text
stringlengths 301
45.3k
| labels
listlengths 0
5
|
|---|---|
4. The applicant was born in 1958 and is detained Yuzhno‑Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Region. 5. accused of three counts aggravated sexual assault one count being an accessory to traffic safety violation causing death two or more persons. During the pre-trial investigation against him he released on undertaking not leave his place residence. 6. On 4 June 2007 did appear at preliminary hearing scheduled by Yuzhno-Sakhalinskiy Town Court ordered applicant’s detention instead order contained no time-limits. relevant part read as follows: “The court for 29 May 2007... Kashpruk V.A. duly notified submitted a copy medical record certifying that undergoes treatment MUZ [a hospital]. In verify this information adjourned until 31 2007. it. However, once again 1 informed between 7 undergoing ... cannot participate hearings. it, however without presenting any reasons absence. According certificate provided chief physician indeed upper respiratory tract infection [but] health condition does prevent participation This coherent with written statement judge [Town Court], which indicates took 2007, where acted defense counsel Mr R., testimony justice peace... consulted administrative case file L., B., K. view these circumstances prosecutor motion [detention applicant]. M., appointed court, disagreed... As it had been established grave offences. [He been] previously convicted. [His] character references are mostly negative, characterized inclined violate lawful requirements imposed him. impossibility take disproven actions accused, who actively takes hearings representing other [The multiple times about obligation consequences failure do so] Under considered wilful obstruction proceedings criminal case...” 7. 6 appealed order. 8. 8 arrested remanded custody. 9. 15 appeal sent party. 10. 19, 20, 21, 22 25 complemented appeal. 11. 26 additional pleadings 12. transmitted Regional Court. 13. 28 parties date 18 July 2015. 14. 2 lodged application release examined rejected 9 refused examine arguments concerning deficiencies pending latter. It further unsubstantiated argument relating condition. 15. 3, 10 12 16. 5 16 complementary appeals were 17. month eleven days later, quashed applicant. found first-instance failed comply procedure prescribed Article 247 Code Criminal Procedure providing measure restraint be modified if such ordered. 18. placed under
|
[
2
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives Wieliczka. 6. applicant’s brother J.K. worked as a night guard at bus terminus Cracow. On 12 November 2003, around 4 a.m., his clothes caught fire. Drivers the station raised alarm managed to extinguish subsequently taken hospital. However, because of serious injuries he died on 26 2003. 7. 31 December 2004 Cracow district prosecutor discontinued investigation into circumstances J.K.’s death. During it established that must have either fallen asleep or fainted had fire when they came contact with an electric heater. concluded been unfortunate accident no offence committed. 8. 24 January 2005 appealed. He argued prosecution authorities failed establish brother’s submitted witnesses given different versions events. In addition not how J.K’s could where heater placed. further stressed suffered from diabetes should allowed work shifts. 9. 25 May Chief Inspector Małopolska Regional Command, reply complaint, stated death indeed too long. officer charge already disciplined. 10. 22 August again complained Prosecutor about delays proceedings. Subsequently, 19 October appellate fact received any Prosecutor. 11. 21 confirmed proceedings informed reproached for having replied complaint timely manner. 12. 29 reopened 13. April actions by police officers alleged perform their duties, properly secure place which fabricated false evidence order direct against other persons obstructed 14. Following referred above, 30 decided sever charges responsible securing day deal them separate set (see section B). 15. 28 2006 excessive length found ill-founded. prosecutors were independent up make decision collected point be closed. also promoted Prosecutor’s office new inherited cases. 16. September 2007 17. 8 lodged appeal this decision. 18. upheld Cracow-Śródmieście District Court. 19. original severed examine paragraphs 13 14 above). 20. June Police Force Warsaw local police. 21. investigation, finding According prosecutor’s findings, a.m. one drivers, J.Ł., heard man screaming calling help. ran drivers’ room; J.Ł. extinguished using shower called ambulance arrived first subsequently, 4.30 scene. concentrated helping They spoke him incident then detective, who later, examined room help company’s health safety inspector, S.S. arguments scene secured; she since resulted fatalities, required particular way. professional duties all relevant procedural rules followed. 22. 27 February interlocutory maintained detective six hours after accident. addition, questioned assisted S.S., employee company. 23. Court returned case prosecutor. particular, instructed obtain another witness, W.D., verify view applicable procedures. 24. 23 failure comply duties. W.D. She repeated reasons considered complied procedures 25. 5 26. March quashed continue investigation. court’s instructions analyse whether involved, including call notifying present accident, followed 27. 16 R.P. – intervened 2003 presence applicant. asked witness questions but did remember much 28. 2008 extensive reasoning testimonies fifteen cross-examination two witnesses, relied report examination file. committed regards breach conduct part there enough substantiate allegations falsified evidence. policemen, S.P. R.P., brother, spoken victim directly incident; conscious woken burning. As secured only arrival officers, court (although witnesses) might moved before several happened even if moved, grounds suspect done deflect suspicion onto person. Here victim’s statements result own negligence. 29. appealed again. facts hear necessary demanded A.M., cross-examined clarify discrepancies between statements. restated policemen conducted follow procedures, secured. lastly “his blamed accident” whereas real reason diabetic shock. 30. findings sufficiently merits. request certain granted cross-examined. contradictions cleared A.M. herself second time her remaining evidence, so would lead unnecessary extension concerning crime committed: third person involved held same applied requirement accident; interviewed admitted carelessness (w wyniku nieuwagi). This demonstrated
|
[] |
5. The applicant, Ms Khava Sagayeva, was born in 1964 and lives Urus-Martan the district, Chechen Republic. 6. applicant is sister of Mr Khasan Sagayev, who 1973. 7. At material time lived Alkhan-Yurt (in documents submitted it also referred to as Alkhan-Kala), Urus‑Martan district Chechnya. In August 2000 along with a number other relatives, living applicant’s house while she away Ingushetia. 8. around 12 p.m. on 8 group about twenty thirty masked armed servicemen camouflage uniforms arrived at two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) several UAZ minivans. They broke into quickly searched premises, taking all family photographs. forced Sagayev APC registration 802 drove an unknown destination. 9. Later same day, 2000, request Supyan Mokhchayev, Mayor Grozny, contacted military commander, informed him that no. belonged regiment stationed Main Federal Military Base Khankala. Mokhchayev learnt from anonymous witnesses had been taken base Khankala questioned by three investigators. 10. has not seen since his abduction 2000. 11. did witness abduction. Her account before Court based statements provided her relatives neighbours. 12. Government contest facts presented but pointed out there no unequivocal evidence confirming alleged involvement State incident. 13. From can be lodged official complaint concerning brother’s 14 December 14. On April 2001 prosecutor’s office opened criminal case 25040 submitted, 78012). 15. 20 June investigation suspended. this development. 16. remained suspended 19 January 2009. apparent contact authorities any during period. stated between 2008 ill sister, Kh.S., maintained correspondence authorities, both personally through International Committee Red Cross human rights organisations Memorial Materi Chechni (Mothers Chechnya). dispute part submission. 17. November asked granted victim status case. 18. 2009, response resumed. 19. date, investigators proceedings her. She witnessed herself relatives. 20. 21 2009 requested permission access entire contents file. rejected 2 February 21. 22 A.S., either 22. another sisters, described circumstances statement similar Court. 23. were thereof. 24. 23 March resumed 25. Between 25 29 fellow villagers, whose provide new information they 26. 1 examined crime scene. No collected. 27. 9 local police officer, A. A., unable establish whereabouts missing brother. 28. 10 2010 update progress 29. subsequently repeatedly resumed; last suspension took place 6 October 2011. are still pending. 30. applicants, Roza Mukayeva, 1959, Khamzat Mukayev, 1956, live village Duba‑Yurt Shali 31. applicants parents Rasul 1979. 32. Mukayev suffering second-degree disability. claimed their submission he detained “sweeping-up” operations carried 2001, 2002 2003 released. 33. 2004 surrounded numerous checkpoints. Two checkpoints located vicinity applicants’ Duba‑Yurt. 34. 3 5 a.m. house. Another minivans waiting neighbouring street. A eight ten masks Threatening unaccented Russian, house, handcuffed pulled T-shirt over head outside, where one them reported someone via portable radio: “The object taken. We leaving”. told department interior (the ROVD). 35. son allegedly 36. have 2004. 37. 38. team 39. first 40. relative, R.Kh., neighbour, S.N., 41. 36148. 42. 2005 43. 27 May following criticism supervising prosecutor, gave orders for basic steps undertaken. 44. July second 45. addition, followed abductors driving direction federal forces’ main 46. 7 again informed. 47. September grant partially providing twelve 48. 2011 corresponding applicants.
|
[
0,
1,
2
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives Ohrid. 6. employed by a local company owned Z.C., which operated bakery Resen. At 9.30 p.m. on 20 March 2008 several police officers arrived at the order to establish whether or not employees were possession of necessary work residence permits. G.S., officer time currently mayor Resen, sometime later. 1.30 a.m. next morning arrived, after being called Z.C. taken Resen station interviewed office M.G., commander-in-chief police. alleged that during interview G.S. had ill-treated him he left about 4.15 21 2008. 7. On same day examined Ohrid hospital Dr L.D.B. who issued certificate (no. 30) diagnosed with fractura osso nosi post traumatica-in obs. reverse following handwritten text appeared: “At 5.30 a.m., fight (тепачка), an X-ray nasal pyramid ... realignment [splinting] carried out ...” 8. An undated medical 51150) signed indicated following: “[The was] admitted as urgent case. It concerned fight. nose right upper nostril visibly swollen. Assuming septum broken, radiologist’s findings are: no traumatic changes bone. So obstruction cavity caused swelling. has been realigned double front [splint made] 9. unspecified date between 27 lodged complaint ill-treatment public prosecutor. Furthermore, complained DCPS they incident According official notes from date, discussion bakery, arrested detained (приведен и задржан) for questioning. During questioning, insulted physically assaulted him. He newspaper applicant’s bag tried stuff it into mouth. then punched three times, causing visible injuries, namely broken facial bruising. Police D.L. police, present time. while slapped times face workers. also threatened send “in black plastic Kosovo[1]” unless giving money T., 10. 28 again Hospital prescribed therapy. 11. 2 April Skopje bruising nose. Another confirming injuries 15 July A CT scan 25 September confirmed suffered without bone displacement. 12. In letters dated 24 April, 19 May 6 June prosecutor, response criminal applicant, asked communicate any relevant material regarding 13. 17 sent prosecutor “special report” (посебен извештај) case, setting summary complaints made reads follows: “To truth allegations, complainants, E.A., B.J., B.T. (bakery workers), labour inspector –D.Dz., well D.L., Z.S., V.D., T.V., J.I., N.S., S.S. J.F. basis discussions held inspection daily logbook other case station, [the DCPS] establishes 9.45 K.G., Z.S. plain-clothed officers, (official) uniform, A. bakery. After identifying themselves workers, including owner informed them would be carrying meantime, joined asking offered free bread, food drinks some return their protection. how much T. protect presence times. [He] then... ordered [him] storeroom, where continued slapping face. kill him, put Kosovo judge [G.S.] his ethnicity. applicant], [six individuals] When applicant] took documents concerning noticed [K.D] its page Parliament’s declaration independence picture A.J.’s new flag Kosovo. started searching applicant’s] out. mouth using offensive language insult suddenly such [The bleed. This happened M.G. Later, when went N.S.’s give details workers Kosovo, N.S. blood shirt. origin blood. replied beaten up ready take responsibility actions. discussion, denied allegations explaining used force conversation them. [His] assertion T.V. [said] against performance duties. Regarding plan; there search warrant. Besides, information arrest detention [about] use Nor report [about force] drawn up. ended all evidence misdemeanour proceedings obtained, released; stayed... Given sustained, 5 [H]ospital, obtained immediate assistance. [a plaster] made. certificate, no.30 ...was this regard.” 14. As noted special report, accompanied considerable written material, included complaint; interviews various J.I. J.F N.S.; certificates nos. 30 51150 photographs neck collar plaster Government did provide copies listed above. 15. Further request 12 2008, October investigating Court First Instance (“the trial court”) opened investigation ill-treated, applicant. 16. Between December heard oral witnesses. 17. stated scene go station. Two latter’s car set off there. repeated 18. accusations 19. gave representative present, stated: “... treated me correctly ill-treat me. is untrue storeroom], pushed flour bags absolutely I want emphasise back whole story set-up so speak. suggested accuse ill-treating, insulting hitting me, telling we both [get] 1 million euros (EUR) compensation State, EUR 100,000 accused., statement false accusing fear could deport hour later, taxi police’s cannot say but what I, five individuals cars jeeps ...after while, policeman chief-officer Resen’s office. There [G.S.], [another officer] think name M.[G] one point can firmly hit do know if shirt... thing lie constructed because forced accused 20. Bakery B.J. spoken loud voice given bread free. Both gone storeroom returned back. whereas maintained she hear complain anyone night. 21. responsible foreigners, “after unknown national Republic Macedonia, said Esat Aslani [sic] manager company, my literally told ‘that’s fine [referring ban employing foreigners permit], should up’. pointing hand ‘[look] here’. showed stain, up, specify who. job see anything like injury 22. language. They discussed issue illegal M.G.’s enquired whose photograph page. 23. forensic opinion commissioned court. January 2009 Z.K., court expert, drew above-mentioned records further X-ray. parts “[the displacement fragments, These amount bodily injury. result brute face.” 24. February withdrawing charges brought “the Ministry Interior’s way due lack committed crime question. 25. closed advised pursue prosecution subsidiary availed himself opportunity 13 private indictment 26. allowed objection discontinued proceedings. 3 November decision quashed Bitola Appeal, investigate meanwhile raised, sustained certain traffic accident before appellate confrontation D.L, 27. hearing 23 7 2007 wearing collar. days incident, connection eye 28. 2010 place 29. part, [on him], small stain shirt.” 30. All judges court, presiding judge, applied separately excluded already sat different capacity. Appeal assigned jurisdiction ratione loci. 31. hearings, defendant previous statements, denying stated, inter alia, shirt, proceedings, examine who, according Interior, respondent State 2009. court’s attempts secure avail since whereabouts remained despite G.S.’s statements contact knew living. 2010, agreed confirm DCPS. 32. 2011 acquitted evidence. established follow there, questioned However, found none witnesses corroborated ill-treatment. 33. appeal remitted fresh examination. first-instance facts supported reasons those fact investigative steps view establishing actually 2007. connection, instructed lower reassess available and, needed, arrange analyse consider sought 34. arranged Drs (who veracity contained paragraphs 8 above) expert. 35. submitted 2011, certified Prizren (Kosovo) Instance, testimony (see paragraph incorrect under duress. two feared personal safety. testify Court, EULEX (EU Rule Law Mission Kosovo) Macedonian Embassy Pristina. 36. 2012 support allegations. weight witnesses, especially most Z.K. experienced 37. 2013 judgment examination, which, judgment, panel judges. injuries. described reports soon resulted first-instance merely referred witness assessing probative value evidence, have analysed relation organise defendant, 38. resumed supplemented expert nose, saying ruled noses healed slowly detectable long above), appear fifteen twenty minutes struck. indicate Hospital. 39. everything considered refused “[she] does court”. 40. commented 29 stating seen 41. through Justice Z.C.’s attendance trial. Kumanovo courts fear. accept these courts. 42. 4 2014, admit 35 finding serve judgment. 43. 2014 imputed crimes. accused, involved Soon after, even though officially summoned. newspaper. inspector, alleging shirt part place, assistance noting convinced charge besides contain indication [including] 44. Relying first Hospital, swelling specified L.D.B., investigation, concluded 45. notwithstanding “had incomplete wrong facts” illogical unreasonable conclusions”. “The observes, 2013, disregarded [records] adduced colouring attempt relate [in which] worn longer. longer argued impugned L.D.B unclear conclusion now sufficiently assess clearly witness’s changed justification sustain principle, accepts actions unidentified persons location immediately [medical] circumstances, finds later than [at somewhere, doctor check-up. gives are extent, contradictory inconsistent 46. 18 2015 (ослободува од обвинение) dismissed (се одбива обвинението) regards latter become time-barred. found, insufficient contrary, 47. 9 that: serious doubt instructions [previous] judgments. previously [N.S.’s] statement; latter], indications clear permit, Witness [N.S.] [around] stomach [area] ...It court] pay particular attention [specified] earlier judgments suggest sufficient [for draw undertaken 48. fifth round pending 49. became final Supreme protection within reasonable (“length remedy”) acknowledged too long. contributed length protracted adjudicated case; diligent fixing hearings twice already. awarded equivalent 500 conclude quickly possible, six months receipt
|
[
1
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1979. At the time of his application to Court he detained prison Vinnytsya. 6. On 12 February 2006 an elderly man found killed house village Pavlysh, Kirovohrad Region. A criminal investigation opened by investigator from Onufriyivka District Prosecutor’s Office. 7. same day Police Department (“the Department”) arrested under Article 263 Administrative Offences Code for minor acts disorderly conduct, which constituted administrative offence 173 that Code. According applicant, police officers over next two days exerted psychological pressure on him and applied physical violence against purpose extracting a confession murder. 8. 14 Office questioned suspicion Before questioning him, asked if wished have lawyer. refused. In course confessed 9. 15 participated reconstruction crime showed, presence witnesses, how had committed investigative measure, refused 10. 17 Court”) placed pre-trial detention. 11. 24 2006, following request legal assistance, offered legal-aid lawyer, saying different one who would be provided relatives. denied guilt submitted been psychologically physically ill-treated this resulted confession. 12. 13 June again. He represent himself without did not admit make any further statements. 13. 19 case referred tried. 14. August remitted Petrove Prosecutor additional investigation. its reasons decision, court stated information about applicant’s personality, including prior record, assembled properly; ignored another lawyer after refusing lawyer; told right assisted when examining file termination investigation; able examine all material file. 15. 3 October Regional Appeal Appeal”) upheld Court’s decision 2006. 16. 5 December with also allowed mother act as defence counsel proceedings. When reply questions. 17. 20 2007 institute proceedings relation allegations brutality between Having conducted pre-investigation enquiries, it no evidence suggesting officers. 18. 23 completed again trial. 19. During trial represented charges contended self-incriminating statements obtained ill-treatment breach procedural rights. 20. 21 guilty murder sentenced nine years’ imprisonment. based findings real, oral, documentary expert evidence. relied particular initial statements, noting they were consistent other available considered subsequent retraction these denial attempt part avoid punishment. 21. dismissed unfounded. It regard enquiries Office, disclose witnesses taken crime, allegations. reviewed videotapes signs ill-treatment. 22. day, issued separate ruling bringing violations law-enforcement during attention Prosecutor. arrest detention alleged lawful, never examined competent authority. No appeal lodged ruling. 23. appealed conviction. claimed, inter alia, rights respected at stage result 24. January 2008 judgment 2007, well established various items file, groundless held shortcomings identified first-instance affect substance case. 25. points law, repeating arguments made before Appeal. 26. 7 Supreme law unfounded decisions lower courts.
|
[
3
] |
11. The applicant was born in 1978. When he lodged his application being detained Rosdorf Prison, Germany. He now lives Khashuri/Surami, Georgia. 12. On the evening of 14 October 2006, and an unidentified accomplice robbed L. I., two Lithuanian nationals, women’s flat Kassel. 13. perpetrators were aware that used for prostitution expected its female occupants to keep valuables cash there. They had passed by early order make sure no clients or a procurer present. Shortly afterwards they returned overpowered L., who answered doorbell. pointed gas pistol which resembled real gun at both women threatened shoot them if did not disclose where their money kept. While watched over women, found forced hand him approximately 1,100 euros (EUR) six mobile phones. 14. 3 February 2007 applicant, acting jointly with several accomplices, O. P., Latvian nationals temporarily resident Germany working as prostitutes, Göttingen. 15. 2 2007, day before offence, one applicant’s co-accused O.’s P.’s Göttingen together accomplice, R., acquaintance P. intended verify whether flat’s only kept any there, discovered safe kitchen. 16. around 8 p.m., further B., gained access pretending be potential clients, while waited car parked close building another front it. Once inside flat, B. produced knife been carrying jacket. escape from perpetrators, jumped balcony located metres off ground ran away. down after her but abandoned chase some minutes when passers-by appeared nearby on street. then called waiting phone told unsuccessfully chased her. agreed meeting point would pick up once left crime scene joined them. 17. In meantime, having O., kill she refused open him. Fearing life, opened safe, removed EUR 300, also handed contents wallet (EUR 250). 8.30 taking telephone, well landline co‑accused. co‑accused picked car. At 9.30 p.m. rejoined flat. 18. gave account events neighbour E. morning offence. out fear stayed days friend victims offence committed Kassel, whom described detail it occurred. 19. 12 informed police against Between 15 18 repeatedly questioned 2007. those interviews course set above. police, checked papers, residence occupation compliance German immigration trade law. 20. As witnesses explained during return Latvia come, 19 prosecution asked investigating judge question obtain true statement could subsequent trial (eine im späteren Hauptverfahren verwertbare wahrheitsgemäße Aussage). 21. result, again time, yet investigation proceedings initiated him, so put risk. No warrant arrest issued represented counsel. excluded witness hearing accordance Article 168c Code Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 56 below) since concerned witnesses, considerably shocked distressed afraid telling truth presence. confirmed soon possible. 22. shortly hearing. subsequently arrested 6 March 23. Regional Court summoned registered post appear 24 August However, attend Court, relying medical certificates dated 9 indicated unstable, post-traumatic emotional psychological state. 24. Consequently, 29 sent letters informing court, position compel court Germany, nonetheless wished hear trial. stressed receive protection all costs incurred attending reimbursed and, proposing options, what circumstances willing testify acknowledgement receipt letters, respond. part, writing still traumatised therefore neither agree person nor means audio-visual link. stated nothing add statements made carried 25. nevertheless decided request legal assistance authorities under European Convention Mutual Assistance Matters 20 April 1959, supplemented between Member States Union May 2000 paragraphs 64-66 below), view obliged law following assistance. It link conducted presiding (audiovisuelle Vernehmung). considered, referring § (d) Convention, defence counsel accused, just like judges prosecution, should have right questions first time. 26. scheduled competent 13 2008 cancelled date judge. latter certificates, demonstrated suffering disorder consequence confrontation risk aggravating condition. claimed that, threats feared possible acts revenge. 27. By letter 21 2008, requested obtained copies submitted counterpart according standards criminal procedure law, sufficiently substantiated refusal testify. suggested examined public officer (Amtsarzt) or, alternatively, compelled went unanswered. 28. decision dismissing objection admission witnesses’ pre-trial raised co-accused, ordered records read 251 §§ 1 (2) (1) 61 below). considered required said provisions, there insurmountable obstacles impossible foreseeable future unreachable. home country, Latvia, stage, attempts evidence main hearing, enforcing, avail. Pointing courts obligation conduct involving deprivation liberty expeditiously, fact accused already custody considerable period opinion justified delay proceedings. 29. emphasised stage indication testified occasions judge, refuse repeat notwithstanding resulting restrictions proceedings, whole fairly requirements Convention. 30. judgment 25 considering facts established above, convicted counts aggravated robbery combined extortion coercion, other Kassel 2006 sentenced trial, nine years months’ imprisonment. (a) assessment available concerning 31. based findings identified without hesitation. noted supported officers attended interviewed I. preliminary investigation. these elements, submissions initially innocence admitted L.’s I.’s secretly stolen 750, alone, quarrel refuted. (b) (i) 32. establishment Göttingen, relied particular key (maßgebliche Belastungszeuginnen), 33. judgment, 152 pages, reduced evidentiary value testimonies. took into provided opportunity examine direct 34. showed given detailed coherent descriptions Minor contradictions concern activities strain subjected incident. problems revenge perpetrators. This why reported immediately 35. note failed identify shown photos suspects interviews. observed attention incident focused perpetrator himself short Their inability contrary defence’s allegation, incriminating unease recall, about, such affect credibility. (ii) Further 36. facts, regard additional evidence: happened, namely victims’ stage; geographical data information tapping co-accused’s telephones satellite-based global positioning system (GPS) receiver co-accused; relevant time; similarity way offences committed. 37. proved unavailable, ensured many contact relation issue heard 38. Court’s description consistent strong credibility veracity statements. neighbour, elderly woman became scared angry saw running window, accompany investigate happened. had, however, door neighbours rang 39. recollection conversations 40. addition, three credible. 41. itself observe demeanour examination link, exercise diligence assessing evaluation testimonies paid special constituted hearsay assessed particularly carefully. 42. this context relevance significant admissible GPS receiver. gathered surveillance measures time suspicion racketeering drug scene. 43. transpired recordings mobile-telephone 8.29 8.31 escaping victims, capture, Furthermore, analysis near 7.58 8.32 coincided frame 44. denied participation premeditated activity, own least co‑accused, visited different R. day. amended gone making use services prostitutes. conceded followed escaped balcony. done prevent calling since, record, getting trouble because previously encountered prostitutes similar occasion 45. Finally, very foreign element indicating participated 46. view, body evidence, taken together, complete overall picture version refuted contradictory versions forward 47. 23 June counsel, appeal points Court. complained able breach authorities, case-law Federal Justice (the referred July 2000, see 58-59 62 appointed prior ought 48. written September Public Prosecutor General dismissed manifestly ill-founded 349 63 argued characterised “complete loss” (Totalausfall des Fragerechts), fair reason exclude evidence. 49. content carefully critically. sole decisive basis conviction various layers corroborating ample challenge defend effectively. 50. Endorsing reasoning, demonstrate imputable domestic authorities. appoint participate cooperation, suspect despite longer questioning especially via video-link. 51. 30 Justice, Procedure, ill-founded. 52. December rejecting complaint violation (Anhörungsrüge), necessarily entailed reference reasoned General. 53. constitutional decisions complained, particular, rights 54. 2009, Constitutional providing reasons, declined consider (file no. BvR 78/09).
