence of their children, on 24 June, and 3 and 8 September 2007. She attached copies of the medical certificates drawn up after the incidents.

On 28 August 2007 the applicant also sent a letter to the Hunedoara County police chief, in which she alleged that she had been the victim of repeated acts of violence by her husband, who often assaulted her in the presence of their children. She mentioned that on several occasions he had locked her out of their home and asked for help from the police in solving these problems.

On 11 September 2007 the applicant gave a detailed statement describing the three assaults to the policeman in charge with the investigation. She stated that on 24 June 2007 her husband had come home around noon and had started punching her in the face and head and threatened to kill her. She had managed to flee, but when she had returned an hour later her husband had refused to let her back into the apartment. She also mentioned that he had told the children not to speak about it.

In statements dated 12 September 2007, the applicant’s mother and brother told the police that throughout 2007 the applicant had very often come to their house, complaining that N.C. had beaten her, threatened to kill her or that he had locked her out of their apartment.

On 15 November 2007 the applicant’s and N.C.’s adult daughters, C.B.A. and C.C.A., told the police that the applicant used to drink and that she became aggressive when she got drunk. They also stated that their father had not hit their mother. C.C.A. mentioned that although she earned her own living, her father had always given her money. Her mother, on the other, had constantly been short of money and had debts to banks.

On 19 November 2007 N.C. was questioned by the police. He stated that he had argued with the applicant over their divorce, but had not laid a hand on her. He added that the applicant had not been cleaning the house properly and had a drinking problem. He also stated that “I did not hit her so hard as to cause her injury” and that “she may have fallen in the bathroom”. He alleged that the medical certificates submitted by the applicant had been forged.

On 13 and 19 December 2007 the applicant wrote to the head prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Petroşani District Court, complaining that N.C., who had moved out of their apartment and had taken two of the children with him, had threatened to kill her when they had accidentally met on the street a week before. She stated that she feared for her life and asked for the proceedings to be speeded up and for protection from N.C.

On the same date, the prosecutor’s office attached to the Petroşani District Court decided not to press criminal charges against N.C. and imposed an administrative fine of 200 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 50 euros (EUR)) on him. The prosecutor held that the applicant had provoked the disputes after drinking alcohol and referred to N.C.’s statements and those of the applicant’s two adult daughters. As regards the alleged threats, it was considered that the applicant had failed to prove her accusations.

The prosecutor concluded that, although N.C. had committed the crime of bodily harm, his actions had not created any danger to society, because he had been provoked by the victim, had no previous criminal record and was a retired person (pensionar).

The applicant’s complaint against that decision was rejected as illfounded on 25 March 2008 by the superior prosecutor.

On 21 April 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint against the prosecutors’ decisions of 19 December 2007 and 25 March 2008 with the Petroşani District Court, asking that N.C. be charged with bodily harm, be convicted and ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages for the suffering she had endured. She alleged that the administrative fine, which N.C. had refused to pay, had not had a deterrent effect on him as he had continued to assault her after the prosecutor’s decision of 19 December 2007. She also asked the court to impose criminal sanctions on him and requested permission to submit a recording of a conversation with N.C. in order to prove that she had been assaulted and threatened by him in September 2007. In the last paragraph of her submission, the applicant stated that she feared for her life and asked the court to “punish [N.C.] as provided for by law ... to forbid him from entering the apartment ... and to forbid him from coming near [her] ...”.

At the second hearing before the Petrosani District Court, the applicant applied to be given a court-appointed lawyer because she did not have the financial means to hire one. The court dismissed the application, holding that the subject matter of the case did not require representation by a lawyer.

By an interlocutory judgment of 23 June 2008, the Petrosani District Court decided to partially quash the prosecutor’s decision of 19 December 2007 in respect of the crime of bodily harm and the penalty imposed for it and to examine that part of the case on the merits. The prosecutor’s findings in respect of the threats were upheld. The recording was not admitted as evidence because the court considered that it had no relevance to the case.

The applicant and N.C. gave statements before the court. N.C. explained that on 8 September 2007 the applicant had been drunk and had threatened him with a knife. In order to defend himself, he had pushed her but he denied having ever hit the applicant.

On 10 February 2009 the court heard a statement from the applicant’s daughter, C.B.A., who testified as follows:

“My father used to hit my mother [the applicant] and us, the children, many times. He used to do it when he had not come home at night and my mother asked him where he had been. Then he would get angry and hit her. The main reason he got angry was lack of money ... Even after July 2007, when I moved out of my parents’ apartment, my mother continued to be hit by my father; I saw some of these incidents personally. Before 2007, my mother used to drink alcohol, but it was within normal limits, and in 2007 she stopped drinking.

I retract the statement I gave during the criminal proceedings because I gave it after threats from my father.”

On 17 February 2009 the Petroşani District Court decided to acquit N.C. of the crime of bodily harm. The court considered that C.B.A.’s statement could not be taken into consideration, without mentioning any reasons for that decision. The court concluded as follows:

“The injured party [the applicant] has not proved her allegations that on 24.06.2007, 3.09.2007 and 8.09.2007 ... she was physically assaulted by the defendant. The court considers, also in view of the evidence collected during the criminal investigation, that such assaults by the defendant took place principally because of the injured party’s alcohol consumption and because she was not taking adequate care of her four children. The defendant’s acts are not so dangerous to society as to be considered crimes and he shall therefore be acquitted of the three counts of bodily harm and shall pay an administrative fine of RON 500.”