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives Paris. 6. is a lawyer at the Paris Bar. He acted for S.A. criminal proceedings on charge of conspiracy preparation an act terrorism constituting one offences provided Article 421-1 Criminal Code. 7. In 2000 domestic security intelligence agency (Direction de la surveillance du territoire – “DST”) sent report to public prosecutor’s office stating that Frankfurt German police had dismantled network Islamist terrorists who were likely be preparing attacks French territory. this context, S.A., suspect France, arrested Damascus 12 July 2003. authorities apprised arrest 18 8. On 1 April 2004 investigating judges case, “anti-terrorism” judicial investigation division tribunal grande instance, issued international letter request Syrian military purpose questioning 9. From 2 7 May 2004, judges, M.B., accompanied by members DST, went execution request. 10. During allegedly tortured. 11. 11 after file been received reply request, warrant. extradited remanded custody 17 June 2004. 12. By decision 15 December 2005 judge committed two other persons stand trial before Court charges participating terrorism. Prior there no applications annulment any investigative acts, neither previously assigned nor prosecutor or ... Therefore, under 174 Code Procedure, parties longer entitled raise grounds nullity respect procedural acts evidence, “except where they could not have aware [those grounds]”. 13. Before requested his written pleadings documents obtained, according him, through torture secret services, excluded from file: “confession” services dated 3 interview records 30 2, 3, 4 5 alleged “complicity part use against Syria personnel service” (see, details these pleadings, their reproduction Appeal, paragraph below). 14. judgment 14 2006 court obtained sentenced nine years’ imprisonment. It took view, light statements Director World Organisation Torture, member section Amnesty International Secretary Federation Human Rights, called as witnesses, unanimous almost systematic bodies (since decree 1963), it “likely made Syria, Palestine Section, given torture, confession thus method”. continued follows: “Moreover, mission ..., (First Vice-President) investigation, specified first working meeting with officials, he told ‘had already questioned 2004’ ‘his interviews continuing basis list questions contained additional which [M.B.] wanted put, particularly answers recorded’. However, stressed ‘not allowed participate but only follow real time’. same conditions day before. For part, emphasised entire interrogation taken place without being present. When presented indicated ‘tired’, ‘wished see doctor immediately’, ‘worried about wife daughter’. subsequently described detention subjected during interrogation. As result, able exercise control over interrogated even though held ‘Palestine Section’, known very harsh section, many cases reported. therefore certain admissions ‘confession’ must evidence him co-defendants. Accordingly, S.A.’s handwritten statement, prepared removed case file.” 15. appealed judgment. lodged Appeal defence extending more than eighty pages, again sought exclusion torture. To end, relied Articles 6 Convention, well Convention Torture 10 1984, referred reports non-governmental organisations concerning practice instance. particular, wrote “Page 25: ‘it blindly did want try avoid Mr. [S.A.] hands Damascus.’ Page 47: ‘the intervening, can shown promoted amounts outsourcing torture.’ 68, entitled: ‘Complicity services’. 69: ‘The felt beginning should brought [S.A.], used They chose accept 70: provides service officers asked: encourages torture.’” 16. 22 2007 upheld conviction ten imprisonment, excluding question: “the defendant’s statements, included whose lawfulness terms rules guaranteed”. rejected applicant’s submissions “relating complicity criticisms conduct investigation” “prejudicial dignity moderation”. its president asked “to moderate remarks allegations (see p. 68 et seq. pleadings)”. 17. January 2008 Chairman Bar Association informed copy intend upon matter. 18. formal referral disciplinary body February 2008, pursuant 188 § 27 November 1991 organisation legal profession bring disregarding essential principles honour, tactfulness moderation governing profession. passages which, seriously impugned honour namely pages 25, 47 70 above). pointed out immunity words spoken 41 Law 29 1881 freedom press (“the Act”, ...) applicable matters. 19. September Disciplinary Board dismissed all applicant. considered objective ensure removal emanated authorities. observed regard although notorious, failed issue warrant immediately had, contrary, waited until authorities, “that was, lawyers, executed astonishing speed”. found “it support [the applicant] into question, reproached, judges”. further benefit so far unrelated case. Relying case-law Cassation point..., protection lawyer’s speech (referring Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, ECHR 2002-II), constitute personal call question manner conducted proceedings, “obviously facts case”. finally justified believing argument influence first-instance exclude using arguments irrespective vitriol, whereas raising below led reaction prosecution. 20. October Principal Public Prosecutor decision. 21. 25 2009 quashed reprimand disqualification professional period five years. courtroom invoked Stressing lawyers’ expression absolute, view merely intended criticise challenge validity interrogation, also moral integrity level. “had visibly ‘do pleased’ extent harming client (whose sentence extended year Appeal)”. accusation pointless relation interests client, gratuitous, since mentioned difficulties encountered prevented them attending “there need applicant], interest claim proof complicit S.A.”. concluded proportionate aim pursued constituted breach profession, dignity, moderation. 22. appeal points law. likewise. appeal, particular argue Act proceedings. fact denouncing shortcomings justice system necessary client’s defence, such denunciation offence absolute nature prohibition 23. 2010 declared inadmissible ground party law, following terms: “However, firstly, states precisely provisions sections 65 are Having rightly that, while has right functioning judge, because subject restrictions derive, protect reputation rights others maintain authority impartiality judiciary, offending personally those accusing deliberately promoting actively ill-treatment inflicted investigators. noted serious accusations both Damascus, refused allow attend interviews, inferred fall expression, breached tactfulness. grounds, lack principle presumption innocence, legally impose mere together temporary membership councils; ...”
|
[
6
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives Bucharest. 6. On 2 June 2007 the had an argument with a taxi driver because refused to return his change after he paid for ride. Following their verbal argument, drove against will police station. 7. When entered station informed that wished lodge complaint insulted beaten by three unidentified officers. officers punched him face kicked ribs ten minutes. Subsequently they handcuffed metal rail twenty 8. Immediately incident managed call two friends lawyer on mobile phone. They arrived shortly afterwards at took pictures of while still blood as result open wound near right eye. 9. attached initial letter Court several photographs allegedly taken which show handcuffs chained bleeding injury under 10. same day asked fourth officer give statement regard incident. At time, one who hit fined 200 Romanian lei (RON) – approximately 55 euros (EUR) verbally abused 11. After left station, went Mina Minovici Forensic Institute order ask expert medical report respect injuries. 12. allow get into bottle beer. drunk, aggressive according eyewitnesses bruise eye time 13. Inside rail, but without hitting him. did not cause any injuries applicant, except around area where were wrists. Moreover, subjected level physical violence exceeding required handcuffing procedure. 14. 5 brought criminal proceedings unlawful deprivation liberty insult, abuse office restricting rights, abusive behaviour insult. In addition, investigating authorities identify involved 15. 26 2007, pursuant applicant’s request produced report. noted slightly swollen lesions mouth area; (on side face) centre covered coagulated blood; superficial scrapes over clavicle forearm; bruising forearm arm. concluded could have been caused suffered traumatic having struck solid object, scratching finger compression. seven eight days treatment. also examination carried out thoracic surgery ward Bucharest Emergency University Hospital, diagnosed simple contusion bruised eyelid. 16. 1 July 2009 Prosecutor’s Office, it identified all duty (including incident, namely, N.B., V.L.G. C.P.), discontinued investigation opened ground no act committed. It officers’ statements, drunk As soon started insulting become increasingly violent. 17. prosecutor’s C.V. N.A.T., already face, stopped Police C.P. confirmed bleeding. driver, R.D., statements declared repeatedly leave car seen either physically or inside Two other witnesses D.A. V.D.F., attended party them go facial injury, 18. held there evidence file deprived liberty. lawfully immobilised aggressive. Furthermore, using only minimum force required. challenged decision before higher prosecutor. 19. 12 March 2010 prosecutor dismissed challenge ill-founded. appealed domestic courts. 20. District appeal decisions ill‑founded. points law (recurs) judgment. 21. 29 County allowed referred case back first‑instance court re-examination. first-instance failed summon during examine driver. 22. 22 September ordered re‑open investigation. some complaints lodged omitted others. 23. 18 November ill‑founded law. 24. 16 2011 available acts office. 25. December 26. 14 2012 part 2011. reopen regarding offences offence 27. preliminary met requirements Article 3 Convention. first independent, most questioning four witnesses) belonged another section Department (and therefore organisational structure subject chain command investigation). relied collected himself. thorough clarify circumstances case. 28. particular, found corroborating provide reasons dismissing supporting allegations. given conflicting evidence, clarified whether origin pre-dated origins investigated explained. handcuffing, used needed, exact identity remained unclear. No reasonable explanation provided how hands resulted being injured, least initially acted 29. Accordingly, instructed personally hear present establish: station; fallen stairs (and, if so, reason fall); intentionally banged head window door; testimony supported witnesses; approached outside names when stage incident; heard noises what witnessed; moment handcuffed, actual process handcuffing; actually applicant; both prior handcuffed; length person removed handcuffs; never twice second time; carrying beer 30. arrange confrontation between witnesses, inconsistencies statements; question individuals establish driver; obtain transcripts telephone emergency services; gather relevant needed 31. indeed continue elements made out. 32. office, allegations respect. 33. 11 May behaviour. 34. 2014 extended include 35. 10 April 36. 14, 15 27 S.E.C, N.A.T. 37. applicant. 38. 23 confronted assaulted 39. 24 closed (clasat cauza) held, inter alia, driver’s actions lacked offence. clear C.P., N.B. V.L.G., rail. cut scratch must existed fact again spent due removal dried forcible allegation evidence. fact, absence more severe difficult prove, beyond doubt, aforementioned violent 40. remaining themselves, struggling resisting handcuffed. following fall injured arms hand squeezed bruises arm immobilisation. 41. courts complied instructions received from 2012. He argued carry speedy effective 42. February 2015 part. prosecution time-barred. However, be upheld close Lastly, relying 20 § Constitution Articles 13 Convention, degrading treatment; accordingly, Prosecutor General Appeal assess need take light refusal comply final judgments 43. parties operative judgment submit full copy 44. are pending authorities.
|
[
1
] |
6. The applicant was born in 1972 and resides Sakarya. 7. is a Russian citizen of Chechen origin. He left his country 1993 arrived Turkey, where he granted residence permit. claimed that view the ongoing armed conflict origin, would face extrajudicial killing, imprisonment or death by torture if were to be deported extradited there. 8. On 9 May 2010, following an order issued Bakırköy public prosecutor, police arrested at Istanbul Atatürk International Airport on suspicion illegal entry into Turkey with false passport. 9. At 8.15 a.m. 10 2010 questioned airport. subsequently detained airport facility for three days without any judicial effect. submitted had been kept overcrowded room. 10. 12 took Kumkapı Removal Centre Foreigners (“the Centre”) pending deportation. 11. alleged unhygienic, unhealthy conditions Centre. 12. 29 September applicant’s lawyer lodged complaint prosecutor’s office against officers from foreigners’ department headquarters alleging unlawfully State officials. also complained about detention Centre, particularly overcrowding, insufficient ventilation poor hygiene. 13. 30 4 October filed petitions Ministry Interior governor’s requesting immediate release, claiming unlawful. 14. applied Magistrates’ Court challenging lawfulness detention. 15. 13 released condition renewal 16. 6 December decided not examine regarding 17. January 2011 appealed decision. pointed out, inter alia, 19 requested provided content file 8 November given only limited number documents. some documents as they classified “confidential” such practice prescribed law. 18. 15 March Regional Administrative quashed decision, holding decide whether authorisation should prosecution 19. unspecified date authorise officers. Subsequently, prosecutor terminate investigation opened request. In decision noted banned entering apprehended further imprisoned but remanded custody
|
[
1,
2
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1978 and is serving a prison sentence the Nizhniy Novgorod region. 6. On 27 June 2007 arrested on suspicion of having produced distributed child pornography. 7. 29 Leninskiy District Court Cheboksary (“the Court”) authorised applicant’s detention pending investigation. In particular, court reasoned as follows: “... [the applicant] suspected serious offence ... entailing custodial exceeding two years. Regard being had to circumstances case concerning distribution pornography], [applicant’s] character, fact that he applied for passport, considers if at liberty might abscond or interfere with administration justice by way communicating e‑mail persons who purchased pornographic materials from him. Accordingly, it necessary remand custody. does not consider possible apply any other preventive measure.” 8. 22 August extended until 9 October noting charged case, previously lived Lithuania worked considerable period time law enforcement has extensive connections police, that, liberty, 9. 3 pre‑trial November underlying investigation were still pertinent. 12 Supreme Chuvash Republic upheld order appeal. 10. 6 pre-trial December referring seriousness charges against him his prior service enforcement. 26 11. 24 Moskovskiy January 2008 respectively. noted 12. 25 February 2008. “Regard ongoing investigation, abscond, put pressure victim witnesses otherwise justice, extend ...” 13. 4 quashed appeal, citing exclusion hearing, remitted matter fresh consideration. ordered release dismissing argument “might justice” unsubstantiated. It also contravention rules criminal procedure, hearing been held without legal counsel present duly notified place. 14. 8 investigator charge reclassified be detained forty-eight hours. 10 released. 15. again ..., underage victim, who, owing age medical condition, influenced an adult, 16. 17. unspecified date several counts molestation. 18. March reference charges, risk absconding putting crime. 14 19. released upon expiry statutory maximum detention. 20. 28 dismissed investigator’s application trial latter post bail amount 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB). 31 father up bail. 21. received file fixed preliminary July 22. found prosecutor failed authorise extension returned prosecutor’s office. September decision examination. 23. 2 15 24. April 2010 granted request custody trial. “In course since 1 2009 wilfully frivolously interfered justice. Even though able participate hearings, did appear during periods 17 13 2010. Nor fit attend hearings confirmed statements made chief physician municipal hospital] 7 Furthermore, appears statement O.N., A.N., signed A.N. 2010, constantly their family. Without explanation, them sign various documents prevented participating hearings. They asked protect applicant]. perceives certain scepticism written parents whereby they do agree [applicant’] takes into account lives next door can [him] parents. As seen file, [serious offences] between fifteen years’ imprisonment. parents, [A.N.] 25. According Government, lodged appeal 16 study prepare hearing. 20 May 26. 5 guilty production pornography, rape molestation sentenced twelve 27. conviction 28. 2012 Bor Town Region commutation view latest amendments Criminal Code reduced one year. 29. 2013 Regional 30. 2011 brought claim Ministry Finance Federation authorities’ failure determine within reasonable time. 31. claims. proceedings lasted three years, four months days. With particular relying relevant criteria Court’s case-law, considered such reasonable. judgment 32. Pending temporary centre, no. IZ-21/1 psychiatric hospital following periods: 2008, applicant, conditions inhuman degrading.
|
[
2
] |
6. The applicant was born in 1973 and until his arrest lived the town of Volzhskiy, Volgograd Region. 7. On 16 October 2007 arrested on suspicion attempted drug trafficking placed custody. He remained detention throughout investigation trial. 8. 28 May 2008 Volzhsk Town Court (“the Court”) convicted sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment a high-security correctional colony. court noted that term applicant’s be calculated with effect from date 2007. 9. 9 September Regional upheld sentence appeal. It mentioned, inter alia, at time hearing detained temporary facility no. IZ-34/5 Leninsk 10. asked Presidium re-examine case by way supervisory review. In February March 2009 submitted additional observations Presidium, which were dispatched IZ-34/5. application for review rejected. 11. request re-examination was, however, granted Supreme Russia, 13 January 2010 reduced five years months’ imprisonment. 12. Having served full, released 15 2013. 13. July 2013 another episode trafficking. 14. 27 three 15. 11 2014 died detention. 16. Government offered different versions treatment facility. 17. According applicant, 18 June he mostly His letters dated 7 December 26 August A letter 8 sent received same 18. also several occasions had been transported hearings penal medical institution LIU-15 (“institution LIU-15”) spent very short periods, transit, IZ-34/1 Volgograd. particular, LIU‑15 2008, where undergone successful tuberculosis. chest X-ray examination 14 indicated tuberculosis cured, although extensive calcification fibrosis lungs. 17 commission confirmed recovery. prescribed anti-relapse treatment, but this never provided after return 19. filed number complaints ‒ instance Prosecutor’s Office Region arguing not afforded adequate 31 re-directed claim Federal Service Execution Sentences month later authorities rejected as ill-founded. They Referring decision held fully cured. 20. Government, relying certificate issued head IZ-34/1, asserted 22 their 2014, mentioned IZ-34/5, did provide any further details. 21. Despite Court’s entire file, no documents dating period up 29 2009. merely contracted hepatitis C before arrest. dispute submission. 22. transferred colony IK-154/9 23. service poor. employ specialist detainees’ access drugs, often out stock, limited. only basic anti-fever medication. 24. information regarding assistance submit record or certificates there. 25. 2012, complained coughing blood, LIU-15. 26. copies 2012 27. records show admission general examination, clinical blood test. sputum culture test performed next day. diagnosed recurrent smear-positive infiltrative upper lobe left lung stage tissue destruction caused mycobacterium (“MBT”). protiocomb, complex medicine containing protionamide, pyrazinamide, ethambutol hydrochloride, lomefloxacin hydrochloride vitamin B6. 28. 6 November tested HIV, syphilis, B C. infection, antibodies associated other infections found. 29. week again underwent examination. revealed cavity decreased size, some negative changes tissues progressed further. 30. 20 examined doctor, who “epicrisis” (medical report discharge) significant health occurred continued protiocomb ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic used treat bacterial infections. 31. 1 modified. combination anti-tuberculosis drugs injections. 19 showed 32. Dzerzhinskiy District seeking early release grounds. That dismissed upon court’s finding state warrant 33. twice taken testing liver function first time. carried susceptibility smear-positive. MBT resistant streptomycin. tomography changes. regimen prescribed, among medicines, ethambutol, prothionamide, cycloserine, rifampicin isoniazid. 34. As follows epicrisis “regime violation record” signed two deputy heads ward, refused take prothionamide cycloserine citing adverse effects through inducing development claiming doctors should hepatitis. record, give written explanation reasons refusal. 35. established increased infiltration tissue. 2013, deteriorated due consistent refusal medicines. 36. extract history, unspecified agreed isoniazid, capreomycin condition would hepatoprotectors. 37. diagnosis contagious destruction. 38. From in-patient civilian hospital, active chronic fibrous-cavernous pulmonary bacilli emission, well There is possession concerning details during period. 39. parties about renewed Ms Yusupova indicate between 21 facilities nos. 34/5 34/1, admit conviction. 40. right lung. volume decreased, its infiltrated it contained cavities. 41. Following fresh conviction, admitted positive doctor ordered urine, tests electrocardiogram long list including capreomycin, 42. later, results received, slightly modifed include ofloxacin. 43. half four doctors, recommended continuing treatment. 44. mitral insufficiency. 45. drawn attending medicines date. following entries 19, 21, 25, do contain similar information. document (for instance, regime record) showing continue 46. condition. most recent entry made health. 47. No 48. certified having second-degree disability 2014. 49. panel aim determining whether warranted release. stated suffering multi-drug progressive aggravated cavernosal lungs cardiopulmonary decompensation third stage. completely destroyed infection. concluded could parole. 50. 51. case-file, judgment, married. 35/6/9-Ю-1ГР when being relatives, partner, Yusupova. statement personal file allowed visit de facto wife. By telegram informed death, addressing her 52. Yusupova’s submissions, contested she close family-like relationship death She visited many occasions, parcels. they together ran common household. 53. intense intimate correspondence death. confirm shared strong feelings each other. 54. formally authorised withdraw money bank account. expressly award non-pecuniary damage if died.
|
[
1
] |
4. The applicants were born in 1965, 1967, 1996, 1998 and 2000 respectively live Isaszeg. first second are spouses parents of the third, fourth fifth applicants. 5. lived as specially protected tenants a flat owned by local government Budapest 12th District. Due to seriously deteriorated condition flat, December 1995 they concluded an agreement with view moving another property government. Subsequently, dispute arose between parties concerning applicants’ rights flowing from tenancy. 6. In set civil proceedings, applicant challenged validity 1995. Buda Central District Court dismissed applicant’s claim on 27 March 1996. judgment became final at instance. 7. September 1997 brought new action against relation tenancy agreement. This was also Court; instance upheld High 2000, date not specified application. 8. On 28 August 2001 third before Court, claiming damages sustained connection dispute. 9. 6 2002 second, joined action. 10. Both Appeal, latter acting court, turned down claims. dates judgments 11. lodged petition for review. 1 October 2014 Kúria confirmed judgment. served 4 2014.
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicants are commercial companies authorised to provide services in the area of passenger transport. They located Râmnicu-Vâlcea. 6. On 23 September 2004 Vâlcea County Council adopted a decision which set out programme transport for local period three years. Within programme, Drăgăşani – Băbeni Râmnicu-Vâlcea route was considered as an individual route. Following public tender, association consisting two granted licence passengers along that 7. 15 April 2005 modified its previous and new years, covering 2008. grouped together with six other routes. Another tender took place, applicant submitted group. subsequently received licences operate transportation seven routes 8. 24 May one lost their asked courts annul Council’s 2005, oblige authorities adopt question could again be 9. first company requested (and granted) leave intervene proceedings order defend own interests. Through submissions, argued by council on accordance law, Argeş Court dismiss action. 10. 13 February 2006 held that, grouping together, county had acted arbitrarily limited access competitors market. court been without any economic or geographical considerations. therefore ordered re-analyse no. 047 (the route), proceed used following terms: “We consider these routes, creation monopoly road market encouraged, thereby breaching principles free competition. In conclusion, holds it is necessary partially revoke 63/15.04.2005 approval transport... 2008 respect offer 27, group 11, Drăgăşani– Băbeni– Considering ... Order 1842/2001 repealed 1987/2005 ..., follows defendant should Drăgăşani-Băbeni-Râmnicu-Vâlcea view legal provisions and, taking into account results, tender.” 11. lodged appeal points law (recurs) against this judgment, arguing plaintiff not proved existence legitimate interest request, partial annulment would unlawful. 12. 28 June Piteşti Appeal rejected company’s final effect. explained there were preconditions imposed fulfilled before certain taken authority. Bearing mind current case those requirements observed, lower correctly annulled administrative context request it, namely 047. conduct analysis whether might compliance force. Lastly, non-compliance obligations give whose interests negatively affected right reparation consequent damage. 13. 6 July decision; modifying 2005-08 putting all from 11 Consequently, 26 letter Romanian Traffic Authority (Autoritatea Rutieră Română) informing them they hand over entire within thirty days tender. 14. 2007 organised question. did participate. 15. 2 October requesting made 2006. Court, judgment 2006, only seven. further alleged withdrawing remaining organising group, unlawfully. 16. January companies’ complaint. contested but also regulations Ministry Transport; no longer provided possibility geographic purposes. 17. effect Timişoara December 2007. correct facts. 18. president panel judges added separate dissenting opinion law. He adopting properly enforced breached property guaranteed Article 1 Protocol No. Convention. judge participated won exploit Although re‑analyse above route, basis individually. 19. 5 Authority’s withdraw enforcement suspended pending delivery case. 20. prevented associate second company) participating next same withdrawal 65 1987/2005, grounds withdrawn. 21. 18 action company. damage caused Authority, since participate addition, proof itself prejudiced act dispute, damages responsible loss. 22. judgment. It lawfully withdrawn, 66 withdrawn 23. 25 High Cassation Justice decided allow upheld constituted “possessions” meaning Convention, reason remittal through act.
|
[
9
] |
4. The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently serving a prison sentence the Kocaeli F-Type Prison. 5. On 11 October 1996 he arrested taken into custody on suspicion of being member aiding abetting PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). 6. 18 brought before single judge at 2nd Chamber Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered him to be placed pre-trial detention. 7. 25 public prosecutor Court filed bill indictment against nine other persons, accusing membership organisation taking part murder two persons for organisation, along with his co-accused. requested that convicted sentenced under Article 125 former Turkish Criminal Code having engaged acts aimed separation territory State. 8. held total twenty-five hearings following commencement trial 13 January 1997. main witnesses defendants, were all police officers, not heard until 27 March 1998, because they failed attend hearings. 9. Between 4 September 1998 26 May 1999 proceedings adjourned four times defendants detention, including applicant, by authorities. 10. June 2001 found guilty as charged death penalty Code. 11. 28 2002 Cassation information regarding defendants’ identities had been duly noted operative reasoned judgment Court. It therefore quashed those purely procedural grounds remitted case first-instance court. 12. once again but, regard recent amendments introduced Law no. 4771 Article, life imprisonment instead penalty. In its judgment, Execution Sentences (Law 647) relevant provisions Prevention Terrorism Act 3713) conditional release force material time would applicable would, therefore, serve end life. 13. 30 2003 upheld appears this deposited registry court 12 2003. 14. further entry new 5237) 1 2005, applicant’s case-file automatically subjected re-examination Assize which found, November 2006, did require any changes previous made. has provided copy decision 15. committal order (müddetname) issued prosecutor’s office 24 February 2009 concerning execution indicated entitled virtue section 1/B (2) 107 § 16 5275 Measures.
|
[
1,
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives Suwałki. 6. facts of the case, as submitted by parties, may be summarised follows. 7. On 24 June 1975 bought his first agricultural property 4.79 hectares consisting 6 plots situated Gawrych Ruda, municipality Suwałki, between lakes Długie, Okrągłe Wigry. Three wooden buildings – a house, barn pigsty were on one plots, no. 31/1. 8. 12 January 1976 Wigry Landscape Park (Park Krajobrazowy) created. 9. 9 October 1979 further extending over 7.5 three classified farmland, nos. 30/3, 30/4 30/5. There no these plots. 10. 27 1988 an ordinance Council Ministers created National Park. applicant’s land incorporated into area covered park. 11. that he had not been informed about this incorporation at time any means challenging measure, either immediately following action or after 10 1994, when Protocol No. 1 to Convention entered force respect Poland. 12. divided 64 smaller sold some them third parties gave various members family. He currently owns Nos. 142/9, 30/12, 30/13, 30/14, 30/16, 30/17, 30/18, 30/19, 30/20, 30/23, 30/24, 30/25, 30/26, 30/27, 30/28, 30/29, 30/30, 30/31, 30/33, 30/34, 30/36 31/36. 13. In 1994 new local development plan adopted municipality. Under could used for construction purposes. 14. 21 September 1999 Director located zone Lakes Długie prohibited purposes other than maintaining water reserves harbours beaches. 15. 19 responded proposal from sell properties comprising total surface 123,300 square metres, asked reassess price, arguing proposed price based assumption concerned would suitable purposes, whereas they fact consisted exclusively forest farmland. also that, since two lakes, fell within protection which extended 200 metres out shore each lake allowed. 16. 2004 four dwellings built immediate vicinity land. Government given consent only with regard expansion existing (supplementation farm buildings). 17. 2000 plot 31/1 dwelling (siedlisko) it parties. owners requested granted permits develop already existed acquired property. 18. 30 December 2003 expired. 19. 25 Mayor Suwałki inform him designation according plan. 20. 20 February limits Park, falling partly there provision thereon. According plan, farmland afforestation recommended. 21. 16 pay compensation amounting 149,040 Polish zlotys (PLN) amendments made excluded possibility 22. 7 March replied request ill-founded because question, resolution Municipal November changed previous binding did provide land, areas recommended afforestation. 23. May 2002 preliminary permit (warunki zabudowy i zagospodarowania terenu) 30/17 30/19. 24. refused grant requested. It found planned development, house outbuilding, have too close shore, allowed Moreover, voiced negative opinion regards development. 25. appealed Self-Government Board Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze). complained, among things, treated discriminatory manner adjacent obtained building able their 26. upheld challenged decision. confirmed inadmissible taking consideration provisions expressly concerned. As allegedly treatment, neighbourhood indeed permits. However, previously property, so relied ones constructions. find treatment situation legally factually different neighbours. persons living vicinity, noted proceedings instituted matter course declare respective decisions null void. 27. lodged complaint against decision Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). 28. 17 April dismissed complaint. endorsed reasoning Self‑Government Appeal’s breach law administrative complained of. 29. applications requesting issue 30/26 30/29. ordered rectify shortcomings applications. failed do and, consequently, processed. 30. 30/13 30/17. sought permission constructing residential building, septic tank well, access public road 142. 31. invited state position request. declined give project. 32. Environment Minister (Minister Środowiska), who quashed case re‑examined. contested Conservation Nature Act 2004, while should earlier 1991. 33. 14 2005 again emphasised historical landscape values question influence unique protect. 34. 18 rectified basis 35. 22 Minister. 36. 37. appeal Warsaw Regional (Wojewódzki 38. 2006 judgment, quashing both preceding 2005, finding authorities wrong legal basis. went say first-instance consistent second-instance developed “had never intended purposes” second contained its statement “there justify granting permits”. 39. 3 inspection took place. 40. 28 considered fulfil least requirements laid down Section 36 1991 Nature, namely “it aims Park” (nie służy celom parku), commercial purpose, amongst intending run guesthouse there. admitted recently developed. build undeveloped 500 wide which, Director’s view, negatively affect lakeshore. 41. 42. 29 adopted, came 2006. 43. Additionally, parliamentary query (interpelacja poselska) behalf J.Z., member Parliament. confirmed, Municipality, before 44. discontinued view entry rendered continuation pointless since, even if merits given, declared ineffectual (stwierdzenie wygaśnięcia decyzji). 45. meantime, drawn up Municipality framework planning policy guidelines (studium kierunków uwarunkowań przestrzennego gminy) provided belonging become carried them. 46. order far reflected Park’s ban all projects imposed plot. measure amounted de facto expropriation without entitlement consequently breached Constitution latter guarantees right peaceful enjoyment one’s possessions. 47. request, Białystok, contesting lawfulness guidelines. argued directly affected situation. Not impossible pursue projects, seriously restricted ownership rights such extent became illusory. inflicted serious disadvantage unable shed rent storage space restrictions correspond pressing social need virgin territory. six farms sheds, being power supply, installation sewage system future. 48. By judgment July Białystok appeal. court addressed municipality’s argument individual particular individual, capable affecting interests, therefore court. despite essentially instrument primarily municipal bodies guiding implementation policy, degree sufficient hold interest judicial proceedings. This adoption necessarily outcome future individuals might seek measures scope policy. 49. stated authority impose regarding exercise determined applicable laws, including those regulating environmental protection. absolute, however, obliged interest, weigh relevant private interests process act rationally principle proportionality. 50. present Law obligation adopting take due note national parks nearest (otulina), 51. meaning deprived rights. maintain good technical condition. 52. compliance laws referred neighbouring fall ambit examined. 53. cassation Court. Article § (see paragraph 59 below) excessive restriction 54. 2 2007 Firstly held lower court’s ascertain position, bound it, correct. 55. erred apply circumstances case. Even though refer provision, apparent written grounds taken consideration. Its conclusion municipality, restricting rights, acted exercised powers go beyond defined constitutional reinforced event subject under 1994. state: “However, shared conclusions solutions are breaching expressed wish change use hitherto put pursuing instruments concerning prevented can demonstrate has changed, but is tantamount saying owner breached, cannot bring fruition.” 56. justified number constructed objection substance formulated examined 57. 8 2009 wrote proposing settled way sale (Nos. 30/31) expert, return agreement 58. letter 23 rejected proposal. history regulation designated reiterated expired 31 2003, 30/12 30/13. generally interested buying territory long financial possible buy
|
[] |
6. The applicant was born in 1954 and until his arrest lived St Petersburg. He is currently serving sentence a correctional colony the Arkhangelsk Region. 7. arrested on 31 July 2010 suspicion of aggravated kidnapping, extortion conspiracy. remained detention throughout investigation trial. 8. On 22 June 2012 Leningrad Regional Court found guilty as charged sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment high‑security with release be followed by year‑long restriction liberty. 9. 8 November Supreme Russia upheld conviction appeal. 10. parties provided applicant’s medical documents, including clinical records, discharge summaries, expert opinions. 11. records show that had long history cerebral diseases result having sustained head injury 1997 developed into traumatic cystic arachnoiditis. Two years later he underwent tomography examination which confirmed presence growing liquor cyst located right frontotemporal part brain. impacted acoustic visual nerves. also revealed moderate internal hydrocephalus. In recommendations written 11 May 2000, doctor noted nuclear magnetic resonance examination, an electroencephalography analysis were required properly diagnose condition. further observed that, absence any treatment, it would reasonable perform urgent bypass surgery order prevent from going irreversibly blind. Nothing documents submitted suggests recourse specific assistance or examinations regarding problems during ten preceding arrest. 12. After taken temporary facility no. IZ-47/1 Petersburg (“facility IZ-47/1”). admission resident prison performed general check-up applicant, file brain cyst. concluded “somatically healthy” therefore fit remain conditions facility. 13. 23 September 26 October seen neurologist. only able applicant. diagnosed hydrocephalus recommended X-ray skull carried out make correct diagnosis. 14. January 2011 supplemented old civilian hospital examined anew, paying regard additional information. diagnosis made 2000 consultation ophthalmologist. prescribed drug therapy for month. 15. An ophthalmologist angiopathy. 16. February tuberculosis. immediately transferred 2 Petersburg, where disease successfully treated. discharged doctors’ attestation full recovery infection. 17. April sent Gaaza in-depth examination. large variety diagnostic procedures, cervical vertebrae Russian hospital, Mariinskiy Hospital tests showed suffered vicarious mixed genesis encephalopathy at initial stage. addition, doctors establish several herniated disks perineural cysts. 18. Following completion cycle, released back Discharge summaries issued 15 contained recommendation supervision regular consultations 19. complained about headaches attending doctor. response undergo neurological hospital. However, refused admit because did not employ suitably qualified specialist, such surgeon. 20. lawyer contacted Dr K. neurosurgical department Scientific Research Institute Emergency Treatment, who agreed study give opinion state health court hearing 4 2011, saw first time. At stated computer indicated oedema base skull. insisted change lifestyle could induce complications related seizures. Surgery treat spinal even more serious, they leave entirely paralysed. Nevertheless, if deteriorate. chondroprotective wear collar. 21. certificate T., received treatment 1997-1998. T. argued condition called permanent neurologist neurosurgeon so subjected surgical intervention should need arise. T.’s opinion, ill equipped guarantee supervision. transfer northerly region serve run contrary might have resulted serious illness. Finally, alleged lacked effective remedies whereby complain poor quality treatment. 22. 1 December request lawyer, commission assessed checked existence grounds warranting detention. out‑patient no focal injuries, epileptic seizures significant limitations day-to-day activity. Taking account results dynamic examinations, satisfactory there 23. 5 visually No made. 24. whom headaches, vomiting vertigo. based vasobral, piracetam, vinpocetine. following visit 2013 modification regimen. 25. 20 approved colony, finding journey. 26. arrived March IK‑42/4 Astrakhan Region (“colony IK-42/4”), doctor, been suffering end assessment. urgency warranted. 27. 25 drafted another report, assessing basis 2012. complied increased. stressed appropriate ensured specialised institution, least requisite monitoring using needed every eight months. Lastly, emphasised lead deterioration inducing ischemia, thus putting life risk. 28. August authorities number tests, panel declared disability. re-admitted 2014. 29. last two entries are illegible. provide information health.
|
[] |
5. The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently detention Wronki. 6. has been serving a prison sentence Wronki Prison since 31 March 2010. 7. On 19 September 2010 he brought civil compensation claim before the Szamotuły District Court. He claimed that conditions of many his cells were so bad as to amount breach Articles 3 8 Convention. referred fact not properly heated autumn winter had no proper ventilation summer, meaning prisoners suffered from intense levels heat. windows old frames leaked. further submitted toilet facilities only separated by low fibreboard partition, which made even minimum level privacy impossible for him. 8. 21 June 2011 Court refused request gather evidence producing photographs carrying out an on-the-spot inspection concerned. It closed hearing gave judgment, dismissing applicant’s its entirety. court established, referring State Treasury, acting legal representative Prison, access sports, cultural educational activities medical care. They provided with personal hygiene items appropriate food. Those factors, seen whole, alleviated harm inherent part consequence sentences. found indeed off partitions. This did provide full privacy, but sufficient ensure sight others when they used toilet. There WC washbasin each facility. As regards allegations inadequate insufficient heating cells, well lit ventilated; repaired heaters changed worked properly. alleged lack light, granted special permission use additional reading lamp. view Treasury acted unlawfully there intention act faith or cause damage applicant. In absence unlawfulness rights could be found. any event, harsh rights. 9. appealed, arguing failed establish facts case correctly, main because it form photographs, film cells. judgment therefore based on factual findings. Furthermore, far general served (quality food, care, sports activities), those factors constituted basis claim. complained neither about poor food quality nor activities. grounds fundamentally related sanitary and, particular, using explicitly confirmed first-instance court. reiterated divide between toilets cell amounted dignity. indicated some at rest normal walls door. 10. By 6 December Poznań Appeal dismissed appeal, fully accepting findings first‑instance court’s assessment facts. nuisance caused manner fitted facilities, namely way partitions, exceed difficulties sentence.
|
[
4
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives Diósd. 6. On 4 July 2002 the organised a demonstration aimed at forcing authorities to preserve ballot papers of legislative elections with view potential recounting. Government submitted that were bound for statutory destruction on 20 as per section 5(3) Decree no. 48/2001. (XII. 29.) BM Procedural Time-limits Legislative Elections 7/21 April 2002. In applicant’s view, relevant law could be understood – by many effect destroyed early 7 Previously, 2 2002, Parliament had decided not put agenda bill amendment 90-day preservation period ballots. 7. event which been announced police consisted completely blocking all six lanes centrally situated bridge over Danube, Erzsébet Bridge, parking cars across it, their doors locked. started about 8.20 a.m. demonstrators, including applicant, refused comply police’s order remove vehicles leave. Apart from ambulances, no pass blockade. By 9.00 crowd gathered situation evolved into massive traffic jam Budapest. At 11.00 finally towed away police, flow resumed 12 noon. 8. 5 Pest Central District Court imposed regulatory fine 50,000 Hungarian forints (HUF)[1] applicant. court held complying instruction leave site demonstration, committed offence disorderly conduct within meaning 142 (1c) Act LXIX Regulatory Offences. 9. International observers, particular Office Democratic Institutions Human Rights Organization Security Co-operation Europe (OSCE), found parliamentary conducted manner consistent international standards electoral system provided basis generally transparent, accountable, free, fair equal process.[2] 10. media widely covered events and, an official communiqué, President Republic condemned incident, declaring it illegal. He underlined Hungary stable democracy where human rights observed even critical views should voiced lawful manner.[3] 11. September Budapest XI Police Department fined his car middle Bridge necessitating its being away. appeal, 15 May 2003 Buda reduced HUF 5,000[4]. 12. Criminal proceedings subsequently instituted against accomplices. 16 June 2008 he convicted “disturbance public works” 260(1) Code. 13. dismissed defendants’ arguments according they exercising freedom assembly. Making reference Court’s judgment case Bukta Others v. (no. 25691/04, ECHR 2007‑III), made distinction, holding action regarded spontaneous prompt response (the satisfied date paper 48/2001 (see above paragraph 6)), nor like Bukta, since contravened Highway Code disturbed functioning “public works”. latter regard, caused become paralysed capital several hours running 29 bus lines respect 642 scheduled individual trips, concerning approximately 23,000 passengers. sentenced 30 days community work. 14. 26 November Regional upheld this judgment. accused noted “the message is non-notified assemblies cannot peaceful; assembly, notified or non-notified, peaceful where, very manner, constitutes unlawful conduct.” referred 2(3) III 1989 Right Assembly, exercise right assembly may constitute offence, instigation thereto, violate freedoms others”. Quoting Ezelin France (26 1991, Series A 202), established “in protection under Article 11 shall ensured participants long do commit any reprehensible act such occasion”. sum, “it directly follows Constitutional European non-peaceful nature does depend whether participant broke smashed asset applied violence property. An rendered passive well. outward appearance parties’ seemed causal result conduct, major disturbance road traffic, thereby protected law.” 15. 3 December 2009 Supreme petition review. It added reasoning lower courts “criminal rules excluded restricted invoking assembly; exempt compliance criminal restrictions.” This decision served 18 January 2010.
|
[] |
5. The applicant was born in 1981. He is currently serving a prison sentence. 6. On the morning of 3 October 2008, digging potatoes together with his wife and G. (Ms), neighbour, near house. had consumed some vodka at breakfast. 7. applicant’s eleven-month old daughter house, four-year stepson, V., who watching cartoons on DVD player. house locked, key pocket. 8. At about 11.15 a.m., when carrying sack to cellar, asked him have look children. gone for twenty minutes. When he returned, said that beer. 9. 12.30 p.m., work finished, went came out told her son dead. she entered living room, saw V. lying floor cable around neck. television set overturned nearby. expressed presumption tried reach remote control top television, and, as result, accidentally been strangled by cables. 10. Somebody called police. By time they arrived, put bed placed different room. were questioned witnesses. They admitted relocated body explained done so because felt stressed. 11. An autopsy child carried evening same day expert conducted it investigator informed boy somebody, not died result an accident. 12. investigator, police officer duty, returned inspected scene once again. maintained account there officers took station, without formally deciding procedural status. did object. 13. duty conversation suggested “tell truth”. As 10.30 p.m. wrote statement “voluntary surrender police”, which having got angry mess contained note familiarised content Article 63 Constitution (see paragraph 37 below). 14. day, criminal case opened against suspicion murder child. 15. spent night station. 16. 1 a.m. 4 arrested suspect. arrest report waived right legal defence regretted what done. 17. another police” previous one. 18. 5 2008 granted aid lawyer appointed him. During questioning accused during reconstruction crime, presence lawyer, confession. 19. 6 underwent forensic medical examination, apparently context judicial decision pre-trial detention. No injuries found raise any complaints before expert. 20. In (the exact date legible available copy) confirmed findings strangulation. 21. unspecified signed agreement representation Mr R. 22. 20 father, acting behalf, assistance Gavrylchenko also represented proceedings this Court). joined lawyer. It appears too continued represent applicant. 23. 13 November refused services 24. December ordered psychiatric examination view establishing whether could be held liable offence charged. 25. 10 experts completed aforementioned examination. concluded applicant, although showing indication “slight intellectual retardation verge slight mental disability” (легка інтелектуальна недостатність на межі легкої дебільності), aware actions them. 26. February 2009, accused, retracted confession claimed innocence. submitted “had incriminated himself under physical psychological coercion police”. 27. 11 2009 decided allegation warranted separate investigation. therefore severed from file certain materials relevance (such confession, transcript various sessions examination). 28. 23 additional evaluation, request completed. excluded possibility cables fallen him, origin bruises either. 29. March Chornobay Town Prosecutor’s Office open respect coerced police, no offence. 30. 30 indicted. 31. 18 May Cherkasy Regional Court Appeal, sitting court first instance, guilty sentenced twelve years’ imprisonment. relied, particular, confessions made thereafter until 2009. decided, however, take into grounds longer regarded should suspect legally represented. Furthermore, relied material evidence. dismissed unsubstantiated. trial fact write mitigating factor fixing 32. 28 copy judgment served 33. June appealed points law. complained, lack access initial station 2008. confessing “physical violence pressure”. challenged accuracy disagreed assessment facts court. page cassation appeal stamped Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO), detained time, confirming sent 34. 24 law similar arguments. stamp shows received 25 35. According Government, neither nor applied Supreme participate hearing. However, contains such both dated has not, other acknowledgment its receipt. 36. 15 September hearing participation prosecutor, but absence or upheld first-instance considered violated,
|
[
3
] |
4. The applicants’ dates of birth and places residence are given in the Appendix. 5. applicants were nominated by Karabakh Election Bloc as candidates parliamentary elections 7 November 2010 applied for registration various single-mandate electoral constituencies (see Appendix). 6. As Electoral Code required that each nomination a candidate be supported minimum 450 voters, on submitted sheets containing signature more than voters collected support their candidacy to respective Constituency Commissions (“ConECs”). 7. Before decision ConEC registering an applicant candidate, other documents had first verified special working groups (işçi qrupu) established ConECs. None invited participate examination signatures groups. 8. ConECs Appendix) issued decisions refuse requests after found some voter invalid remaining valid numbered fewer 450. Signatures several grounds case, including: (a) falsified or repeat (“signatures made repeatedly same individuals who already signed name individuals”); (b) incorrect personal information (birth date, identity card number, so on); (c) persons whose cards expired; (d) belonging registered outside constituency; (e) uncertified corrections sheets; (f) withdrawal collector his her own certifying list, invalidating entire list 50 signatures; (g) unspecified “other grounds”; on. 9. meetings where taken. In despite requirements law, all relevant group (expert opinions, minutes meeting, records tables results examination), well itself, only available been many cases, never them late during subsequent judicial proceedings Baku Court Appeal. 10. Each lodged complaint with Central Commission (“the CEC”) against decision. They following complaints: findings such large numbers factually wrong, unsubstantiated, arbitrary. Some those fact could easily have rebutted simply contacting question confirming authenticity signature. However, not taken any steps corroborate reliable evidence, questioning number randomly selected from suspected being false. There no specialist handwriting experts among members therefore highly subjective arbitrary; declare arbitrary breach substantive procedural law. Relying provisions Code, argued unintentional rectifiable errors serve reason invalid. If rectified making necessary corrections, notify particular this within twenty‑four hours provide him opportunity make before deciding candidate. had, however, declared case basis errors, without informing advance giving corrections; procedure followed also breached Code. Contrary Article 59.3, informed time place presence ensured. 59.13 provided copy validity at least twenty-four prior meeting dealing registration. Subsequently, none meetings, which deprived argue position; invalidation law these unlawful. For example, did allow merely because voter’s document recently local public officials police officers undue pressure collectors “withdraw” they tricked sign candidate’s favour “by deceptive means”. 11. CEC arranged another its group. was process. below 12. differed group, differences often significant. Furthermore, almost every declaring different ConEC. most cases certain total “appeared” falsified, is, “made person people” (“ehtimal ki, eyni şəxs tərəfindən icra olunmuşdur”). 13. On dates, rejected complaints attend complaint. Moreover, (including documents) taken, while all, stage appeal proceedings. 14. Appeal commissions. reiterated concerning procedures. raised CEC’s procedures: contrary failed ensure complaints; them, depriving mount effective challenge decisions; commissions based expert opinions contained nothing conjecture speculation (for ki”) falsified), instead properly facts; additional complaints, ignored submissions take into account. 15. domestic directly 3 Protocol No. 1 Convention, claimed right stand election infringed. 16. Appendix), dismissed appeals applicants, finding arguments irrelevant unsubstantiated there quashing CEC. 17. cassation Supreme Court, reiterating previous arguing carried out fair delivered unreasoned judgments. 18. examining detail, doubt
|
[] |
4. The applicants’ dates of birth and places residence are given in the Appendix. 5. applicants stood as candidates parliamentary elections 7 November 2010 applied for registration various single–mandate electoral constituencies (see Appendix). Mr Natig Jafarov (application no. 25361/11) was self-nominated, while Ali Gasimli, Tazakhan Miralamli, Parviz Hashimov Eyyub Umudov (applications nos. 25330/11, 25340/11, 25345/11 25645/11 respectively) were nominated by coalition Popular Front Müsavat parties. 6. As Electoral Code required that each nomination a candidate be supported minimum 450 voters, on submitted sheets containing signature more than voters collected support their candidacy to respective Constituency Commissions (“ConECs”). 7. Before decision ConEC registering an applicant candidate, other documents had first verified special working groups (işçi qrupu) established ConECs. None invited participate examination signatures groups. 8. ConECs Appendix) issued decisions refuse requests after found some voter invalid remaining valid numbered fewer 450. Signatures several grounds case, including: (a) falsified or repeat (“signatures made repeatedly same individuals who already signed name individuals”); (b) incorrect personal information (birth date, identity card number, so on); (c) persons whose cards expired; (d) belonging registered outside constituency; (e) uncertified corrections sheets; (f) claimed have been obtained “by deceptive means”; (g) unspecified “other grounds”. 9. meetings where taken. In despite requirements law, all relevant group (expert opinions, minutes meeting, records tables results examination), well itself, only available many cases, never them late during subsequent judicial proceedings Baku Court Appeal. 10. Each lodged complaint with Central Commission (“the CEC”) against decisions. They following complaints: findings such large numbers factually wrong, unsubstantiated, arbitrary. Some those fact could easily rebutted simply contacting question confirming authenticity his her signature. However, not taken any steps corroborate reliable evidence, questioning number randomly selected from suspected being false. There no specialist handwriting experts among members therefore highly subjective arbitrary; declare arbitrary breach substantive procedural law. Relying provisions Code, argued unintentional rectifiable errors serve reason invalid. If rectified making necessary corrections, notify particular this within twenty‑four hours provide him opportunity make before deciding candidate. had, however, declared case basis errors, without informing advance giving corrections; procedure followed also breached Code. Contrary Article 59.3, informed time place presence ensured. 59.13 provided copy validity at least twenty-four prior meeting dealing registration. Subsequently, none meetings, which deprived argue position; invalidation law unlawful. For example, did allow merely because voter’s document recently expired. Likewise, it unlawful invalidate unexplained grounds”, exhaustive list clear declaring give commissions discretionary power introduce purpose; local public officials police officers undue pressure collectors “withdraw” they tricked sign candidate’s favour means”. 11. Enclosed complaints CEC, statements affirming signatures. into consideration CEC. 12. CEC arranged another its own group. process. below 13. differed group, differences often significant. Furthermore, almost every different ConEC. most cases certain total “appeared” falsified, is, “made person people” (“ehtimal ki, eyni şəxs tərəfindən icra olunmuşdur”). 14. On dates, rejected attend complaint. Moreover, (including documents) taken, all, stage appeal proceedings. 15. Appeal commissions. reiterated concerning procedures. raised CEC’s procedures: contrary failed ensure complaints; them, depriving mount effective challenge decisions; based expert opinions contained nothing conjecture speculation (for ki”) falsified), instead properly facts; additional complaints, ignored submissions take account. 16. domestic directly 3 Protocol No. 1 Convention, right stand election infringed. 17. Appendix), dismissed appeals applicants, finding arguments irrelevant unsubstantiated there quashing 18. cassation Supreme Court, reiterating previous arguing carried out fair delivered unreasoned judgments. 19. examining detail, doubt
|
[] |
5. The applicant was born in 1984 and lives Borgenhaugen. 6. On 18 September 2008 the Sarpsborg City Court (tingrett) convicted inter alia on a charge of attempted rape committed against Ms A during night 9 March car parked near petrol station. At time had been seventeen twenty-three years old, respectively. Together they left party at Mr C’s home order to buy mineral water borrowed from D, A’s boyfriend. They both attended one week before but did not know each other. sitting talking listening music for while decided return party. As car’s battery flat it would start. called friend, B, who worked as taxi driver collected him brought them back home. find credible applicant’s explanation that he kissed little extent touched another voluntarily forcibly her. 7. By judgment 5 February 2009, Borgarting High (lagmannsrett), hearing appeal with jury, sentenced year’s imprisonment account this (and number other offences which charged same proceedings). It ordered pay 60,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK) (approximately 7,500 euros time) compensation non-pecuniary damage. 8. In its reasoning described detail how applicant, after B (who could come straight away), obtain sexual contact by force. stated beginning, when tried kiss touch her, told she interested because girlfriend D slapped applicant. stopped, moved himself over her seat held arms behind neck support. defend herself situation involved into fight between them, physically inferior terms situation. such control also able call again fact his way hindered continuing, until moment lights B’s appeared. 9. noted testified noticed anything conspicuous about A; cheerful friendly clothes disorder. However, suggest, Court’s view, exposed abuse causing great burden She managed pull together arrived. Her reaction expressed vis-à-vis others only returned home, where cried despair. boyfriend, understood something very wrong. After opening gradually him, explained what happened. 10. During pause oral proceedings Court, heard, jurors –“J” – informed presiding judge previous contacts A. When resumed break, public prosecutor, counsel defence assistant advocate (bistandsadvokat) matter. Counsel requested J be disqualified taking part further grounds lack impartiality. (bistandsadvokat offeret) supported counsel’s motion. prosecutor understanding motion without stance. 11. contestation J’s impartiality made reference section 108 Administration Courts Act (domstolloven see paragraph 23 below) Article 6 § 1 Convention. According relevant court record, stated: “Counsel members court, [J] [who member jury] foster mother child pupil school class victim, victim connection birthday celebrations thought recall knowing participated outings parent. have any personal knowledge view [bilde] calm girl. Last there dated far time.” 12. withdrew deliberate issue ought withdraw. pointed out might if person question particular reasons identifying or were circumstances effect prejudging attitude prior victim. present case. observed “the jury formed picture many ago experienced quiet person”. capable influencing sustainability victim’s assessment guilt sporadic influencing, another, criminal special regard parties case recuse herself, found absence partiality so clear decisive. 13. Consequently, juror took entire trial including jury’s deliberations vote questions put rape. answered affirmative professional judges confirmed verdict, part, two selected drawing lots, sentencing award damage 14. appealed procedure Supreme (Høyesterett), arguing participation incompatible 15. 26 June 2009 three votes two, rejected appeal. 16. majority consider attendance itself indicated an identification weakened confidence contacts, knowledge, several time. Neither alleged sufficient ground disqualification. 17. Nor mere disqualify deemed acceptable may some accepted has latter. Therefore, whether matter thereafter repeated open bring different light. 18. majority’s statement young woman previously met younger, girl, hardly perceived expression person’s credibility give impression with, sympathies for, This neutral value judgment; observation child’s inconspicuous conduct. possibly maintained draw conclusion girl make fuss justifications doing so, suggested crying despair drive sign actually no basis event reason attaching weight possibility. information emerged given evidence hour. point, J, good opportunity form independent updated person. That withdraw Accordingly, calling doubt purposes Act, interpreted light 19. minority considered take starting point concerned serious stigmatising accusation defendant. There lot stake easily perceive verdict acquitting defendant mean believed unfounded shared (see 16 above) not, their own, What decisive heard accused witness describing latter “quiet person” lead conclusion. regard, An additional factor lesser importance surrounding persons behaviour attempt. 20. timing considerable importance. For seem juror, having evidence, confined informing correct add affirmation positive 21. Whilst literal interpretation directly related assessment, positively loaded and, just least if, according do thus false attempt “at time”, secondary nuance overlooked overhearing which, timing, reservation current character. 22. important, albeit decisive, consideration under demanded herself. Under Convention, standpoint [was] important decisive”; “fear” “objectively justified” Ferrantelli Santangelo v. Italy, 7 August 1996, 58, Reports Judgments Decisions 1996‑III).