The court further dismissed the applicant’s claims for damages as ill-founded, without giving reasons. No mention was made in the judgment of the applicant’s request for protective measures made in her complaint of 21 April 2008 (see paragraph 21 above).

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against that judgment. She alleged, among other arguments, that N.C. was a violent person who continued to assault her, even after being punished with an administrative fine by the prosecutor on 19 December 2007.

On 12 May 2009 the Hunedoara County Court dismissed as illfounded the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the decision of 17 February 2009. The court held that the acts of violence committed by N.C. had been provoked by the applicant and had therefore not reached the level of severity required for them to fall within the scope of the crime of bodily harm. For the same reason, an award for damages was not justified.

Between 19 February and 21 April 2008 the applicant made five complaints to the Petroşani police concerning new incidents of assault or threats by N.C. to which she attached medical reports.

In the meantime, on 27 March 2008, the applicant asked the Hunedoara County police to apply the measures provided by law in order to stop the constant assaults she was being subjected to by N.C. She stressed that she felt that her life was in danger. A similar request was sent by the applicant to the police on 11 April 2008.

On 29 September 2008 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Petroşani District Court decided not to press charges against N.C. for the five incidents described by the applicant. He was however punished with an administrative fine of RON 100 (approximately EUR 25).

The applicant’s letter of 27 March 2008, requesting the police to take the necessary measures in order to stop the constant assaults against her, was not taken into consideration. The prosecutor found that it could not be considered a formal complaint because, unlike the other complaints, it did not refer to a specific assault.

The applicant did not lodge any further complaints against the above-mentioned decision.


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

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

The applicant, a medical doctor by profession, was born in 1967. She currently lives in Celje, Slovenia, having lived in Šabac, Serbia, at the material time.

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

On 2 September 1997 the applicant and her neighbour P.V. confronted each other in front of their houses following a verbal conflict between P.V. and the applicant’s mother. While the applicant allegedly shouted obscenities at him, P.V. allegedly punched her in the face, causing her to fall down and lose consciousness. The medical records from the emergency ward showed that the applicant had sustained a number of injuries to her head. She was released from hospital the next day upon her own request.

On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint (krivičnu prijavu) in respect of this event.

On 16 September 1997 P.V. and his wife brought a private criminal action (privatnu krivičnu tužbu) against the applicant for insult and defamation (zbog uvrede i klevete) and against both the applicant and her mother for making serious threats (zbog ugrožavanja sigurnosti).

On 2 March 1998 the Šabac Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment (optužnicu) against P.V. with the Šabac Municipal Court for the crime of severe bodily injuries (zbog nanošenja teških telesnih povreda).

On 20 March 1998 the Municipal Court joined the two sets of proceedings.

At some point in 2000 the applicant lodged a civil compensation claim within the criminal proceedings (istakla imovinsko-pravni zahtev).

Between 14 April 1998 and 31 May 2000 a total of thirteen hearings were held or adjourned.

At the hearing of 11 January 2000 a medical expert stated that, based on the available documentation, on 2 September 1997 the applicant had sustained a concussion as well as a contusion. She had also continued receiving medical treatment for another two months.

On 15 June 2000 the Municipal Court convicted both the applicant and P.V. as charged and sentenced them to a fine and four months imprisonment, respectively, both sentences suspended for a period of one year. The court instructed the applicant to pursue her civil claim in a separate civil suit. The applicant’s mother was acquitted.

On 20 June 2001 the Šabac District Court quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial, but upheld the acquittal.

On 12 January 2004 a new hearing was scheduled for 25 February 2004.

On 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time-barred, while the proceedings against P.V. continued.

On 2 April 2004 the main hearing started anew due to changes to the composition of the bench. Following the applicant’s testimony, the proceedings were adjourned for an indefinite period, as the Municipal Court had to obtain certain missing medical documentation.

At the next hearing of 18 May 2005, the Municipal Court heard P.V., as well as three witnesses. The court further decided to request the Belgrade Forensic Medicine Institute to give its opinion as regards the applicant’s bodily injuries allegedly sustained at the material time. No new hearing was scheduled.

On 19 December 2005 the Municipal Court received the relevant medical opinion dated 16 September 2005. The opinion stated that the attack had caused the applicant severe bodily injuries (loss of consciousness, a concussion and a contusion of the zygomatic bone).

On an unspecified date the Municipal Court scheduled the next hearing for 22 May 2007. This hearing, however, was further adjourned on two separate occasions, because of P.V.’s or the trial judges’ absence.

On 11 July 2007 the Municipal Court dismissed proposals for the examination of additional witnesses. On the same occasion the defendant requested that the entire trial bench be replaced by another. The case-file was subsequently forwarded to the President of the court for a decision.

On 5 September 2007 the Municipal Court terminated the proceedings against P.V. as time-barred.

The applicant never filed a separate civil compensation claim in respect of the underlying incident.

In 2008 the applicant and her family moved to Slovenia.