|
[
3
] |
4. The applicants’ dates of birth and places residence are given in the Appendix. 5. applicants stood as candidates parliamentary elections 7 November 2010 applied for registration various single-mandate electoral constituencies (see Appendix). Mr Khalid Bagirov (application no. 17356/11) was nominated by Karabakh Election Bloc. other were self-nominated. 6. As Electoral Code required that each nomination a candidate be supported minimum 450 voters, on submitted sheets containing signature more than voters collected support their candidacy to respective Constituency Commissions (“ConECs”). 7. Before decision ConEC registering an applicant candidate, documents had first verified special working groups (işçi qrupu) established ConECs. None invited participate examination signatures groups. 8. ConECs Appendix) issued decisions refuse requests after found some voter invalid remaining valid numbered fewer 450. Signatures several grounds case, including: (a) falsified or repeat (“signatures made repeatedly same individuals who already signed name individuals”); (b) incorrect personal information (birth date, identity card number, so on); (c) persons whose cards expired; (d) belonging registered outside constituency; (e) uncertified corrections sheets; (f) “withdrawn” claimed have been obtained “by deceptive means”; (g) unspecified “other grounds”; on. 9. meetings where taken. In despite requirements law, all relevant group (expert opinions, minutes meeting, records tables results examination), well itself, only available many cases, never them late during subsequent judicial proceedings Baku Court Appeal. 10. Each lodged complaint with Central Commission (“the CEC”) against decision. They following complaints: findings such large numbers factually wrong, unsubstantiated, arbitrary. Some those fact could easily rebutted simply contacting question confirming authenticity his her signature. However, not taken any steps corroborate reliable evidence, questioning number randomly selected from suspected being false. There no specialist handwriting experts among members therefore highly subjective arbitrary; declare arbitrary breach substantive procedural law. Relying provisions Code, argued unintentional rectifiable errors serve reason invalid. If rectified making necessary corrections, notify particular this within twenty‑four hours provide him opportunity make before deciding candidate. had, however, declared case basis errors, without informing advance giving corrections; procedure followed also breached Code. Contrary Article 59.3, informed time place presence ensured. 59.13 provided copy validity at least twenty-four prior meeting dealing registration. Subsequently, none meetings, which deprived argue position; invalidation law unlawful. For example, did allow merely because voter’s document recently expired. Likewise, it unlawful invalidate unexplained grounds”, exhaustive list clear declaring give commissions discretionary power introduce purpose; local public officials police officers undue pressure collectors “withdraw” they tricked sign candidate’s favour means”. 11. Enclosed complaints CEC, statements affirming signatures. into consideration CEC. 12. CEC arranged another its own group. process. below 13. differed group, differences often significant. Furthermore, almost every different ConEC. most cases certain total “appeared” falsified, is, “made person people” (“ehtimal ki, eyni şəxs tərəfindən icra olunmuşdur”). 14. On dates, rejected attend complaint. Moreover, (including documents) taken, while all, stage appeal proceedings. 15. Appeal commissions. reiterated concerning procedures. raised CEC’s procedures: contrary failed ensure complaints; them, depriving mount effective challenge decisions; based expert opinions contained nothing conjecture speculation (for ki”) falsified), instead properly facts; additional complaints, ignored submissions take account. 16. domestic directly 3 Protocol No. 1 Convention, right stand election infringed. 17. Appendix), dismissed appeals applicants, finding arguments irrelevant unsubstantiated there quashing 18. cassation Supreme Court, reiterating previous arguing carried out fair delivered unreasoned judgments. 19. examining detail, doubt
|
[] |
6. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives Miami. 7. facts of the case as submitted by parties can be summarised follows. 8. In 2008 US tax authorities (the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] Washington) discovered – primarily from a complaint lodged former employee UBS SA bank Geneva responsible for asset management bank’s private North American customers that thousands taxpayers held accounts which had not been declared to their national or else economic rights respect such accounts. Owing role it apparently played connection, faced risk criminal prosecution. 9. On 18 February 2009 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) concluded between Department Justice (DOJ). this document acknowledged had, particular, allowed use off-shore conceal assets income met with provided on-the-spot advice, United States, who IRS. It agreed proceedings could dropped return settlement amount 780 million dollars (USD). 10. 19 IRS brought civil action (a so-called “John Doe summons” [JDS]) requesting formal order reveal identities its 52,000 communicate data on 11. Switzerland concerned dispute might give rise conflict Swiss law should obtain information, were therefore suspended pending extra-judicial reconciliation. 12. August 2009, view identifying question, Federal Council (Government) Confederation States America (“the States”) an “Agreement concerning request relating company SA” (“Agreement 09”) ... Under first Article Agreement 09 undertook deal mutual assistance SA’s accordance criteria laid down Appendix and, moreover, conformity Convention 2 October 1996 double taxation (CDI-US 96) Drawing those criteria, considered “some 4,450 open closed accounts”. further set up “special task force” enabling Tax Authority (AFC) reach final decisions framework within specific timescale. return, would submit District Court Southern Florida joint discontinuance enforcement Summons” (see 3 09) 13. 31 AFC obtaining information who, 1 January 2001 December 2008, “authority sign other access to” “held, supervised maintained section one branches subsidiaries Switzerland”. 14. September ordered provide purposes 15 June 1998 Order US-Swiss decided instigate procedure requested provide, complete files mentioned 09. 15. By judgment 21 2010 (A-7789/2009) Administrative (TAF) accepted appeal against decision taken concerned, 09, challenge falling category defined paragraph 2/A/b. reasoning, TAF that: remain out convention depended, CDI-US 96; under terms aforementioned convention, granted cases fraud, but evasion (that is say mere failure declare account authorities; regarding distinction ...; accordingly 96 only facilitated exchange “fraud similar offence” law, swindle (tax dint “creative accountancy”) forgery; having regard obligations imposed Switzerland, have form international treaty ratified Parliament put “optional referendum”; accordingly, friendly own insufficient. Consequently, voided given basis 16. entry into force called question application Indeed, approximately individual covered some 4,200 situations long-term enormous proportions. Government inability aid create major difficulties bilateral relations States. deemed likely impose compensatory measures, minimum they expect reactivate through channels. court then extremely high coercive fines. March 2010, prevent development, after fresh negotiations “Protocol amending IRS’s SA, signed Washington 2009”, referred 10”. provisions protocol incorporated They became provisionally applicable date signature parties. 17. Decree 17 “approving well Protocol Agreement”, Assembly Parliament) approved 10, gave leave ratify them. consolidated version amended 10 sometimes “Convention 10” stated optional referendum 141 Constitution certain treaties available present case. 18. July delivered pilot (A-4013/2010) validity ruled fully binding meaning 190 there no substantive hierarchy (apart pre-eminence jus cogens); same status 96, like (for Protection Human Rights Fundamental Freedoms) International Covenant Civils Political (“UN II”), adopted prior insofar compatible rules latter because took precedence virtue posteriority. 19. transmitted applicant’s file 2010. 7 all conditions granting ordering communication documents published SA. 20. appealed decision. without assessing actual lawfulness aside, noting right hearing flouted. back AFC, inviting allow his observations affording 21. letter 28 notified deadline 29 forward any before issuing 13 statement position matter. 4 November once again requisite fulfilled authorities. 22. 8 He complained, substance, lack legal violation treaties, owing, non‑compliance prohibition retroactivity laws non-respect life, presumption innocence, principle equality non-discrimination, silent. 23. Determining domestic instance, 2011. held, authorities, considering did verify previous conventions. Secondly, reference A-4013/2010 above), following reasoning: “3.2. AFC’s does relate grant assistance. merely whereby lower-level authority 20c (3) 96. Therefore, may relation provision, constituted sufficient take requiring, handover That being case, appellant’s ill-founded. 4.1.1. found No derogation possible authorities’ practice. [of Constitution] required apply includes event legislation assessed where more recent. thus applied, even if contrary A‑4013/2010 point references therein; see also judgments A-7014/2010 2011, 4.1.1 therein, A-4835/2010 11 5.1.1, A‑6053/2010 2.1). 4.1.2 With particular relationship different conventions (Convention [in 26 thereof], ECHR thereof] UN II thereof]), pointed established pursuant solely 30 Vienna Law Treaties 23 May 1969 (VCLT) cogens). This over including II, two comprise cogens. did, however, find (1) applicable, (2) ECHR, permits restrictions family fulfilled. indeed case-law European Rights. Furthermore, Switzerland’s interests interest able honour country’s commitments persons keep pecuniary situation secret 4.1.3 stated, cited above, (no punishment law) relevant procedures. provision was, exceptionally, person threatened, State, breach 4.1.5 has are free expressly implicitly retroactive Moreover, procedural applied retroactively events, non-retroactivity included wished characterise differently occurred commonly ‘retroactive effect’. wish become effect transpired clearly Even though specified, instrument come signature, prevail 4.1.7. noted, light judgments, objections applicability discarded ado: incompatibility II), life ECHR). opinion, fact assistance, notwithstanding (which optional). Finally, unable legislation, still bound must met. 4.2. appellant breached principles non-discrimination penalising persons, customers. claimed banks. relied Constitution, 14 16 1966 Economic, Social Cultural (UN I; RS 0.103.1) paragraphs II. As cannot legislation. overrides agreements above). establishes regulations compared banks A-7156/2010 5.2.1). ...” 24. grounds, dismissed appeal. 25. 24 2011 public-law Court, submitting considerations challenged matters administrative April inadmissible, mainly 20 (ATF 137 128), appeals Double Taxation subsequent fell scope 26. 2012 banking 27. 2013, invited inform developments brief summary consequences penalties personally effectively him disclosure (AFC). 28. 2013 he currently respond Court’s request. 2014 conducting inspection yet charged offence.
|
[] |
5. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives Voronezh (Voronezh Region). 6. On 9 September 2009, between 10 11 a.m., the applicant’s son, Mr Sergey Lykov, his friend P. were stopped by police officers at a bus stop Voronezh. They given no reasons. Lykov then taken to premises of department no. 6 Region criminal (оперативно-розыскная часть № криминальной милиции главного управления внутренних дел по Воронежской области) (hereafter, “the station”). 7. Inside that station, officer, S., ordered other present undress bind their hands feet with adhesive tape. S. began punching on head, urging them confess all thefts they had committed. Faced silence, another officer hit each heads violently against ground, as well cupboard table. After 15 minutes striking one “give [P.] fashionable haircut” cutting locks hair knife. placed plastic bags around suffocate them. repeated nature these actions, who exhausted, asked tell him what he wanted know. again alleged thefts. admitted burgled an apartment 2007. take room. 8. continued torture electricity. A few later returned office. According P., “in bad way”, although obvious physical injuries. office, where writing confession. While writing, heard betin cry out. cries lasted good hour. Shortly afterwards came into room being held told going scene 2007 burglary. stated not during this visit seen afterwards. finally temporary detention centre, examined doctor noted several injuries (bruises grazing arm). learned thrown himself out window. 9. 7 2009 decision (постановление о приводе) issued ordering P.’s arrest for purpose questioning witness. 10. found street Voronezh, company Lykov. two friends accompany station. invited purpose, particular, “provid[ing] useful information”, line section § 4 Police Act 18 April 1991, force. accepted invitation own free will. 11. discussions T. decided theft purportedly committed provided written statement effect. informed constitutional right incriminate himself. 12. At 6.50 p.m., after having finished confession, suddenly threw open window T.’s which fifth floor. 13. 7.50 p.m. arrived hospital emergency medical assistance team. He died 1.10 a.m. 2009. 14. Lykov’s cousin I., news him, carried search she corpse morgue. examining body, I. it signs numerous injuries, particular haematoma above left eyebrow, facial haematomas wrists. 15. 13 wrote Prosecutor General Russia, requesting investigation be opened death She her been arrested while 16. 22 B. from Tsentralny district station refusing supposed theft, street, mobile telephone, confessed: avowed offence never recorded registers complaints victims offences, police. 17. One hour incident (at 8 p.m.), investigator, Ya., Leninskiy Investigation Committee premises, Office 55, fallen. investigator seized gas mask sheet paper indicated traces blood but only grass area below 18. By 21 L. same refused victim’s death. Referring Article 24 1 (1) Russian Code Criminal Procedure, concluded 19. summarised explanations T., that: – 3 F.; second individual (P.) sought suspicion theft; interview latter confessed voluntarily theft. Although started stood up climbed onto chair, table beside window, jumped window; rushed prevent jumping, too late; struck or forced offence. injuries; calm, complained life difficult, since care ill mother. 20. also explanation Sa., 2 p.m patrol city, individuals scooter. Since information suspected moving about scooter, persons concerned identity check. agreed; arrival separated. Sa. F. interviewed conversation Lykov; entering office point, able note handcuffed struck. telephone; complain ill-treatment any kind; learnt attempted life. 21. response questions, denied involvement 22. time, statements made effect noon city centre when approached, introduced themselves [and Lykov] separated different offices. afterwards, passing corridor, sitting something. struck, crying out, noticed injury person; heart pains, refer intention commit suicide. 23. took applicant, close relatives victim, expressed thoughts 24. presence case file confession drawn shortly before 25. Relying communicated treated fall, established resulted fall No indicating kicks punches, use handcuffs, corpse. 26. Lastly, contents report on-site inspection conducted (see paragraph 17 above). 27. 28 June 2010 set aside hierarchically superior civil servant, additional investigation, noting, necessary to: find witnesses could confirm suicidal thoughts; verify acted accordance law; consider whether ensured safety inside bore liability. 28. In meantime, 27 October autopsy body orders forensic up. document, expert multiple fractures chest spine, base dome skull. expert, location identified, preponderance internal over external led conclusion those originated [Mr Lykov’s] there cause-and-effect relationship (hematomas scratches trunk lower upper limbs, namely hematoma fold elbow measuring x cm; scratch forearm 0.7 4.5 cm carpus; shoulder 14 cm, 5 2.5 knee 1.5 oval-shaped ankle cm) As question struggle self-defence, generally medicine arms wrists classified way. Thus, bruise carpus forearm. added unable ascertain how sustained. deposited morgue unclothed. 29. July 2010, Ko. investigation. reasoning, quoted witness deceased’s relatives, already cited 30. questioned certain got know café drank alcoholic beverages together. Those explained alcohol became talkative that, intoxicated state, lack money difficulties invalid confided companions arrested, “would harm himself”. 31. directive, secret, attention officers. personally responsible health freely consented attend interview, “except event violation rights freedoms citizens proclaimed Constitution”. Regard directive facts noted, negligence. 32. result voluntary act latter’s part. consequence, F., B., abuse power, grounds, firstly, illegal, and, secondly, ill-treated him. grounds prosecuting homicide, assault incitement suicide, “had violent”. 33. February 2011 lodged judicial appeal decision. complained, inter alia, son without fact properly recorded, deprived legal assistance. Equally, submitted incomplete focused hypothesis favourable criticised investigative authorities failing conduct examination order obtain genetic material, including perhaps son. handwriting expert’s should have commissioned determine son’s psychological state Further, referring report, interpreted accused explain origin cause 34. District Court upheld contested its court reiterated arguments investigator’s considered complete thorough. arguments, opinion analysis unnecessary, family confirmed handwriting’s authenticity. DNA samples suffocation. evidence support idea deceased subjected detained unlawfully. 35. August Regional decision, appeal, 36. 2012 lawyer sent letter head asking new entrust investigations offences State employees armed forces, part Russia federal constituency. fear if requested investigators regional Committee, would ineffective. argued available locally-based agents gather information, choice Ministry Interior, among whom might involved 37. November dismissed request, considering law revoking opening 38. day arrest, (“IVS”). During admission, doctor’s assistant following injuries: shoulder-blade, elbows knees, ear. drew recording noting road-traffic accident occurred participated beating. road-accident version events, himself, reprisals, obliged it. 39. transferred remand prison observed IVS. 40. unspecified date complaint beating reprisal. Then according submissions –, withdrew Ya. circumstances ill-treatment. possible consequences replied event, none. 41. inspector recounted ill-treatment, withdrawal complaint, occurred. 42. continued, merits Court. public hearing statement. account context described events are paragraphs 6-8 judgment. threatened withdraw make surrounding beaten prior concerning placement pre-trial detention, lodging judge. unprovoked attacks administration detained. under protection capacity inflicted proceedings brought power murder suggested reopened. 43. judge included file. With regard requests respect unrelated ongoing trial; party trial proceedings. requests. 44. subsequent hearings statement, prison’s 45. 30 prosecutor torturers. has outcome 46. serving sentence, released. submits received threats connection case. For moved Sweden. 20 2014 abroad, offered witness, questioned. 47. 23 December 2013 employee European Human Rights. so allegations verified. 48. January deputy within meaning 146 Procedure. Ms Lykova’s application, Rights, contained elements suggesting 49. 16 answer, questions: showed so, where; resulting struggle, handcuffs restraint limbs using tape; electrocution. Government observations. 50. first above), gave similar explanations. V., allegedly occasionally drug addict money, spoken 51. grandmother cousin, knowledge, did drugs, alcohol, 52. granting victim status. 53. officers’ conduct, Internal Security Service report; conclusions can follows: indeed fault established. professionalism sufficient controlling shortcoming enabled throw
|
[
0,
1,
2
] |
5. The first and second applicants were born in 1948 1970 respectively live Bujanovac Municipality. 6. Following the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention Kosovo, on 9 June 1999 Yugoslav Serbian Governments agreed to a phased withdrawal of their military police forces from territory transfer all effective control an international security force (“KFOR”). Concerning number municipalities, including Suva Reka, transfer, according Military Technical Agreement, was take place by 15 1999. It further envisaged that it would be up KFOR “maintain secure environment for citizens Kosovo”. Pursuant own plan, which synchronised with Army Reka Municipality fact 13 7. On applicant’s husband kidnapped Kosovo Liberation (“KLA”) 8. 12 March 2002 Municipal Court declared dead. This ruling became final 3 April 2002. 9. 19 May 2005 applicant, together her children, lodged civil claim against Republic Serbia First Belgrade, seeking compensation mental anguish suffered as consequence incident. 10. 2006 said court ruled plaintiffs. 11. 21 November 2007 first-instance judgment upheld Belgrade District appeal. applicant served 23 2008. 12. In reasoning opined, inter alia, while had indeed been could not held liable, within meaning Article 180 § 1 Obligations Act (see paragraph 26 below), since provide safety onwards 6 above). national process withdrawing therefore merely technical issue. 13. have appeal points law (revizija), given amount claimed below statutory threshold. 14. KLA 15. 24 16 July 16. 31 children other family members, 17. 18. 2008 19. liable Act, onwards. 20. law, 21. maintained judgments, rendered between 2010, subsequently Appeals Court, well Supreme at third instance, favour plaintiffs, notwithstanding claims based very similar facts concerned identical legal issues. 22. Given case-law provided parties, those judgments where courts/different benches same authorities deemed responsible lives persons residing until actual respect each municipalities considered separately (see, example, P. 431/07 February 2009, Court; Gž. 10832/06, 13799/06, 11483/08 December 2006, 5 14 October respectively; 2005/10 605/10 17 2010 10 Rev. 1551/07, 1092/08 939/08 September 2007, 7 respectively). 23. 18 2008, Government, Court’s Civil Division endorsed this line reasoning, specifically reasons court’s 1551/07 (cited 22 24. 1540/10, Cassation plaintiffs basis applicants’ case, but its decision Už. 2786/10 28 2012 Constitutional quashed ordered re-examination matter. 2013 apparently time holding municipality question. 25. 2014 adopted detailed action plan aimed ensuring general harmonisation throughout judicial system. contained series measures undertaken various levels jurisdiction, and, included following: (i) adoption guiding opinions principles developed jurisprudence European Human Rights; (ii) dissemination such opinions; (iii) regular information sharing courts; (iv) increased thematic discussions training programmes; (v) specific plans courts levels; (vi) development IT tools related intranet databases.
|
[] |
5. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives Moscow. 6. On 6 May 2012 the arrested during dispersal of a political rally at Bolotnaya Square He detained police station for least thirty-six hours pending administrative proceedings which he found guilty failure to obey lawful orders, an offence under Article 19.3 Code Administrative Offences, sentenced fifteen days’ detention. parties’ submissions on circumstances surrounding public assembly its are set out part A, specific facts relating B below. 7. 23 April five individuals (Mr I. Bakirov, Mr S. Davidis, Ms Y. Lukyanova, N. Mityushkina Udaltsov) submitted notice demonstration mayor march, with estimated 5,000 participants, begin 4 p.m. from Triumfalnaya followed by meeting Manezhnaya Square, end 8 aim “to protest against abuses falsifications course elections State Duma President Russian Federation, demand fair elections, respect human rights, rule law international obligations Federation”. 8. 26 Head Moscow Department Regional Security, A. Mayorov, informed organisers that requested route could not be allocated because preparations Victory Day parade 9 2012. They proposed hold march between Luzhniki Street Frunzenskaya embankment. 9. 27 declined proposal alternative Kaluzhskaya down Bolshaya Yakimanka Polyanka Street, Square. p.m., had finish 7.30 number participants indicated as 5,000. 10. 3 Security approved route, having noted provided detailed plan events. 11. Chief Interior, V. Kolokoltsev, different group notification another event – authorities rejected. expressed their intention proceed defiance ban squat square 10 2012, ready resist if necessary. Interior therefore safeguard order 12. At First Deputy Oleynik, held working they discussed security issues. Public Order Directorate Police Colonel D. Deynichenko, took meeting. stated turnout significantly exceed expected participants. were warned exceeding originally declared would unacceptable. According applicant, agreed since there insufficient time on-the-spot reconnaissance, otherwise have been carried out, layout arrangements identical previous organised same opposition activists February occasion, proceeded venue included park (in some documents referred “Repin park”) 13. day deputy Moscow, Gorbenko, instructed Tsentralnyy district prefect assist maintaining event. ordered inform accepted monitor implementation. Other agencies assigned duties street cleaning, traffic control ensuring presence ambulances site assembly. 14. 5 City Prosecutor’s Office issue warning notified erecting camping tents venue, allegedly also information Internet demonstrators go after District issued relevant two organisers, Davidis Udaltsov. 15. published website official about forthcoming including map. map restrictions access Square; it delineated area allotted meeting, Access marked through park. 16. Major-General Golovanov, adopted safeguarding (the “security plan”). ninety-nine-page internal document disclosed or organisers. In view authorised anticipated attempts other groups unauthorised gatherings, measures city centre up operational headquarters implement them. 17. Thirty-two high-ranking officers, eight major-generals, military commanders one emergency-relief official, appointed headquarters. Kozlov, head headquarters; Special‑Purpose Operational Centre Khaustov, heads 18. 8,094-strong crowd-control taskforce, comprising military, designated areas prevent gatherings terrorist attacks. main contingent squad charged cordon riot-control accordance structured action each unit. Furthermore, 785-strong unit posts across centre, responsibility apprehending offenders, escorting them stations drawing reports. instructed, particular, prepare templates reports forty printed copies every station. 350-strong intercepting instigators gatherings. equipped full protection gear batons. Each ensure effective radio communication within chain command. keep loudspeakers, metal detectors, handcuffs, fire extinguishers wire clippers vehicles. 19. detail allocation deployment vehicles, buses, interception monitoring vehicles equipment, dog-handling teams, fire-fighting rescue helicopter. It made provision 1,815-strong reserve gas masks, aerosol grenades (“Dreif”), flash (“Zarya‑2”), bang (“Fakel” “Fakel-C”), 40-mm hand-held grenade launcher (“Gvozd” 6Г-30), 43-mm (ГМ-94); tubeless pistols (ПБ-4СП) 23-mm rubber bullets propelling cartridges, rifles (KC-23). Two water-cannon standby, used persistent offenders. 20. All units vigilant thorough detecting eliminating threats polite tactful conduct vis‑à-vis citizens, engaging dialogue without responding provocations. If faced gathering give loudspeaker, arrest most active record video footage those incidents. chiefs place plain-clothes officers among protesters threat violence attacks crowd take measures, where appropriate, mitigate damage pursue perpetrators. 21. Paukov, required, tasks, prepare, together text announcement situation deteriorated. press service Internal Service Lieutenant-Colonel Alekseyeva, charge press. Liaison Civil Society Biryukov, “coordination representatives organisations coordination flow services Interior”. 22. belonged “Zone no. 8” (Kaluzhskaya adjacent territory). zone commander Riot P. Smirnov, nine (Police Saprykin, Zdorenko, Tsukernik, Kuznetsov, Yermakov, Kasatkin, Dvoynos, Captain R. Bautdinov Bystrikov) his deputies. 23. Zone comprised 2,400 riot whom 1,158 duty search taking obstruct Bolshoy Kamenyy bridge, diverting marchers embankment, cordoned off, only entrance embankment Malyy Kamenny bridge fourteen removed just before approached An exception technical staff, who allowed behind stage additional detectors. Further 24. Lastly, command 8, particular Colonels Smirnov orders meet person beginning remind responsibilities sign undertaking. undertake safe event, refrain any calls forced change constitutional hate speech propaganda favour war. present until departure A recording briefing signing undertaking made. 25. 1.30 sound equipment. searched delivering equipment seized three amid gear. several people bringing tents, installation delayed. During setting leading sporadic. 26. Makhonin met clarify outstanding organisational matters demonstration. specifically asked Udaltsov no placed complied limits gave assurances issues signed 27. began 4.30 went peacefully disruption. exceeded expectations, but is consensus exact numbers. estimate 8,000 whereas considered 25,000. media reported numbers, above estimates. 28. leaders placement did correspond what anticipated. Unlike excluded limited barred continued along whole perimeter area, channelling row detectors venue. By erected far considerable already accumulated front it. 29. Faced unable park, Udaltsov, Navalnyy, B. Nemtsov Yashin stopped demanded open protesters, taken aback alteration unwilling turn towards embankment; move back allow sufficient space pass assemble version, interested proceeding venue; either intended break Kamennyy then Kremlin, stir incite disorder. common ground enter into discussion senior officer delegated negotiate. After minutes attempting engage 5.16 four announced going “sit-down strike” sat ground. stopped, although past stage. sit-in called follow example sit down, few entourage so (between approximately twenty fifty total). 30. Between 5.20 5.45 deputies, G. Gudkov Gudkov, contacted unidentified negotiate enlargement restricted moving lines Lukin, Ombudsman request attempted convince resume procession up. municipal officials came sit-down protest, direct sit-in. 31. 5.40 calling support protest. Some waiting headed leave almost emptied. 32. 5.43 given airtime Russia’s television channels, presidential inauguration Putin cancelled new called. 33. 5.50 around built up, caused congestion, abandoned stage, crowd. 34. 5.55 regarding strike provocation mass disorder considering prosecuting responsible 35. commotion arose near vacated broken places. 100 spilled over empty beyond cordon. Within seconds restored cordon, reinforced force. Those themselves outside wandered around, uncertain do next. Several apprehended, others pushed inside loiter walked push advanced metres, pressing inwards. 36. told make closed. She so, apparently her message heard reporters broadcasting spot. live parties contained mention announcement. 37. Molotov cocktail launched corner landed trousers passer-by caught fire. promptly extinguished police. 38. 6.15 breaking split Running tight formations, apart, people, confronted formed cordons isolate sections barriers aligned police, threw various objects shouted chanted “Shame!” slogans, whenever apprehended anyone pull back. applied combat techniques truncheons. 39. 6.20 climbed onto opposite address many assembled but, turned disconnected. loudspeaker shouted: “Dear friends! Unfortunately we proper sound, will carry our action, away comrades arrested, tomorrow coronation illegitimate president. We shall indefinite action. You agree? released, central channels. power here! Dear friends, [if] December [2011] March [2012], put stolen ... see chief crook thief throne. Today choice stay here country crooks thieves six years. I consider today. leave!” 40. this point, 6.21 him away. Navalnyy stairs As shouting “Nobody 41. 6.25 Nemtsov, 42. Meanwhile, dividing pushing Through loudspeakers metro hour fully cleared all protesters. 43. Deynichenko drew report summarising participated, begun 4.15 listed represented, group, colours flags content banners. further follows: “... 5.04 column arrived [cordon] straight [to cross it] Borovitskaya However, [Mr Navalnyy] move. Together thirty Another twenty, [their leaders], well. repeatedly holding required leave. Besides that, Gennadiy Dmitriy Vladimir member Civic Chamber, Nikolay Svanidze, talked them, sitting react chanting slogans From 5.58 7 persons glass bottles, fireworks, chunks tarmac portable officers. music playing Vologda ..., 20 one-sleeper necessary citizens actively resisting ones twenty-eight servicemen [sustained injuries] gravity, hospitalised. total, 656 demonstrations total troops deployed 12,759 servicemen, 7,609 4,650 400 members voluntary brigades. result tasks discharged, emergency incidents occur.” 44. Investigative Committee Federation opened criminal investigation suspected offences violent acts (Article 212 § 2 318 1 Criminal Code). 45. 28 organising cases joined day. 46. 22 June twenty-seven investigators file concerning events 47. unspecified date human-rights filed events; complained, suppression petition filed, date, forty-four NGOs, curbing repression prosecuted relation denying riots 48. Following enquiry publication maps 13 August replied ‘Safeguarding May’. location socio-political events, large attend, unlawful decision publish Mass Media planning pictures schematic showed approximate [march] well reference ‘Bolotnaya Square’ ‘Plan Safeguarding 2012’. [the Interior], set-up matters. [Moscow Interior] prepared [security plan] providing off [and] accommodated road Given agreement reached aforementioned extremely short (during night 2012), afterwards, Interior. discuss use, showing forces tasks.” 49. prominent NGOs expert commission evaluate (“the Expert Commission”). Commission experts whose objective provide independent fact-finding legal assessment dispersed. 2013 produced fifty-three-page containing chronology identified sources “The work based following materials: - evidence investigation, statements available case; investigations observations gathered rights defenders, journalists others; observers journalists, witness testimony materials. complete picture developed series questions distributed administration receive replies administration, Committee. result, analysis sources, materials presented non-governmental organisations, defence attorneys engaged so-called case’. These include: eyewitnesses’ testimony, videos private actors, data case. analysed more than 50 video-records 200 related addition, attended court hearings case.” 50. Concerning way organised, following: [2012] similar [2012]. disperse approval days That day, indicating gardens, rally, while closed remain pedestrians. This procedure [the] rallies 2011 evening [5 2012], [park] Yuri location, done ‘in camp [carrying out] [illegal] acts.’ [The] received [that] might attempt establish site, causing decide should confined waterfront much smaller not, however, changes decided upon, became aware police-imposed when afternoon Council send written special representative nor chairman local department [Interior], sending Ministry 12 rally; morning May, advance access. searched. searches revealed small result. finally truck 2.50 70 due begin.” 51. regards dispersed, Commission’s “As blocking square, leaving narrow stretch rally. established triple Kammenyy prevented movement direction Kremlin. first positioned close junction waterfront. Students College Patrol Guard (without protective equipment) line. Behind rows OMON [riot OMOН], line citizen patrol (druzhinniki), police]. water cannons visible second third cordons. [The photographs comparing thin gear, multiple ranks backed heavy vehicles.] cordons, blocked created bottleneck slowed march’s progress such extent virtual stop bridge. Moreover, Luzhkov very slow 14 5.15 majority immobile. leaders, Sergey Alexey Ilya Yashin, encouraged ‘Udarnik’ cinema facing [against] inability continue 50-200 stressed need maintain peaceful appealed calm. Participants chanted: ‘We away’ ‘Police people’. crowds using hear transpired. completely block road, restrict approaching grew denser Street. 5.42 statement: ‘The organizers refuse (to Square). [have] roadway theatre. thus column. Despite repeated warnings won’t thereby creating real jam trauma inquiry spot actions appeals commit instituting proceedings.’ appeared become frustrated standing walk tried refused let through. Instead, directed even though practically impossible. loud speakers location. directly despite fact major demonstrators. illegal. poor quality nearest information; instructions. moment difficulties Dmitry Oreshkin, Presidential Human Rights Council, Member Parliament Gennady talk 5.30 response. Shortly broke spoke Birukov, Interior]’s service. Ponomarev clashes speaking authorities, get positive Many involved throughout manner. Nadezhda Mityushkina: ‘I unsuccessfully find [Interior] solve problems. knew contact case needed help Only 6.30 approach me. me suspended me, organizers, announce over, conversation.’ Igor Bakirov: ‘A colonel’s uniform once, [confirming] my credentials organiser. Later erupted, couldn’t communicate cooperate.’ Davidis: personally fences assumed spoken time. There nothing about. saw behaved aggressively predisposed conversation. ...’ gap reach moved steps forward, generated counter response crowd, places, broke, dozen impossible determine whether conscious simply pressure people. young men, elderly resemble fighters. act aggressive manner [park], supposed point. Different reacted differently away, restrain [trampling on] still tension grew, stood rather risk being trampled. high degree confusion, clear happening. Just single thrown ignited 74-year-old demonstrator passed incident recorded Soon broken, detain remained lines, areas. minutes. 6.10 Boris managed Udarnik start intervened shortly afterwards 6.50 disassemble distinct types activity. For time, face moments interspersed periods does appear reason divide sections. More anything, advances served raise tensions provoke little initiated violence. Rather, authorities’ advances. these interchanges batons freely. plastic shoes umbrellas disperse. state, ‘Dear earnestly ask you disturb order! Otherwise, law, use force! Please, here, stop. Go metro.’ Although enough likely call confusion demands [Department service, defenders (including Dmitri Victor Davydov Nikolai Svanidze) cut two. both bridges. Around 6.54 acted barrier removed, able freely Approximately 15 later, Bridge Lavrushinsky Lane, runs Tretyakovskaya cinema. linked arms passive resistance. divided 7.47 corridor area. 7.53 bushes Gardens square. side remain[ed] totally lines. 8.08 last slowly left policemen. Kadashevskaya Obvondoy Channel. detained, Lane. thousand Ordynka column.” 52. Zamoskvoretskiy branch dismissed ten individual complaints enquiries matter, Ponomarev, Duma, Babushkin, Supervisory concerned dispersing excessive force arbitrary arrests. interviewed lodged squadron regiment commanders. stated, acting safety identify unrest; unnecessarily. intervene, manoeuvres truncheons tear exceptional means restraint. Squadron Commander explained sector sector; arrested. thirteen inquiries medical reports; allegations abuse unsubstantiated seven lawful. substance hand, crossed stopped. bypassed When filled nearly side, point park] Kremlin specially proceed. upon disobey congregated cinema, police] manage prevent. Therefore arresting cordon; van confrontation localised, slightly dispersed acts, requests effect [it that] organised. suppressing concert. apply offenders involve restraint, necessary, putting on, localised confrontations restraint used. Justices Peace consideration merits. 42 Code, connected powers interests protected may classified committed pursuant binding instruction. [they] provoked disorder, injuries Because participating justifiable force, resisted. foregoing, institution absence corpus delicti.” 53. 24 twelve participation transferred Court determination charges case”). 54. testified, formal idea mayor’s office confirmed traditional understanding be, be. traditional, customary scenario well-known everybody beforehand [news] RiaNovosti; posted there. [police] ‘Petrovka, 38’ Not too, essentially altered. and, all, website[s] RiaNovosti [according which] 80% cordon] map] waited question resolved, remove wrong reply changed, why conducted according previously [organised events] Somebody changed never happened show visually anywhere, composed 20-year-old conscripts, broke. break. led uncontrollable situation, policemen walking trying say something megaphones tell saying. passing No And was] understand So rupture People started spreading ...Then try explain amplifiers. know [Question witness] Did anybody protest? Attempts possible wanted were, appropriate was. [high-ranking] asked, shrugged. Nobody on. deputies negotiators, said nobody come us. resembling chiefs, distance everyone’s wish so. detention facility complaint hindrance arguments [as why] ample deliberately panic later claims disorder.” 55. negotiations [mayor’s office] difficult organiser 25 2011. always deadline, compromise, [but time]. [only] [May 2012] agreement. Usually, everything twenty-four hours’ notice. bring carrying [on 2012]. harsh conditions [working meeting] discussed, held, matter practice, [there on-site reconnaissance: [together with] visit put, lavatories, ambiguity wouldn’t reconnaissance; Deynichenko’s suggestion Then, thing bit closer feeling disappointed, somehow low-spirited, come. realised Oleynik Director Department], us But anything [us] drawn postponed times longer picking phone. Was later? No, not. [like before] except position forwards last] expressly spelled out. guided With positioning same, [give us] names? big presence. Since suggested like route. complained trouble charge. Usually separately [to] Makhonin, traditionally met. breach [two staff] [at area] promised release What exactly say? determined camera? turning [from bridge] standstill justifiably expansion. learned [State deputies] conducting negotiations; thought probably settle certain demanding breaches, remedy defects, once. coming, [that anything. Actually ended. participated [other] the] shown, border [of venue] outlined agreements breached. [march], warn provocations, order, campsite? talks has badge, principle talking police? difference. measures. pick phone calls. [I] When, rules, appointments coordinate office? [when] Government] responsible. names charge? Except Makhonin. occurred, ...? anyone. negotiations. heading ended Why banned? cannot taken. impeded understood Mityushkina, yes. How demands? loudspeakers? sort large-scale [announcement]. physical via megaphones, means.” 56. authorised. points. domain opened. openly Internet, media, [Bolotnaya] open, easily scuffles sure deceived us, passage hard bottleneck. storm [Bolshoy] deputy], offered intermediary waited, nothing. panic. got awful scuffle stage] strange scene microphones switched megaphone addressed speak long. Why, say, particularly aggressive? Putin’s inauguration. Naturally, strict orders. paranoid ‘Maidan’. treacherously breached proves surprised mayor, negotiating. reasonable man, zombie, Gudkov. want human. cordon? then. authorities] organisers].” 57. 18 Mirza, Ombudsman’s secretariat, observer unlike usual [this time] Biryukov return urgently [protesters] Ombudsman] persuade stand [second] sides congested observer’s badge listening laughed press, reaction part. somewhat ourselves multi-layered defence. warfare, [as] unusual. mood unusual, example, nothing, [federal] unusual how upset was, [a rare occasion]. ground] narrowed down. indeed can confirm narrower usual, behalf absolutely His name, function telephone badges doubts arose. [representative office], [I am sure]. possible, [back] scuffle? constructive knows job, influence also] personally. occurred. gap] Perhaps closure event? No. arrests begun, [then] telling disperse, it.” 58. Chamber jam. ground, ‘Why passage?’, Viktor Aleksandrovich [Biryukov] answer him, else widening passage? it, [Ms Mirza] think done. widened. Were Kremlin? your territory authorised? Yes, convinced Square.” 59. Vasiliev, staff office, maps, instructions behave, list answer, congestion occurred looking officer] there, him: ‘let’s pass’ [but] powers. was; don’t know’. splitting ...” 60. 21 2014 delivered judgment prison sentences half years; released parole. Three co-defendants pardoned Amnesty Act fourth disjoined proceedings. 61. sustained subsequently case, capacity accused case) victims case). read “In concert, applying restraint; restrain] resisting. calmed thinned little, tighten doing accompanied Later, Square] provocateurs, displaying defiance. apprehension resistance, cases, instigators. apprehend resist.” 62. upheld 2014, reduced defendants. 63. July Razvozzhayev findings: testified Security... follow-up draft prepared, column, set-up, exit stage; [organisers] that. raised 5,000, 20,000 organisers] known advance. plan]. police; insist visit; visits initiative Deynichenko] Sharapov opening nature lanes [for event], exception, winter, snowing statement Department, ...the accommodate 26,660 shown concludes court’s opinion, Udaltsov’s own interview character, provenance unknown unreliable reflect true forces. Before recordings event; provocations cause undercover sources; assured breaches Makhonin) reply. circumstances, request, exits willing addition Zdorenko ...testified sources] guarded headquarters, extended expense Square]. 2,500-3,000 [others at] Zharkov ...while seen man smuggling rubbish bins. M. Volondina encircle hands President. Zubarev [officially] filming Officer lawfully unwanted joining Vanyukhin campsite Mirza right gone pretext While silent Babushkin latter invited for] widen figure negotiating now witnesses steering committee Gudkov] suddenly resisted [deputy Duma] anywhere matter. back, event] documents. sit-in, up] offices documents, Gudkov) men hoodies provoking [same] response, ensued. [rejects] testimonies [and finds ] panic, eventually ensuing takes account she announce, organiser, terminated. phone, he] [some] brought Bakirov [formal] examined] conversation authorisation, problems examined recording] arrangements. placed; exchanged numbers [expert M.], borders delimited Vodootvodnyy channel, Serafimovicha Sofiyskaya Faleyevskiy passage, forms citizens. corroborated Municipality finds] organisation form incitement controlling crowd’s actions, directing forward representatives. activity forms, preparation selection fuel filing petitions announcing capable electrifying feel appalled, influencing people’s attitudes disseminating leaflets, meetings agitation, developing moods grievances, guiding accomplished soon enumerated depend occurrence non-occurrence harmful consequences. grounds foot indicate reinforcement proven others] destabilisation peace danger, fulfil congregate marches meetings, psychological vicinity destruction property 64. years’ imprisonment. 2015 Supreme amendments. 65. “Bolotnaya” committing November 2014. 66. 67. peaceful, general confusion. claimed termination meeting; immediately arbitrarily denied van, arrest; suspended. 68. Government, 8.30 obstructing disregarded 69. 9.30 Krasnoselskiy on-duty (протокол об административном правонарушении) basis (рапорт) Y., applicant. Y.’s handwritten “I [Y.] 5/16 Lieutenant [A.], Frumkin.” 70. rest template stating who, obstructed traffic. [He] vacate disobeying fulfilling safety. Offences.” 71. text, Offences. 27.3 Offences задержании). “reasons” section blank. 72. court, examined. spent transit food drink, 11.55 cell applicant’s issued, “for purpose material”. 73. a.m. Justice circuit District, charges. adjourned unfit trial detention; hearing witnesses. rejected expedite examination eyewitnesses partly granted. 74. traffic, disobeyed him. 75. 11 appeal witness. 7.46 son 9.03 resumed. argument inconsistent correct interpretation contain incident, guilt proved evidence. first-instance judgment. 76. January supervisory-review earlier judicial decisions.
|
[
7,
2,
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1973 and is detained Drobeta Turnu Severin Prison. 6. On 28 October 2009 the convicted of rape sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He has since been serving his sentence various Romanian prisons. ... 14. medical report drawn up when admitted prison on indicates that he “clinically healthy” (clinic aparent sănătos). 15. From 26 May 9 June 2011 placed hospital wing Rahova Prison, Bucharest, where underwent surgery 3 for an inguinal hernia right side. 16. 2 8 2012 internal medicine unit Jilava digestive problems. included a screening programme liver conditions. Following test identify viral markers hepatitis, found be suffering from hepatitis C (purtator VHC). A biochemical blood analysis conducted; results indicated ALAT, ASAT GGT enzyme levels were normal, as total bilirubin. 17. In note summarising tests conducted during applicant’s hospitalisation (scrisoare medicală), doctor who had treated him observed disease progressing satisfactorily no additional examination necessary at stage. recommended adhere specific diet refrain smoking. prescribed symptomatic treatment, namely hepatoprotective drugs vitamin therapy, noting these administered “if needed” (la nevoie). health scheduled re-examination within six months. 18. provided with special persons (norma 18). During January, February March 2013 drugs. 19. 21 refused hospitalised check-up. His records do not indicate reasons this refusal. However, they re-examined 20. 5 August Prison re-testing function. Blood showed ALAT enzymes slightly above normal levels. leaving wing, advised follow course drugs, therapy if needed. also have condition reassessed 21. continued disease. August, December list consultations shows that, following it attend consultation Ion Cantacusino public hospital. 23. 14 January 2014 re-assessment regard condition. 19 examined by specialist, noted general state good. 24. doctor. latter diagnosis “liver under observation” complained vomiting. An anti-spasmodic drug him. 25. 13 palpitations. doctor, cardiology test. 26. 18 grounds required supervision retro-sternal pain smoker, at-risk patient. electrocardiogram carried out. revealed one-and-a-half times over upper norm, norm 27. certificate issued end unstable angina (angor intricat de novo) potentially toxic (hepatopatie posibil toxică). treatment heart followed one month. 28. took steps purchase drug, which beginning 2014. July 29. meantime, applied judge delegated court supervise observance prisoners’ rights (“the delegate judge”), complaining about physical conditions detention lack C. 30. By decision 2013, dismissed complaint. confirmed allegations being held cell measuring 33.96 m², occupied twenty-seven inmates containing four tables chairs. further authorities attempted improve cell, recently renovated. stated toilet block separated received natural artificial light. fact equipped three-tier bunk beds arose objective cause, increase number detainees, good will part authorities. 31. With applicant, just therapy. 32. appeal 4 Bucharest Court First Instance upheld, final judgment, judge’s 2013.
|
[
1
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1981 and is serving a prison sentence Bor the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. 6. According to official version of events, on 30 December 2004 D.M., S., R.M., an unknown person broke into Kh.’s house assaulted her until she showed them where some money hidden. They tied up with electric cable, took money, hunting knife mobile telephone then left. She reported robbery authorities that day. 7. Siv., planned commit robbery. At around 8 p.m. 22 March 2005 they collected together ski masks, air gun, gas sprays, police uniform sawn-off shotgun. S. drove all B.’s house. stayed car shotgun while rest group approached R.M. put knocked door. When G. opened it, threatened him threw floor entered his accomplices. 9.30 officers, who had been informed earlier being planned, arrived at entered, shot one gun. arrested applicant. D.M. got away. later caught. taken station. 8. applicant, when policemen house, handcuffed him. He did not resist arrest, but still inside outside, down porch again. kicked struck butt Afterwards, he station, officers questioned repeatedly through night cell dangerous inmates would assault knowing former law enforcement officer. As result, confessed 2004. However, forged date confession, indicating 20 April 2005. 9. 12.30 23 investigator chose remain silent order incriminate himself. represented by lawyer K. him, again 2 insulted 10. approximately 4 day examined forensic medical expert, Sk., presence prepared report no. 358 25 noting that, according suffered from headaches impaired vision right eye sustained injuries course arrest. expert documented concluded might have caused impact blunt objects time circumstances indicated further suggested should seek advice exclude possibility concussion. report, following injuries: “bruising eyes, intense swelling left eyelid ... bruising soft tissue forehead, abrasion centre ears, abrasions temple cheekbone, small surface contusion top head, haemorrhaging bruise lips, back buttock.” 11. way station two After arriving several made sign documents. head continued threatening 12. On 24 Melekesskiy District Court Ulyanovsk Region authorised applicant’s pre-trial detention. remained custody pending investigation trial. 13. same described events preceding arrest admitted involvement Fearing for life, tell about ill-treatment. forced admit because pressured prior meeting investigator. 14. 29 transferred remand prison. 15. 2005, detained prison, signed confession admitting which incorrectly written as having place 16. unspecified confirmed, lawyer, part 17. June crime scene, gave explanations Sh. appointed represent 18. 12 September Kuz. confirmed previous statements also provided information regards 19. 9 November statements. 20. May 2006 fixed trial start 7 2006. 21. 21 testified court. revoked alleging mental physical pressure confess robberies. against co-defendants. In particular, stated: “I 10 Even though I [police officers] beat me during afterwards make necessary them. yard inside, B. punched eye. [The told These were M., U. accompanied beatings threat if refused robbery, charge murder. asked testify [co-defendants]. agreed cooperate. Then recorded my confession. result [the beatings] trauma injuries. My rib broken. Sk. mention report.” 22. found guilty counts sentenced eleven years’ imprisonment. court relied (see paragraphs 9, 13 15‑19 above). 2004, defendant K., Kh. husband, evidence other exhibits submitted prosecution. identified co-defendants persons broken robbed her. based its findings testimony given defendants including victims G., well evidence. injuries, noted: “The verified allegation [and co-defendants] under exerted U., B., submitted, court, any defendants, nor [them] confess. [district] prosecutor’s office confirm defendants’] allegations either. concludes reports inflicted their lawful Regard above, confessions three crimes are admissible objective, so far be credible accordance does discern defendants’ infringement defence investigation.” 23. 16 2007 Regional upheld conviction appeal substance. allegedly extracted coercion, appellate argument raised before testifying [each other] obtained pressure, has subject thorough examination It those unsubstantiated. Furthermore, only concurring lawyers, is, excluding unlawful methods 24. parties, complained Prosecutor’s Office (“the office”) ill-treatment custody. district prosecutor institute criminal proceedings officers. decision. 25. 6 lodged another complaint office. dismissed it date, noting: case file contains sufficient [applicant is] A study material shown no contravention rules procedure] could inadmissible. follows file, applicant] preliminary investigation, Physical force used [applicant’s] arguments construed attempt avoid liability ” 26. 18 resubmitted complaint. 27 senior R. alleged perpetrators, “In elucidate case, investigator] copy judgment case. [that], [applicant’s ill-treatment] subjected [trial] implicated applicant]. unsubstantiated viewed [him] liability. [Police officer] questioned, scene] after arrested. visited or psychological knew member fire perpetrators escaped. use them, justified Having above-mentioned material, conclude there nothing suggest committed applicant].” 27. appears decision quashed matter remitted additional inquiry. open reiterated reasoning verbatim. officer M. “[Police M.] team. His task cover conducting members interacted Forensic applicant], complaints respect health. recommended consult traumatology specialist. received documents traumatologist evaluation proceed without If noticed [that had] rib, noted 28. August 2008 regional ordered inquiry matter. Dimitrovgrad Town 2007, Office. 29. 2007. 30. issued refusing coerced making “[The Ye., V. write inmates. Ye. recollect, remember present [he] confessed. Any effect hostile environment impossible. People [separately] law. No V.] recollection 31. appealed, arguing response incomplete. certain witnesses checked how many times 32. 2009 stopped considering appeal, already 2008. 33. relying findings. 34. 11 investigator’s 2009. this most recent appeal.
|
[
1
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1969 and lived, prior to his conviction, Chelyabinsk. 6. On 29 December 2000 the arrested on suspicion of double murder. He remained custody pending investigation trial. 7. 13 September 2001 Chelyabinsk Regional Court found guilty murder, accessory murder attempted fraud, sentenced him twenty-three years’ imprisonment. court comprised one professional judge two lay judges. 8. 12 April 2002 Supreme Russian Federation upheld applicant’s conviction appeal. 9. 23 July 2004 lodged a supervisory-review complaint challenging lawfulness conviction. alleged, inter alia, that trial had not been tribunal established by law, given judges who considered case appointed contravention applicable legislation. 10. 22 Kopeysk Town Region reduced sentence seven months, compliance with latest amendments Criminal Code. 11. 2005 Presidium received file for supervisory review. 12. 15 June quashed judgments remitted matter fresh consideration. Referring Posokhov v. Russia (no. 63486/00, § 41, ECHR 2003‑IV), noted authorised consider case, which affected well-foundedness Lastly, ordered be detained new 13. fixed preliminary hearing 1 August noting measure preventive detention previously imposed “should remain unchanged”. parties did inform outcome 2005. It appears it re-scheduled. 14. 5 held case. lawyer attended made submissions court. asked release an undertaking leave place residence. he already served over four years earlier prison rendered further extension pre-trial unnecessary. prosecutor discerned no change situation would favour extend 18 In particular, as follows: “Deciding having heard proceedings, considers remand [defendants] during restrictive has lawful justified. There are grounds replace more lenient ... view gravity charges defendants’ character.” 15. opened 19 charged twenty-two three months’ time set off against newly sentence. Sh. killed V. Sk. attempt fraudulently obtain proceeds from sale flat owned single judge. represented lawyer. 16. 2006 were present at October decision
|
[
2
] |
5. The applicant, a former military unit commander, was born in 1963 and lives Vladivostok. 6. On 28 May 2008 the applicant arrested on suspicion of fraud. 7. 30 he released having given an undertaking not to leave his place residence. 8. 1 July 2009 Military Court Vladivostok Garrison (the Court) convicted fraud committed abuse position sentenced him four years’ imprisonment with dishonourable discharge. courtroom placed remand prison. 9. 29 January 2010 Pacific Fleet quashed conviction appeal ordered retrial. court held that custodial measure applied should remain unchanged until April view seriousness charges against him, risk absconding threatening witnesses, confirmed by statements Sh., witness. 10. 15 February rejected applicant’s application for release, including its reasoning exerting pressure witnesses. decision mentioned it could be appealed within three-day time-limit Court. appealed. 11. However, 26 March discontinued proceedings 2010. Relying Article 355 § 5 (2) Russian Code Criminal Procedure, refusal release amenable separate before final case, as breach right access have case heard reasonable time, did delay progress proceedings. 12. In meantime, 22 extended detention again reasoning. It further held, reference medical report, state health allowed participate proceedings, judge-ordered removal from end due unacceptable behaviour gave sufficient grounds believe that, if released, might influence witnesses abscond justice. 13. 25 copy extension order handed over after lodging had expired. 14. 27 lodged 15. 8 renewed lodge 16. 21 submitted examination. same day scheduled hearing 23 2010, video link, sent notification prison where being held. 17. informed examination He requested adjournment because late notification. also asked ensure physical presence at impairment condition prevented following effectively link. 18. granted request adjourned custody 19. nine counts office 20. upheld 21. 2 December judgment withdrawn reconsideration.
|
[
2
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives Budapest. He submits that he is a practicing Catholic. According to the documents case-file teacher of religion by profession. 6. On 2 June 2005 arrested on suspicion misuse explosives. 7. 11 May 2007 Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office indicted Pest County Regional Court charges incitement aggravated murder unlawful possession firearms 8. first hearing case took place before 17 December 2007. Up until 10 March 2009 trial judge, Ms K.B.H., held 24 hearings. 9. Later, charged Budapest Chief with armed robbery. two sets criminal proceedings were joined 22 2009. 10. challenged judge for bias, which motion dismissed. At applicant’s renewed request, recused herself. A new Gy.Sz., appointed try case. She hearings period This eventually declared herself biased; assigned yet another A.F., who 23 between September 2010 April 2011. 11. Meanwhile, 25 October Komárom-Esztergom murder. ongoing 28 January 2011 Court. 12. A.F. bias. Appeal dismissed this motion. It pointed out had impartial, along four other eligible judges Despite decision Appeal, herself, since, her view, letters addressed infringed dignity. 13. Subsequently, July at Court, Mr S.P., did not hold any hearing. 2012 also himself following different motions, apparently containing insinuations. remaining three themselves biased as well. 31 High 7 2012. 14. February 2014 found guilty sentenced life imprisonment possibility parole after 30 years. 15. 2015 second-instance court quashed judgment remitted first-instance. currently pending there. 16. In context above proceedings, 4 Kaposvár District remanded custody. 17. His detention repeatedly prolonged statutory intervals 2008 when suspended his ordered him serve prison sentence become enforceable connection unrelated present 18. 21 2010, put forward Office, Tatabánya again upheld appeal 1 2010. 19. actually placed pre-trial 2011, having served sentence. submitted under law, should have been reviewed within six months, is, August latest but taken place. 20. filed an interlocutory application immediate release placement house arrest same day. appealed without success. further requests or, alternatively, less coercive measure no avail. 21. November Appellate Public requested review section 132(2) Code Criminal Procedure. 22. 5 extended delivery first-instance 129(1)(b) (d) Procedure (risks absconding reoffending). there risk might abscond given seriousness gravity punishment reoffend multiple recidivist number offences with. 23. Kúria endorsed 6 2012, holding impending severe substantiated absconding, due presence could be ensured way. observed last offence committed during conditional from nine-year imprisonment, thus real reoffending. arguments concerning health status, unspecified, concluded personal conditions militate measure. 24. reached time-limit years Surroundings continuous police surveillance, carried flat I.T, acquaintance applicant. allowed leave every second Wednesday month, 8 a.m. p.m. noted reasons still valid, restrictive applied only because four‑year expired. request undertaking residence. court, argument mother’s ill modest financial situation host ground stringent 25. adoption judgment. crime punishable 15 years’, or life, itself demonstrated absconding. relied previous conduct find reoffending 26. granted visit mother hospital 12 noon undergo dental treatment. 27. arrest, pointing income own intended work. produced job offer company. 14 circumstances existed would affect necessity arrest. 28. 16 exceptional Friday month 9 3 hospitalised mother. remainder twice week, 29. extraordinary five hours study file premises non-governmental organisation 18 30. father town Pápa 31. medical However, so look daily basis, particular assist insulin injections. reasoned I.T., co-defendant lived mother, do stead. stated lengthy incompatible 32. motions accompany examinations 20 (between p.m.) respectively. 33. lodged terminally take home hospitalisation make certain arrangements bank workplace, since she guardianship proceedings. 34. By fourth Saturday p.m., coming institution workplace dismissed, specified their addresses, whereas 138(1) Code, specific time destination. As regards more frequent visits father, regular, long-term jeopardise its purpose securing throughout appealed, arguing too short, father’s deteriorating fast, requiring visits, already contact details workplace. 2013 acting restricted well-founded, nonetheless longer pertinent, left hospital. 35. granted. died 36. funeral father. 37. released grounds believe pervert course justice reoffend. Nonetheless, serious 38. appeal, reversed danger convictions, 39. attend Mass Sunday 27 2013. applicant, being profession, disproportionately exercise religious conviction. 2013, conviction justify granting permissions arrest; such normally reflect intervening change detainee’s circumstances. if it purpose. 40. host, I.T. complained occasions various authorities officers surveying interfered private life. that, indicated beginning necessary means accommodate 41. stating provide him. day, establish camping site Nagyteve. informed according information received relevant authorities, suitable residence winter. Notwithstanding information, maintained request. 42. issued investigating establishing Nagyteve site. Police Department report site, “weather conditions, lack food supply poor hygienic conditions” endangered health. Veszprém amend camp unsuitable 43. sought termination again. reason overturn aware 44. local general practitioner arranged admitted Hospital. result finding disease warranting treatment, day social care Pápa. 45. amended against 26 reiterated reoffender crimes, existed. maximum remand expired, most applied. argued disproportionate, protraction compensated discontinuation remand. some co-defendants 46. and, time, decided release. During presented prosecutor letter allegedly originating one cellmates. writer obstruct physically threatening subsequently requesting exclusion initiating judicial errors inciting co-accused so. direct access document, receiving author’s identity unable challenge latter’s motivation credibility content letter. Relying protection data provided 60(1) 47. 129(2)(b) Code. crimes likelihood abscond. fact recidivist, mentioned factual elements consider. 48. authorised physiotherapy weekday 49. up basis defeat 50. guardian. 51. stayed offence. 52. has court’s quash remit
|
[
2,
3
] |
6. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives Skopje. 7. On 3 April 2006 the State Anti-Corruption Commission, chaired at time by M.M., who subsequently (July 2006) became Minister of Justice, asked Judicial Council (“the SJC”) to review (предлог за проверка) a civil case (no. IV P.br. 2904/01) which had adjudicated first instance as president three-judge panel. concerned compensation proceedings against State. 8. 19 Civil Division Supreme Court convened draw up an opinion stating that there were grounds for instituting professional misconduct respect regarding no. 2904/01. According record meeting, been requested Judge D.I., President time. did not list members adopted opinion. applicant, D.I. member 9. 26 SJC plenary Court, under section 21 Act 1992 Act”, see paragraph 24 below), report on issue whether applicant’s dismissal from office judge would be justified. 10. same date SJC, composed accordance with Article 104 Constitution (see 22 instituted (поведува постапка) due misapplication procedural substantive law It referred request submitted Anti‑Corruption Commission further relied, inter alia, Court. responded writing. 11. In December eight (all judges) appointed Amendment XXVIII 23 below). V.G., nominated complainant (овластен предлагач), set out 55 25 case. 12. drew relevant part opinion, signed reads follows: “The ... unanimously endorses complete [text of] finds are dismissing (the applicant) misconduct.” 13. February 2007 hearing held before determination (Комисија утврдување нестручно и несовесно вршење на судиската функција, hereinafter “the Commission”), 58 V.G. Commission. Both represented legal counsel, their arguments verbally. also took into account opinions 28 it report, communicated SJC. 14. 14 March included only ten its members, namely judges elected peers, well then Justice ex officio Constitution, dismissed misconduct. found she wrongly applied material 2904/01, decided established order cases should have dealt with. decision based evidence adduced including 15. challenged second instance, appeal panel formed within Appeal Panel”). Such panels ad hoc basis each separate As specified 60 Panel nine judges, whom three four two court applicant. 8 May upheld SJC’s decision. L.Š., another allegedly related her withdrawal copy produced, no avail. 16. Constitutional rejected (отфрла) constitutional claimed violated freedom conscience, thought public expression. regards dismissal, jurisdiction lawfulness affected expression, distinction made between exercising particular freedom. ruled entailed right duty adjudicate law, form rights freedoms competence decide (У.бр.145/2007). 17. copies several articles published daily newspapers Vreme Dnevnik. 18. An article 20 quoted 19. 27 stated confirmed office. reported saying new composition follow recommendations. this connection, saying: “We gave reminder responsibility (треба да се сноси одговорност).” 20. 2008 stated: “D.I., [Supreme] SJC) dismiss 21. dated 11 January newspaper Dnevnik saying, alia: will submit once other institutions has established. For [on applicant] is beyond any doubt (не е спорна нестручноста несовесноста судијката во случајов). already that.”
|
[
3
] |
5. The first applicant was born in 1974 and lives Vecumnieki. second 1980 Riga. 6. facts of each individual case, as submitted by the parties, are summarised below. 7. On 20 January 2005 a judge Valmiera District Court issued detention order authorising pre-trial for duration two months. suspected sale narcotics providing unauthorised objects to imprisoned prisoners. decision stated that applicant’s whereabouts were unknown, he had absconded from investigation there risk might abscond even after his established. executed on 26 August when police arrested applicant. appealed. 8. 16 September concerning upheld panel Vidzeme Regional composed three judges who presided over Judge G.K. previously that, given seriousness charges against him fact no permanent place residence, court not persuaded would seek again. 9. 5 December Court, lay G.K., commenced adjudication criminal case. Relying section 52(4)(1) Criminal Procedure Law, which prevented adjudicating case if or she been involved proceedings, defence challenged participation court, judge, rejected challenge, arguing reviewed prior enactment Law[1], so her previous proceedings could serve grounds recusal. 10. 7 convicted In appeal complained, inter alia, Law precluded 11. 2006 dismissed Division Supreme Court. Concerning complaint partiality, following: “Judge at time Code force. this [criminal] come into force, therefore does recognise conflict interests [of judge] it cannot be concluded participated any capacity issue”. 12. 24 October 2006, following an points law lodged applicant, Senate allegedly unlawful composition first-instance due lower courts’ findings review authorised examine taken decisions preventive measures issue. Observing adjudicated merits new earlier stage capacity. 13. 1 April detained suspicion robbery. 4 Rēzekne pre‑trial detention. 14. 18 Latgale – J.D. (the presiding judge), D.S., J.V. noted indicated confessed offence evade because repay bank loan. also intention start family. established, four convictions, including one It went state: “Despite having served prison sentence, [the applicant] learn lessons is once again committed identical crime. He commits such acts regardless considerations included own appeal, [such as] loan, family, job residence... [The applicant’s] personality tendency commit crimes seen exceptional [applying detention]”. 15. robbery theft personal identity documents sentenced term eight years. 16. 2 February 2007 examined same 2005. dismissed. 17. law, among other things, about court. According judges’ involvement proceedings. “the impartial”. 18. 19 single informed accepted Senate. With regard referred (see Relevant domestic practice, paragraph 27 below) violation applicable procedural found situation
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1998 and lives Vinkovci. 6. By a judgment of 14 September 1999 the Vinkovci Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vinkovcima) ordered applicant’s father to pay for her maintenance. In particular, he 500 Croatian kunas (HRK) per month period between 7 May 1999, 10% his salary after latter date. 7. On 15 January 2001 mother applied on behalf daughter enforcement that judgment. she sought payment HRK 2,500 account unpaid outstanding monthly instalments child maintenance together with statutory default interest accrued as garnishment debtor’s from issuance writ execution. 8. decision 23 declined its territorial jurisdiction matter transferred case Varaždin Varaždinu). 9. 20 March invited supplement application by enclosing be enforced stamped certificate enforceability, power-of-attorney authorising advocate represent proceedings. did so 9 April 2001. 10. court correct specifying had not been paid debtor, each instalment. 11. replied (see paragraph above) thus saw no reason why corrected. 12. 3 February 2002 urged speed up proceedings issue execution (rješenje o ovrsi). She indicated debtor paying at own discretion convenience both terms amount time, rather than accordance enforced. 13. 18 2003 issued manner enforcement, forwarded employer. also specified funds would mother’s once became final. 14. appealed against writ. He claimed regularly submitted some documentary evidence support claim. 15. 17 forward appeal second-instance suggested documents employer view deducting what difference. 16. 25 November specify extent complied obligation reply. 17. 19 2004 employee returned first-instance informing it retired 30 December 2003. 18. 2005 held hearing which representative attend. 19. 11 2005, 2006 5 31 2007 again 16 above). 20. June asked carry out pension. reiterated since payments rare irregular able keep record obtain slips order determine how much period. 21. 4 At unable prove all because longer possession slips. same day Postal Service provide information but eventually informed could requested. 22. 26 sixth time paragraphs 22 request. 23. 2008 therefore simply pension securing future instalments. 24. 28 October regional office Pension Fund level requested information. 25. telephone conversation deliver 26. 2010 make submissions regards further actions taken 27. 10 owed total 15,000 least 700 July nothing applicant. 28. parties attended. respect given only partially irregularly 20, 23, 27 far 53,739. end yet exact claim suggest steps proceedings, within fifteen days otherwise considered withdrawn. 29. 13 stating 24,331. reply 24 denied existence any debt agreed 30. 2011 propose 31. an expert opinion debt. 32. 2012 decided instructed him institute separate civil declare inadmissible (in part or full). That final 6 2012. As result thereof, day. 33. become commence 34. inform whether court’s 35. 21 have 1/3 – allegedly maximum portion one’s income garnished under law 57-59 below) already being pursuant concurrent another (newer) ordering 44-49 below). 36. suspended until other carried full, is, 12 2013 49 37. 1 2014 commenced full whereupon 2015 declaring completed. 38. Meanwhile, lodged request protection right reasonable (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje razumnom roku) County (Županijski Varaždinu) complaining about length above 39. found violation awarded 6,600 compensation complete six months service decision. It complex, there substantial periods inactivity attributable amounting altogether five half years, delay more one year eight who failed amounts even though repeatedly do 16, 19, 40. compensation. 41. Supreme (Vrhovni Republike Hrvatske) increased 8,100 having regard urgent character stake (payment maintenance). 42. constitutional complaint Court’s 43. Constitutional (Ustavni declared served representative. contested amenable review section 62 Act 52 44. meantime, instituted before increasing stipulated 45. ruled 800 2011. enforceable 46. municipal 47. pension, 48. 49. garnishing corresponding regular they were becoming due, well date has continued garnish due.
|
[
3
] |
6. The applicants were born in 1959 and 1946, live Ohrid Tetovo, respectively. 7. Following allegations raised by a lawyer (which subsequently withdrawn), V.V., member of the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”), body vested with jurisdiction to decide, inter alia, on dismissal judges (see Amendment XXIX Constitution, paragraph 20 below), made enquiries through President court which first applicant worked as judge. A preliminary inquiry was carried out, 19 April 2008 V.V. requested, under sections 55 58 Act 2006 Act”, see 21 below) section 5 Rules governing professional misconduct proceedings respect judge Rules”, 25 that SJC initiate applicant. In request claimed had not been diligent conducting civil case. responded writing. 8. On 4 June set up, Commission for determination (Комисија за утврдување нестручно и несовесно вршење на судиската функција, hereinafter “the Commission”). 9. basis V.V.’s Commission’s report whether justified, 3 October plenary initiated 10. 12 November held hearing at it heard evidence from It also took other into account. 1 December drew 55(6) Act, question applicant’s justified. submitted consideration. 11. 17 SJC, composition included dismissed misconduct. 12. challenged decision second instance, namely before an Appeal Panel formed within Supreme Court Panel”). Such panels up ad hoc each separate As specified 60 they composed nine judges, whom three be four two 24 September 2009 appeal upheld SJC’s decision. 13. July R.P., applied instituted alleged that, on-duty investigating judge, investigation incident occurred Tetovo detention centre. Under 8 comments. He 14. unspecified date, five-member sought against 15. With decisions delivered 29 2008, including ordered his temporary suspension. amenable appeal. 16. January R.P. presented their arguments concluding remarks (завршни зборови). Evidence considered. same regarding circumstances 17. February appealed case Court, arguing, he given opportunity comment him when served him. asked inform date its session. At private May 2009, 18. Administrative means administrative-dispute action (тужба управен спор). complained, about refusal exclusion Judges N.I. J.V. who parties requested withdrawal because Judge relevant time post president first-instance court, allegedly close relationship public prosecutor involved dismissed. 6 2010 rejected inadmissible. That Higher Court. 19. produced copies articles published local newspapers 26 13 reporting article cited then saying still dealing no yet newspaper announced removed office.
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1943 and is currently detained the centre for persons preventive detention on premises of Rosdorf Prison (hereinafter “Rosdorf centre”). 6. Between 1966 1984, convicted by criminal courts five times. He found guilty sexual assault a seven-year-old girl attempted rape fourteen-year-old girl, committed under influence alcohol, acts with thirteen-year-old boy. to have other unlawful acts, including arson strangulating ten-year-old boy during burglary, but not held criminally liable because he had been drunk. sentenced, particular, terms imprisonment ranging from six months ten years. 7. On 18 April 1986 Hanover Regional Court two counts murder, combined one case, dangerous assault. It sentenced him fifteen years’ ordered his Article 66 § 2 Criminal Code (see paragraph 46 below). 8. that between 7 July 1985 3 October 1985, stabbed nineteen-year-old female cyclist back life-threatening manner gratification; male mistaken woman twice at temple, again twenty‑three ‑year‑old three times an attempt her. those offences alcohol park Hanover. Still drunk, then broken into house, strangulated four-year-old injured her knife below waist gratification. arrested 9 1985. 9. Having consulted medical experts, time committing offences, state diminished responsibility (Article 21 Code, see 62 diagnosed deviance, personality disorder psycho-organic syndrome, which probably consequence longstanding abuse. As long as did drink abnormalities affect able control aggression. However, consumption they led being diminished. 10. decided order applicant’s Code. considered result disorder, propensity commit serious seriously harmed victims both physically mentally. confirmed there high risk if released, would further violent gratification similar guilty. therefore presented danger general public. 11. Lastly, psychiatric hospital 63 court endorsed experts’ finding could no longer be treated sexually deviant aggressive behaviour lasted decades unable pursue psychotherapy view limited intellectual capacity. Public security better safeguarded placing detention. 12. served full term imprisonment, 12 June 2001 placed first detention, wing Celle prison. By 11 2011 years 13. responsible execution sentences continuation regular intervals. In Lüneburg 13 May 5 2012. 14. 26 2013 Court, sitting chamber sentences, authorities offer applicant, within date its decision became final, specific anti-hormonal therapy medication aimed reducing sadistic fantasies libido, thus dangerousness. prosecution heard person well counsel, who represented throughout proceedings before domestic courts. 15. requirements ordering laid down second sentence section 316f(2) Introductory Act 53 below) met. 16. said transitional provision applicable case. noted last offence placement exceed only following entry force Combating Sexual Offences Other Dangerous 31 January 1998 51 prolong without any maximum duration. fell category detainees whose prolonged retrospectively, defined Federal Constitutional judgment 4 paragraphs 66-72 regard to, taken up, standards set up above-mentioned retrospectively or 17. that, accordance suffered mental purposes 1(1) Therapy Detention 64 findings made point W., external expert it consulted, report dated 8 2013. obliged draw basis case files refused examined. Expert W. sadism, addicted even though drunk since detained. stressed W.’s assessment number previous notably experts preference sadomasochistic, fetishist paedophiliac elements addiction current alcohol. 18. Furthermore, required 316f(2), sentence, still very owing circumstances relating conduct, released most motivated convicted. Endorsing reports, admitted address them through therapy. Prison, stopped participating activities dangerousness, consideration advanced age sixty-nine convincingly explained deviance yet considerably alleviated thereby. adequately. increased released. 19. prolongation almost thirty years, proportionate considerable threat posed context supervised residence, suggested decision, possible practice. 20. regards issued based 67d read conjunction 66c 1 sub-paragraph 49 54 below), therapy, necessary guarantee sufficient care while – already done 2012 prison must least treat willing undergo treatment medication. offered proved diminish reduce 21. August lodged appeal against Court’s submitted reasons 14 argued, penalty failed comply Convention. 22. September Appeal dismissed appeal. given 23. Taking account suffering Act. Referring case-law 73-76 require such exclude concerned Articles 20 61-62 Specific disorders affecting person’s personality, impulses were covered notion “mental disorder” sadism amounted meaning provision. 24. Moreover, convicted, conduct. dangerousness reduced therapy; nor become less advancing age. participate therapeutic kept trivialising offences. illness difficult treat. continued proportionate, despite overall length 25. 24 constitutional complaint decisions Appeal. claimed violated right liberty, protection legitimate expectations guaranteed State governed rule law. 26. argued European Human Rights’ well-established (he referred M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009), retrospective beyond former ten-year time-limit breached prohibition punishment Convention (a) continuing justified (e) either. suffer disease addition, scope provisions law courts’ unclear. 27. recommended residence. circumstances, proportionate. conceded, however, new complied requirement differentiate serving imprisonment. 28. 29 declined consider giving (file BvR 2182/13). counsel November 29. December civil section, Moringen Psychiatric Hospital quashed grounds once terminated final decision. 30. 25 2014 Göttingen reviewing repeatedly libido. 31. 15 2015 having J., Braunschweig Court. 32. Until February Prison. participated psychologist 2005 2010, programme measures. 33. transferred consent where concept adopted. aim improve available options light duty reference Germany (cited above) group sessions run doctor social skills training course. attending addicts take libido fear side effects. 34. Since has separate building constructed 35. conception developed 67 70 specified newly enacted Lower Saxony Preventive 54, 56-57 59-60 36. Up forty-five can centre. Detainees are apartment units measuring some 23 square metres containing furnished rooms bathroom. With exception posing particular risk, move freely outdoor 6 a.m. 9.45 p.m. They may furnish paint their rooms, own keys. equipped controlled access internet e-mail, telephone, television, CD DVD player radio. There common residential groups consisting seven detainees, include kitchen, dining room, television room games, handicraft work exercise. premises, 1,600 metres, used sports, recreation gardening. 37. Persons wear clothes. either meals prepared centre’s staff prepare (in receive allowance purchasing food supermarket). work, do so. visits regularly. 38. According information Government, relevant provide motivate therapies treatment, comprised psychiatrist, four psychologists, workers twenty-five members service. staffing situation Hospital, situated same Land 39. examined beginning determine care. A personal plan (Vollzugsplan) drawn up. 40. 28 2014, past, until preventing relapsing excessive consumption. meetings. also regularly discussed experiences leave meetings too, arguing participants granted additional leave. motivation fortnightly March when meetings, alleging lacked experience. took part weekly meet expectations. structured leisure spent day alone watching television. repeated invitations offenders. Thus, reliable escort occasions. 41. internal note member centre, offers start 2013, showed treatment.
|
[] |
6. The applicants were born in 1963 and 1951, live Ohrid Skopje respectively. 7. On 24 June 2009 N.H.A., a member of the SJC, body vested with jurisdiction to decide, inter alia, on dismissal judges (see Amendment XXIX Constitution, paragraph 23 below) requested that SJC initiate professional misconduct proceedings respect first applicant. request was submitted under sections 55 58 State Judicial Council Act 2006 (“the Act”, see Rules governing judge Rules”, 30 below), which provided could seek institution judge. In N.H.A. claimed applicant had violated rules legal representation parties case he adjudicated. replied writing. 8. A commission for determination by (Комисија за утврдување нестручно и несовесно вршење на судиската функција, hereinafter “the Commission”) set up section Act, composed five members. did not participate composition Commission. basis N.H.A.’s request, applicant’s reply obtained evidence, Commission report it sought against applicant, separate decision. 9. 10 November held hearing at heard evidence from stated occasion written withdrawal citing lack impartiality. He Court copy submission. record indicates referred his concluding remarks. No decision taken request. Government there no file. records hearings signed as complainant, members 10. 9 December plenary included dismissed office misconduct, finding parties. 11. challenged second instance, namely before an appeal panel formed within Supreme Appeal Panel”). Such panels ad hoc each case. As specified 60 they nine judges, whom three be four two court defendant. also Judge T.S. Panel because bad personal relationship him. 22 March 2010 President Court, relying 64 67 Civil Proceedings paragraphs 26 27 grounds doubt T.S.’s 12. April Panel, T.S., upheld SJC’s 2009. 13. By submissions 8 August (received September respectively), Minister Justice, who ex officio XXVIII institute requests concerned criminal cases (nos. Кок.бр.7/08 К.бр.1297/02-I), sat president adjudicating panels. It alleged she failed establish identity convicted person (in no. Кок.бр.7/08) been possible conflict interests К.бр.1297/02‑I). 14. case, include Justice. requests, her. 12 initiated temporarily suspended her relevant parts read follows: “The [the Minister’s] ... (a determine whether part applicant) (The Commission) (as justified). discussed (the Commission’s) decided (to proceedings) ...” 15. This served worked 16. rejected inadmissible 17. same date, asked remaining sat, together Кок.бр.7/08. those indicated dated 13 above). 25 agreed act complainant (with regard 2010. should joined. 18. 5 May refused public hearing. decision, confidential excluded order preserve reputation concerned. 19. 15 including Justice V.Dž. misconduct. out stayed (запира постапка) named Appeal. 20. appealed 11 She complained, motion her, party dismiss permission attend session argue 21. At presence reasons given SJC. 22. lodged constitutional Constitutional arguing rights Articles (equality citizens) 16 (freedom conscience, thought expression thought) Constitution. 2011 review lawfulness affected freedom expression, distinction made between exercise expression. ruled entailed right duty adjudicate accordance law, form freedoms competence decide Constitution (У.бр.18/2011).
|
[
3
] |
4. The applicant was born in 1954 and is serving his prison sentence Gorodyshche Town. Before arrest he lived with partner Te. a privately owned house located the Rusanovskiye Sady District of Kyiv. 5. police received intelligence information that group people were detaining man Rusanovskyie Sady, illegally selling apartments by third parties. 6. On 9 February 2004 officers B., T., S. entered applicant’s asked whether or not had any firearms. showed them gun some ammunition which certain Va. brought round to earlier. took station. recorded on video. Court stated, without providing further details, during after subjected him physical psychological ill-treatment. 7. According Government’s version events, same day voluntarily, presence investigator Ch., gave written statement saying from July August 2003 kept Mr N. at request Kr. Ko. In September V. Ms Sh. keep basement. agreed return for payment. November died basement because cold. buried backyard thoroughly cleaned 8. first letter Court, T. B. Ch. forced into making above self-incriminating means pressure. application form, stated did know who it. 9. 10 2004, reconstruction events conducted video, where Sh., sent their bodies forensic examination. experts established victims cold 2003. 10. ordered detention, instituted criminal proceedings against suspicion having stored firearm concealed deprivation liberty death two people. defence rights explained him, expressed wish have lawyer. 11. 11 appointed lawyer, R., under legal aid scheme act as counsel. Upon being questioned 12 confirmed previous statements. He also said been aware put order prevent hindering illegal sale apartments. 12. 13 Dniprovskyy Kyiv detention pending trial. date medical doctor examined found no injuries body. raise complaints ill-treatment health condition. 13. 20 charged murdering 14. lawyer R. 15. 17 May formal confrontation 16. 3 June another K., counsel instead latter longer able perform duties illness. 17. K. denied all statements given previously state “shock”. 18. 6 participated fraudulent belonging 19. an unspecified complained ill-treated It unclear provided details about such copy complaint available unreadable. 20. S., they 21. refused institute investigation allegations appeal decision. A decision but girlfriend, Later day, absconded facility held, back date. 22. absconding. 23. Pl., worked hospital town Svetlovodsk. Pl. admitted autumn told victim fraud, apartment sold knowledge consent. 24. Ru., summer woman called Olya. Ru. fraud. 25. if could Ro., this refused. 26. 5 V., reason remains unknown. 8 pre-trial completed, studied material file. 27. indictment people, including Kr., while N.’s payment, month. After that, basement, yard. house. before she indictment, holding N., house, applicant, acting jointly others, fraud entailing victims’ 28. 2 2005 TV channel transmitted programme “Black Square”. dealing case spoke “persuaded public” guilty charged. Neither recording programme, nor its contents made Court. 29. Appeal, composed professional judges three lay first-instance court case, commenced 30. Krav. grounds remain 31. court, when detained “his head working” drunk. arrest, drunk vodka police, why remember what done 2004. “was sure” Investigator promised charge only offence concealment Actually, voluntarily stayed none forcefully held too much vodka, fallen asleep one rooms afraid reported deaths beaten him. 32. questions. alcohol pressure concealment. 33. exclude possibility They it possible 34. March Ro. seen still alive, heard how release Later, V.’s dead body met several occasions, intended “sell” keeping questions hearing answers. 35. “Olya” “Volodya” taken documents, left there until end allowed leave gun. While staying observed Olya, Volodya, concluded organised sell Olya moved bought Volodya placed From there, relatives learned sold. then returned police. When building located, neighbours moving furniture out apartment. described those understood applicant. present questioning 36. 31 Te., presence. She living month “having rest” there. locked will. instructed allow talk accordance wishes, fact, known Once, various pieces belonged visited food money feeding 37. April recall witness so question her again. That granted, however, appear find permanent place residence. 38. stayed. informed helped carry yard bury them. 39. call because, according contradicted granted stating busy work Svetlovodsk hospital. court. requested (unsuccessfully) examination aimed establishing indeed spent weeks 40. 25 Appeal convicted action led absconding facility, storage firearms participating sentenced fifteen years imprisonment. stopped representing unknown reasons. observations submitted reply Government, unsuccessfully lodged requests appointment represent Supreme file does contain copies requests. 41. appealed convictions. trial objective fair, misinterpreted facts witnesses proposed hearing, although contained contradictory false information. His 42. 22 December upheld convictions sentence, irregularities court’s 43. 7 2006 29 duly signed completed form. 21 2007 provide cassation appeal, concerning alleged send documents 14 ground law empower obtain conclusion proceedings. 44. 24 January 2008 (see paragraph 43 above). 45. October 2011 materials file, particular, courts’ decisions, reports elaborating further, needed “substantiate complaints” 18 2007. 46. services lawyers low quality. interested pay 47. conditions (ITT) periods between 27 inhuman degrading.
|
[] |
5. The applicants were born in 1988 and 1992 at the time of introduction application detained Hermes Block, Lyster Barracks Detention Centre, Hal Far. 6. Ms Moxamed Ismaacil, first applicant, entered Malta an irregular manner by boat on 16 August 2012. Upon arrival, she was registered immigration police given identification number (12U-007). 7. At that point presented with two documents, one containing a Return Decision other Removal Order (no copies available). According to contents decision English not explained her, although could understand language. Government, practice inform migrants verbally about their right appeal translate for each other. 8. applicant further provided information leaflet entitled “Your entitlements, responsibilities obligations while detention”. She claimed document language understand. Government did request booklet another 9. In accordance Article 14 (2) Immigration Act (see Relevant domestic law), detained. initially Zone D later moved unspecified Barracks. 10. Abdirahman Warsame, second also (12U-009). 11. then documents English, Order. stated prohibited immigrant virtue 5 (Chapter 217 Laws Malta) because “without means subsistence liable become charge public funds”. informed her stay being terminated possibility apply period voluntary departure. based consideration applicant’s departure had been rejected. It would remain custody until removal is affected entry ban be issued against her. before Appeals Board (“the IAB”) within three working days. 12. None these Warsame who 13. (Zone unspecified). 14. A few days following arrival both called session Staff Office Refugee Commissioner. They assisted submitting Preliminary Questionnaire (PQ), thereby registering wish asylum under 8 Refugees Act, Chapter 420 law below). 15. Two months later, 2 9 November 2012 respectively, they refugee status determination interview. By decisions 19 January 2013, communicated 31 Commissioner (RC) rejected applications basis failed substantiate claim lived Halane village, Qoryooley district, Lower Shabelle Region, southern Somalia. Thus, fulfil eligibility criteria either or subsidiary protection. 16. On 7 February aid lawyers from Jesuit Service (JRS) appealed decisions. (RAB) 18 March 2013 present submissions. This time-limit extended submissions lodged April 2013. 17. date this Court, eleven weeks no issued. hoping released lapse twelve as per normal practice. 18. Barracks, conditions which considered prison-like basic, better than latter Zone. place overcrowded noisy, it hard keep clean. There twenty people dormitory ninety-five zone, only fridge. summer heat unbearable winter too cold. fed same food every day, allowed hour sunshine day. maintained male detainees held upper floors often abused them verbally. Other factors taken into young age, inability communicate any except Somali, fact detention centre staffed exclusively men. noted absence access effective medical care, interpreters available. visited clinic several times sick, repeatedly told drink water take paracetamol tablets. Often doctors available soldiers decided whether issue warranted emergency treatment. 19. endured circumstances mentioned above Ismaacil. added depressed felt upset agitated, stop drinking eating lose consciousness. Despite gastric pains, special diet administered paracetamol, extent started vomiting blood. June hospitalized week. alleges very weak physically suffering memory loss. 20. Ismaacil still waiting outcome RAB. Her eventually 15 October 21. July 2014.
|
[
2
] |
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by parties, may be summarised follows. 5. On 19 January 2005 bank C. brought enforcement proceedings against applicant before Setúbal Court seeking payment a debt 106,278.60 euros (EUR) plus EUR 23,122.72 in interest. 6. 8 October 2007 writ execution was issued concerning an apartment he had mortgaged to (penhora do apartamento). unspecified date judicial officer (agente de execução) appointed depositary (fiel depositário), thus being charge and responsible for course through sale applicant’s apartment, pursuant Code Civil Procedure. 7. 29 September 2009 lodged complaint with regarding officer’s inactivity proceedings. 8. 15 February 2012 Commission Efficiency Executions (Comissão para Eficácia das Execuções) complaining about professional conduct which preventing apartment. 18 June acknowledged receipt July informed him that they would start disciplinary officer. 9. 3 following 2009, adopted decision removing from his post on grounds negligence new one. 10. According last information received 2014 are still pending at first instance.
|
[
3
] |
6. The applicants are a married couple and were born in 1956 1966 respectively. They have been the Netherlands since 1999. 7. their three children (two daughters, A B, in, respectively, 1992 1993, son C, 1997) entered on 17 December 1999 and, 26 1999, applied for asylum, fearing persecution within meaning of 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to Status Refugees (“the Convention”) and/or treatment breach Article 3 from mujahideen Taliban Afghanistan account first applicant’s professional activities during former communist regime. 8. applicant submitted that he had become member People’s Democratic Party (“PDPA”) 1978 that, as conscript, served battalion Kabul January 1981. Feeling moral obligation serve his country, subsequently decided join army military career. 9. From March 1981 taken preparatory course university studies Soviet Union, which mainly consisted Russian language lessons. He sent by Director Political Affairs General Staff Ministry Defence Minsk Higher Combined Arms Military School Belarus, where studied between 1982 1986. On 5 July 1986 graduated with Master’s degree pedagogic social sciences. 10. Holding rank captain, assigned Division 5, was responsible controlling border Iran. September 1989 worked area political affairs division security unit. cultural matters, including propaganda, combating illiteracy amongst soldiers, creation patriotic awareness them. further given task persuading deserters who caught do service Afghan army. stated apprehended about 300 such 1989, only failed respect fifteen them persuade service. These individuals handed over Public Prosecutor. In 1988 promoted senior captain. 11. 1990 appointed secretary or deputy scientific officer Army Museum Kabul, fell under responsibility propaganda Defence. collecting weapons museum. later director museum holding major, function until 1992. 12. problems started after power Mujahideen come take exhibits they thought valuable weaponry otherwise. When recognised an regime, incarcerated him – together other officers soldier basement released week. wanted cooperate helping arms ammunition out refused all requests, led aggressive behaviour towards part mujahideen. repeatedly reported this attitude these mujahideen’s superiors Defence, namely two generals whom collaborated both remained position at working Hezb-e-Harakat-e-Islami Ahmad Shah Massoud. After placed control commander, resigned 1994 keys be one generals. 13. second also asylum behalf applicants’ guide same when city captured Under pressure footsteps her husband, she job 1994. 14. Shortly post museum, received written death threat courtyard house: house destroyed few days later. brief stay father another neighbourhood moved Kunduz, followers Massoud, like Tajik origin. lived off income generated land owned family, applicant, admittedly not any financial necessity, opened small shop order something do. 15. April May 1998 seized Kunduz June 1997 cousins appeared eight ten Taliban. According betrayed relatives. informed regime whereabouts. conducted search house. Although found none, arrested brother. separated shortly arrest. 16. During detention Taliban, weeks base prison, interrogated, ill-treated forced perform hard labour. As it happened sometimes evening hours detainees away cell shared others never seen again, feared life detention. 17. date could remember, before tribunal composed four mullahs, interrogated whilst being ill-treated. place fingerprint documents, most Arabic. 18. subsequent transport convoy consisting five cars prison managed escape armed attack, believed then fled Mazar-i-Sharif, joined family 7 November 12 left Afghanistan. 19. interviewed Dutch immigration officials flight motives occasions; occasions. 8 2004 intention (voornemen) Minister Immigration Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingzaken en Integratie) refuse asylum. Having noted account, official general report (ambtsbericht), drawn up 29 February 2000 Foreign “Security Services Communist (1978-1992). AGSA, KAM, KhAD WAD” (“Veiligheidsdiensten communistisch (1978-1992), WAD”)[1], different person-specific reports (individuele ambts-berichten), DPC/AM 635082 696035, 15 2000, hold 1F relating Refugee against him. 4 2004, lawyer acting comments (zienswijze) intention. 20. interviewing once more, rejected applications, separate decisions 2004. elaborately argued notices added formed 21. found, inter alia, constituted danger public (openbare orde), serious reasons believing committed crimes referred Convention, thus excluding international protection . attached credence statements terms positions career army, description tasks deemed inaccurate. His certain said performed (namely what called PDPA’s national reconciliation policy, amnesty, reconstruction demilitarisation) highly implausible. 22. basis relevant time, divisions solely loyal skilled people regularly provided KhAD/WAD information (“Khadimat-e Atal’at-e Dowlati / Wezarat-e Amniyat-e Dowlati”; set 1980 transformed into ministry “WAD”, existence WAD successor KhAD, continued commonly KhAD); those relatively easy access PDPA leadership, remove anti-government soldiers if need help KhAD. inextricably connected frequent arrests, torture, disappearances executions disloyal members 23. emphasised widely known cruel character its lawless methods, grave torture human rights violations, “climate terror” spread throughout whole society, underlined vague definition “enemy regime” used how enemies through extensive network spies, widespread often random arrests suspects. relied regard 2000. 24. established, elaborate argumentation based various involved likely fall scope proceeded analysis individual prescribed test “personal knowing participation test”. 25. point, view contents aforementioned Affairs, should criminal contacts maintained professionally. directly facilitated performing alia attributed arresting trying flee across continue service, failure handing office 26. regards additional interview held 1 2003, explicitly invited submit specific evidence would exposed risk contrary furnished sufficient grounds establish run real provision returned Thus, indicate persons groups looking him, generally phrased alleged fear returning (former) PDPA, dissimilar many nationals. Furthermore, Minister, reference recent issued sole fact seeker did itself suffice render applicable eventuality expulsion. 27. Separate appeals distinct judgments down August 2005 Regional Court (rechtbank) Hague, sitting Assen. 28. accepted Minister’s decision applicant. It arguments Convention. agreed subjected assumptions, identity person(s) group(s), reasons, expected encounter Afghanistan, whereas according country assessment 2003 mere membership active enough raise issue event expulsion alien question. rejected, lack substantiation, claim International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) unable provide sustained protection. 29. Further summary reasoning 19 2005, rulings Administrative Jurisdiction (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak) Council State (Raad van State). quashing impugned (kan niet tot vernietiging de aangevallen uitspraak leiden). section 91 § 2 Aliens Act (Vreemdelingenwet 2000), no for, questions requiring determination interest legal unity, development sense. No appeal lay rulings. 30. 2006, fourth child, daughter named Mina, Netherlands. 31. regular, non-asylum-related, residence permit. This request 6 2007. objection (bezwaar) dismissed 2007 Deputy Justice (Staatssecretaris Justitie). initially lodged but withdrew 2008. 32. meantime, 2008, fresh herself youngest children. eldest made own claim. Pursuant 4:6 Law (Algemene wet bestuursrecht), repeat must newly emerged facts altered circumstances (“nova”) warranting reconsideration initial refusal. westernised. oldest claimed marriage. 33. 2010, negative quashed appeal, allowed granted 34. More than year earlier, 2009 request, President Chamber Government desirable interests parties proper conduct proceedings duration (Rule 39 Rules Court). At Rule 54 (b) observations admissibility merits case. 35. Also, 27 claim, deterioration situation increased prohibited 3, ex-communist, atheist belonged religious minority, abroad long period. due work, well prominent circles reject request. 2010. 36. 22 October 2010 Immigration, Asylum Policy Immigratie, Integratie Asiel). An 31 2011 Hague ‘s-Hertogenbosch. shown deteriorated elements constitute “nova” so far offered arguments, raised non-asylum-based permit, open apply permit 2012. ruling.
|
[] |
7. The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently detained at the Corradino Correctional Facility Paola. 8. By Act III of 2002 Maltese Parliament introduced right to legal assistance pre-trial stage. However, law only came into force 2010 by means Legal Notice 35 2010. Prior this did not provide for during pre‑trial investigations specifically questioning, whether police or a magistrate his investigative role. Before however, suspects would be cautioned, that is, informed their remain silent anything they said could taken down produced as evidence. At time, no inferences drawn trial courts from silence accused 9. applicant, time twenty-seven years age, arrested on 15 April 2003 suspicion importation trafficking drugs (heroin) relation two episodes March 2003. On 17 while under arrest precisely after being duly cautioned about silent, absence lawyer, gave statement police, which however he refused sign. 10. In regularly drove white Ford Escort married Thai national. reply stated remember whereabouts 3 know certain N. M. three other Turkish nationals (K., R., M.I.). Neither had ever paid received money aforementioned persons. He further never made calls Turkey. denied having, 4 2003, contact with any foreigner Paceville, having phone call specific numbers shown him police. gone Paceville wife car making 5 2003; also day given heroin capsules presence wife. claimed have 10 a.m. look person who stolen stereo. availed himself respect questions drug problem, used heroin, when last done so. asked written names found piece paper what purpose, replied but people unaware purpose paper, been very long time. 11. same (17 2003) arraigned before Court Magistrates Criminal Inquiry (committal proceedings) above-mentioned exhibited evidence against him. prosecution another statements implicating witnesses (N. M., female couriers, mentioned above) investigated connection crimes, legally assisted investigation case. 12. meantime, duty (C.) arrested, search carried out place residence, items seized. Instead proceeding herself spot conduct inquest genere inquiry (inkjesta), she appointed investigating officer hold an on-site inquiry, number experts assist (see Articles 546 - 548 Code, relevant domestic law, paragraph 31 below). document appointment, were required report findings her within days. following acceded Commissioner Police’s request order telephone companies give all information requested mobile phones seized course investigation. procès-verbal 23 reported her, 21 2013 Police close since committal proceedings (kumpilazzjoni) already started 9 above). All documents attached record sent Attorney General. 13. assigned (by lot) case sitting Inquiry. She eventually decided there enough put bill indictment. resulting indictment filed General 14 June 2006. 14. consequence tried jury judgment 16 January 2008 guilty importing, causing imported, taking steps preparatory importation, between February conspired persons import, sell traffic promoted, constituted, organised financed such conspiracy; period possession circumstances indicated it exclusive use. sentenced twenty-one years’ imprisonment fine 70,000 euros (EUR). During these objected various grounds, objections withdrawn 30 October 2006, apart one objection concerning inadmissibility results identification parade. 15. appealed, claiming incorrect application (unrelated assistance), wrong assessment facts, disproportionate punishment. 16. appeal Appeal refer constitutional grounds (different those raised 20 November claims frivolous vexatious rejected request. 17. 19 May 2011 applicant’s dismissed first-instance confirmed (apart slight change timing third charge). 18. so far relevant, noted advantage seeing hearing witnesses, jurors arrived conclusion should rely version events statement. first issue decide couriers M.) knowing women them, identified namely food, gloves, disinfectant laxative, whom stomachs. A factors credibility women’s applicant: (i) meetings using four-door company Asian woman; (ii) habitually use (iii) fact separately photographs; (iv) moreover, parades supervised magistrate; without hesitation testified, both stage jury. light reasonably conclude met delivered applicant. 19. This established, determine contained connected delivery intercepted heroin. court argument concerned cannabis, studies showed cocaine sometimes ecstasy, Turkey considered key transit route Europe 20. It appeared imported second come Malta. They forced return since, March, lost most carrying vomiting board flight. recipient expect receive full delivery, therefore logical supplier courier deliver missing because fault. followed that, testimony, reasonable possible at. conjecture destined Indeed recipient. referred someone whose father passed away, part hearsay event 21. meant take place, seen drive around area (at least times) Escort, short arrested. believed Moreover, ignored Turkey, despite explain admitted himself, testified spoken telephone. 22. above considerations produced, charge, partly 23. instituted redress proceedings, breach fair (Article 6 § (c)) account lack interrogation, investigation, repercussions trial. complained conducted compilation proceedings. remedy including, limited to, declaration criminal cancelled compensation paid. 24. 2012 Civil (First Hall) its competence claim. 25. follows: end, now res judicata; neither referral pending Appeal; determinant finding guilty: knew chosen questioned use; true extracts statement, basis conviction, based previous – indeed nothing 26. concluded ended entirety substitute represented lawyer ample opportunity submit contest brought him, questioning irreparable effect defend himself. 27. complaint standing respect. remained unchanged; challenged them opted do 28. Lastly, held conducting independent act prosecutor, present express opinion sufficient institute then reviewed Appeal. Furthermore, comment somewhat related explicitly 2006 allowed benefit own passivity. 29. 25 Constitutional judgment, costs correct interpretation Salduz v. [GC] (no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008) view case, where Mr vulnerable position rationale allow let off scot‑free formality real serious consequences. claim make way aimed avoiding abuses, happen Thus, procedural obstacle complain stage, jurisdictions, element vulnerability thus violation rights. even if guilt, necessarily tainted unless obtained duress, Nevertheless, instant relevance whatsoever, saying version. led guilt. agree general moment became ipso facto invalid Article 6. 30. As rule locus standi, play duress. reiterated courts. admissible. Lastly reasoning relating impartiality magistrate, opportunistic.
|
[
3
] |
6. The applicant was born in 1965 and has been residing the Netherlands since 1997. 7. entered on 2 December 1997 applied for a residence permit purpose of asylum as well reasons not related to asylum. In support this application, he gave following account his interviews with immigration officials. 8. He had member communist People’s Democratic Party Afghanistan (“PDPA”) 1978/79, worked Afghan security service KhAD/WAD (“Khadimat-e Atal’at-e Dowlati / Wezarat-e Amniyat-e Dowlati”)[1] from 1982 1992. Upon PDPA’s advice joined KhAD an alternative mandatory military service. stationed Paktia 1986, where initially performed administrative tasks one month within KhAD’s local Political Affairs department, followed by preparing/compiling course materials internal training same department. done until 1986. also involved organisation cultural events youth 9. 1984 sent Union Soviet Socialist Republics (“USSR”) six months (KhAD’s functioning secret service). completion promoted rank third lieutenant. 1986 participated political training, USSR. 10. From 1987 1988 department Kandahar. 1992 “Directorate 89”, located Kabul, given task control research into staff. applicant’s highest attained rank, through periodical promotions, that major. 11. fled Pakistan 5 May 1992, week after fall PDPA regime. After flight, father assaulted mujahideen who come ask him about whereabouts. have kidney removed consequence battering suffered at hands mujahideen. family departure Afghanistan, but they lived separately safety reasons. His relatives Pakistan, close border. himself stayed Karachi. On unspecified date 1995, unidentified parents’ home searching applicant. occasion, youngest brother ill-treated another taken away, tortured killed their attempt find 12. 21 April 1998, Deputy Minister Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected request, holding failed establish personal circumstances warranting decision grant never approached personally Afghanistan; only made vague declarations post held KhAD, more than five years without experiencing problems and/or having found (who were said be active too). Although might known were, it considered implausible would aware whereabouts Pakistan. submissions regarding assault killing brief vague. 13. did, however, conditional (voorwaardelijke vergunning tot verblijf), valid year 3 1997, basis temporary categorial protection policy (“categoriaal beschermingsbeleid”) respect Afghanistan. 14. 18 1998 submitted objection (bezwaar) against reject request. January 2000, hearing 30 September 1999 before official board enquiry (ambtelijke commissie), objection. found, inter alia, position sufficient importance warrant conclusion run real risk persecution upon return further noted experienced any either, stressing easily crossed mujahideen-controlled border crossing demonstrate ran Taliban, charge most time impugned taken. underlined regard unlikelihood Taliban past activities including two programmes allegedly attended dismissed argument that, exposed being subjected treatment contrary Article Convention. 15. lodged appeal Regional Court (rechtbank) Hague. Pending these proceedings, informed decided, view involvement examine possible applicability 1F 1951 Geneva Convention Relating Status Refugees (“the Refugee Convention) case reason 2000 withdrawn. Thereupon, withdrew appeal. 16. Meanwhile situation sufficiently improved, converted ex lege indefinite period three years. Subsequently, entry force Aliens Act (Vreemdelingenwet 2000) 1 2001, came named 17. 17 March 9 2003, interviewed authorities nature KhAD. 18. 22 2004 Immigration Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie) notified her intention (voornemen) revoke hold him. claim light report (ambtsbericht), drawn up 29 February Ministry Foreign “Security Services Communist (1978-1992), AGSA, KAM, WAD” (“Veiligheidsdiensten communistisch WAD”) concerning particular question whether, if so which, former employees those services should regarded implicated human rights violations. report, adopted could virtually every seeker who, lieutenant or higher, during regime its successor WAD. 19. established commissioned officer Directorate 89 authorities, sought trivialise She ought examined earlier stage, relevant (1997/98) considerably less information available full extent violations committed notwithstanding certain there general awareness 20. then proceeded analysis individual responsibility under Convention, based prescribed so-called “knowing participation” test. Noting, steady career path excluded possibility Relying widely cruel character lawless methods, grave crimes such torture other climate terror which spread throughout whole society. lastly emphasised nothing distance ten there, referring own statement effect consciously chosen stay order avoid war front. consequences choice bear. 21. 28 2004, written comments (zienswijze) Minister’s intended and, 19 2005, once heard enquiry. 22. 6 2006 served additional notice intent whether expulsion compatible required cases according case-law Administrative Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak) Council State. issued July ex-communists persons associated yet entirely clear. Members possibly becoming victim side (except government) population (victims’ relatives) identified However, no indications fear merely because ties Minister, therefore, facts breach so. reaching finding, proscribed remained unsubstantiated concrete manner assumptions. specified faction looking shortly left nor currently power took 2005 meantime parents returned Kabul. early individuals asking applicant, demonstrated serious difficulties groups. mere fact did itself expelled still claims risked infidel professing Islam, drank alcohol studied, ethnicity. 23. 15 2006, 24. November revoked permit. notices added decisions formed part them. deviate, part, conclusions went confirm them all points. rebuttals raising new grounds. Moreover, letter Public Prosecutor’s Office (Openbaar Ministerie) asked consider prosecuting criminal law. No follow-up submitted. 25. 11 impose exclusion (ongewenstverklaring) 2007 26. An 13 Hague, sitting ‘s-Hertogenbosch. It accepted underlying reasoning. upheld reasoning removal 27. 2007, summary grounds, holding: “What raised grievances ... does provide grounds quashing ruling. Having section 91 § is called for, arguments do raise questions require determination interest legal uniformity, development sense.” lay 28. imposed 8 2008. 14 2008, appealed proceedings
|
[] |
5. The applicants were employed as police officers. They all charged with the commission of various criminal offences. dismissed from force pursuant to Article 45 Ministry Interior Act 1991 which was in at time. Subsequently, acquitted. However, their dismissals remained force. unsuccessfully challenged civil proceedings before national courts. 6. On 26 April 2004 a complaint lodged against first applicant Jagodina District Court (“the Court”). He reported have instigated his superior, second applicant, abuse power. arrested same day and instituted him. 7. 2004, simultaneously initiation proceedings, disciplinary applicant. suspended on day, pending decision Disciplinary Court. 8. 5 May Ćuprija Municipal Prosecutor for alleged instigation 9. 7 June competent directorate rendered by noted that had been time dismissal could be applied. an appeal this decision. 16 July Minister, acting second-instance administrative body, rejected appeal, confirming dismissal. 10. 27 August stopped without any merits. concluded already result him fact redundant. 11. 29 November Court”) acquitted appealed March 2005 confirmed Court’s applicant’s acquittal became final. 12. Shortly after he requested annulment above decisions 10 2006 accepted claim ordered reinstate former post. court held formulation left broad discretionary powers dismiss its employees even when no responsibility attributable them. It legal solution “most certainly possibility authority.” also observed Finally, determination but solely through use power given further reasoning. 13. 2 upheld reasoning 14. points law Supreme 25 2007 quashed decided lawful. According Court, used under accordance law. absence merits irrelevant lower courts overstepped limits authority considering necessity, proportionality correctness 15. committed crime 16. 17. 18. identical case 19 body 19. reasons 20. prosecutor 21. acquittal, previously 22. 8 23. grounds 24. October 1999, Vranje indictment third unauthorised possession weapons ammunition. 17 December 1999 found guilty sentenced one year imprisonment. 25. 14 2000 applicants. appealed. 13 No 26. 6 2001 conviction proceedings. request re-opening granted. September 22 February acquittal. 27. 28. 18 decision, giving essentially delivered cases 3 29. In another officer, G.M. co-defendant. is still officer. 30. separate set compensation non-pecuniary damage related unlawful detention, stress sustained prison loss reputation caused 2008 Gnjilane partially awarded 780,000 dinars (RSD), (approximately 6,330 euros (EUR)). decreasing amount RSD 530,000 EUR 5,640). sum paid accordingly.
|
[
3,
4
] |
5. The applicants were born in 1958 and 1961 respectively live Zagreb. 6. On 13 February 2001 the applicants’ mother died after being admitted for respiratory problems to Jordanovac Clinical Hospital Centre (Klinički bolnički centar Jordanovac; hereinafter: “Hospital”), a public health care institution. 7. An autopsy performed on next day by General Medical Pathology Anatomical Department of Zagreb University Faculty (Zavod za opću patologiju i patološku anatomiju Medicinskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu) indicated that cause death was insufficiency leading cardiac complications. 8. informed results measures which had been taken treatment their explained them. 9. According applicants, based mutual agreement, it decided first applicant would pursue legal remedies concerning mother. 10. In July met two inspectors at Ministry Health (Ministarstvo zdravstva; “Ministry”) whom she complained inability obtain mother’s medical records about circumstances died. inspectors, however, took no further action these complaints. 11. 1 October 2002 Croatian Chamber (Hrvatska liječnička komora; “CMC”) her unclear severely affected family. She also expressed dissatisfaction with functioning system particular own treatment. 12. Upon receiving applicant’s complaint, Professional Supervisory Commission (Povjerentsvo stručni nadzor Hrvatskw liječničke komore; “Commission”) invited specify respect doctor institution made 13. By letter 28 2003 considered complaints be withdrawn as failed them requested. 14. 17 March replied maintaining there must have some misunderstanding correspondence received from complaint concerned Hospital, its director doctor, LJ.P., head intensive unit B.S. submitted family never any relevant documents relative’s death. A copy this reply sent Ministry. 15. After requested provide report 16. 16 April 17. 30 forwarded all available actions regard complaint. 18. 2 May not found malpractice 19. objected findings 6 June 2003. stressed concrete document indicating relative lacked reasoning. 20. 15 observations objection 20 November urged CMC adopt decision matter. 21. 21 Executive Board (Izvršni odbor Hrvatske komore), second-instance body CMC, dismissed ill-founded, upholding Commission. It could challenge lodging an administrative Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske). 22. Board, explanation procedure before it. 4 December accordingly lodge need communicate 23. 24 lodged challenging Board. argued bodies submissions properly assess 24. 2006 examine case. 11 due backlog court case still examined. 25. then Justice pravosuđa Hrvatske) manner processed 14 2006, reiterating previous reason why 26. 2007, upon another applicant, progress 27. 2007 Office President Republic Croatia (Ured Predsjednika Hrvatske), speed up proceedings 28. 5 declared inadmissible ground rights or obligations interests. 29. 8 January 2008 constitutional Constitutional (Ustavni complaining ineffectiveness lower family’s information 30. 27 2010 Meanwhile supplemented arguments complaints, inordinate length 31. 19 August 2010, asked allow inspect file. 32. meantime, various domestic authorities, including Croatia, Prime Minister Vlade Deputy Parliament authorities’ response 33. 26 2012 Ministry, replying question Deputy, within competence case, although note competent decisions CMC. 34. 2013 ill-founded (see paragraph 29 above), Court. additional out time non-exhaustion remedies. served 2014. 35. 2004 criminal Municipal State Attorney’s (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo alleging negligence unknown staff. particular, admission given drug allergic, caused allergic reaction complications 36. inquired several times investigation. 37. September written request urging 38. As Office, inactivity processing 39. Based (Državno 40. Since reply, again produce issue. 41. investigating judge County (Županijski commission expert fact should known duly status when inquiry Office. 42. information, inquiries investigative 43. Meanwhile, file lost ordered reconstructed. 44. police conduct investigation into addition, report, commissioned 45. produced interviews general practitioner latter denied administration allergic. His statement confirmed director, LJ.P. obtained 46. expert, J.Š., did indicate part doctors. 47. 25 rejected reasonable suspicion offence committed instructed take over prosecution subsidiary prosecutor. 48. entire 49. 2008, instituted Criminal (Općinski kazneni against charges negligence. 50. authorities expressing regrets protracted dealing 51. 7 forward 52. provided 2008. 53. 2009 amend prosecute (optužni prijedlog) required under law factual basis 54. indictment (optužnica) 55. proceedings, 56. 22 coordinate procedural action. 57. drafted doctors D.M. I.Š., irregularity drug, neither used nor use during 2001. experts excluded possibility result reaction. 58. 2010. 59. challenged arguing aspects thus re-examine supplement findings. 60. 2011 three-judge panel returned ordering institute 61. complied order opened 62. questioned B.S., who 63. 12 his disagreement opening 64. lack evidence malpractice. appeal Supreme (Vrhovni 65. 18 violation right trial awarded 2,500 kunas (HRK) non-pecuniary damage (approximately EUR 340). 66. upheld 64 above). 2012. 67. Court, courts failure elucidate 68. concern charge her. 2013. 69. reopening flaws 70. unfounded 71. I.Š. they false evidence. respect.
|
[
0
] |
6. The applicant is of Pashtun origin, was born in 1964 and has been the Netherlands since 1998. 7. entered on 3 August 1998 4 applied for asylum, submitting following account his interviews with immigration officials held 1998, 26 21 March 2000. 8. After completing elementary education 1976, had attended military academy Kabul. He graduated 1982 started working rank second lieutenant at an administrative department one directorates Afghan security service KhAD/WAD (“Khadimat-e Atal’at-e Dowlati / Wezarat-e Amniyat-e Dowlati”)[1] during former communist regime Afghanistan. become head this – which responsible handling confidential documents 1988, function he continued to hold until fall ruling People’s Democratic Party Afghanistan (“PDPA”) 1992. In 1990 promoted lieutenant-colonel. 9. applicant’s directorate assigned task negotiating concluding agreements groups that opposed fought Government, namely mujahideen. These entailed remunerated cooperation PDPA. meetings between thus “employed” mujahideen commanders executives directorate. During these performance such assessed decisions were taken whether or not they should continue be paid. minutes those meetings. believed holding him personally discontinuation their pay where effect taken. addition, never admitted cooperating KhAD very keen keeping a secret, reason interested eliminating applicant. 10. 1992, after Kabul, come looking They said have office asked him. informed by president worked for, who maintained good relations hence remained post there. 11. family fled Mazar-e-Sharif, led quiet life 1997, when various city, including feared gone into hiding, period house searched then Pakistan. 12. On 15 September 1999, person-specific official report (individueel ambtsbericht) concerning drawn up Ministry Foreign Affairs (Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken). According report, torture systemic WAD interrogation centres within loyalty its staff carefully controlled. It considered impossible persons belonging higher management involved implementation above methods. This asylum procedure. 13. claim also examined light 29 February 2000 Affairs, “Security Services Communist (1978-92), AGSA, KAM, WAD” (“Veiligheidsdiensten communistisch (1978-1992), en WAD”) particular question and, if so, employees services regarded as implicated human rights violations (see A.A.Q. v. (dec.), no. 42331/05, §§ 50-52, 30 June 2015). 14. By decision 18 July Deputy Minister Justice (Staatssecretaris Justitie) rejected claim. held, inter alia, serious reasons found believing committed acts referred Article 1F 1951 Geneva Convention Relating Status Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”). 15. Referring paragraph 13 above), emphasised widely known cruel character KhAD, lawless methods, grave crimes it other “climate terror” spread throughout whole society, army. underlined vague definition “enemy regime” used how enemies through extensive network spies, all widespread often random arrests suspects. noted elite unit regime, only whose beyond doubt eligible recruitment service. Furthermore, new recruits initially sections actively engaged tracking down “elements posed threat State”, order prove unequivocally directly associated with. regard every officer arrests, interrogations, even executions. 16. Having established, basis elaborate argumentation based international documents, likely scope Convention, proceeded analysis individual responsibility under Convention. above, plea any career dismissed. view several promotions, excluded possibility having KhAD. 17. application did require proof alleged crimes; sufficed existed consider had, knowledge bore them, voluntarily assumed. context referred, paragraphs 42 43 “The Exclusion Clauses: Guidelines Application” (UNHCR, 1 December 1996), stating: “persons are performed, in, participated orchestrating, planning and/or implementing, condoned acquiesced carrying out specified criminal subordinates, rightly excluded. ... voluntary membership part government activities may constitute grounds exclusion member cannot rebut presumptions personal implication.” 18. further letter 28 November 1997 sent President Lower House Parliament (Tweede Kamer) stating applicable person concerned himself provision but active conscious organisation committing war against humanity. As way distanced from resisted concluded case. Consequently, request 19. no would residence permit compelling humanitarian (klemmende redenen humanitaire aard). regards that, assuming real risk being subjected treatment contrary Afghanistan, guarantee right residence. granting conflict State’s interest terms credibility stage, particularly regarding towards States. Minister’s view, situation forced host State individuals elsewhere shocked public legal both Dutch law avoided. 20. objection (bezwaar) rejected, heard 16 May 2003 before board enquiry (ambtelijke commissie), 11 Immigration Integration (Minister Vreemdelingenzaken Integratie), successor Justice. endorsed impugned proceeded, addition thereto, prescribed so-called “personal knowing participation test” 21. “knowing” element, above) about attach credence submissions Basing herself 2000, commission PDPA rule fact common therefore, unthinkable ignorant acts. high long Directorate employed. knowingly 22. attributed found, basing large extent same factual information done previous decision, failed demonstrate conduct, lack thereof, prevented committed. 23. rebuttal, amounted case distinguished general officers described claimed obtained desk job proving sinister ways stated rather bribes. position description tasks (including processing high-level classified information), attempted trivialise greatly impaired consequence. point, relied, Amnesty International’s “Reports long-term detention without trial” 1991, according employed systematic torture. 24. identified inconsistencies declarations rebuttals, certain performed highly implausible. relevant part, burden less stringent than prosecution (“serious considering” might guilty render applicable). Taking sought leave WAD, ten years, last lieutenant-colonel, department, there indications involuntarily KhAD/WAD. 25. accurate unreliable sources too could case, founded acclaimed sources, United Nations Special Rapporteur, Human Rights Watch, numerous International reports, variety publications. 26. went analyse, her own motion, eligibility related asylum. issued, gave rise “contraindications” types permit. However, while reiterating residence, ruled applicant, present circumstances, run expelled expelled. 27. lodged refusal grant January 2004, confirming refusal. 28. appealed 2004 Regional Court (rechtbank) Hague, arguing, underpinning contained errors, draw incorrect conclusions 29. judgment 10 2005, Hague sitting Utrecht reports issued lay great decisions, drafted unbiased manner, objective, provided required insight information, entitled rely them. evaluation facts adduced seekers fell discretion could, evaluated marginally court. agreed points latter’s consequently, refuse asylum-based separate January, refusing adopted different reasoning, reached conclusion. 30. respect reference case-law Administrative Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak) Council (Raad State), should, wherever possible, avoid creating seeker refused his/her country origin For reason, lastingly (duurzaam) stand expulsion possible consequences concerned. This, do quashed remitted back fresh decision. 31. once more 20 2005 enquiry, anew 2 2005. limited She dismissed fear returning (former) referring sole enough itself eventuality expulsion. mere political conviction currently power similarly suffice applicable. took concrete indication group person. relatives father brother still living ever encountered problem. 32. addressed named commanders, identify paid them upon. submitted course commander. ensuring nobody present-day find cooperated past, establish commanders’ whereabouts current influence society. statements, believe occupied positions today’s aware role well identity taking financial support mujahideen, therefore implausible Finally, able stay problems. reasons, nothing suspicion speculation. consequently rejected. 33. erred finding auspices disregarded maintaining contacts reaching inconsistent finding, hand, violations, but, important party. adversaries, now subject 34. Amsterdam appeal 12 April 2006. some officials, members police possibly falling victim authorities population (victims’ relatives), unless influential Islamic parties tribes. court, mean ran 3, existence circumstances claims merely unsubstantiated expectations, persecution No ruling.
|
[] |
4. On 19 December 2005 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod convicted applicant a drug offence and sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on 8 February 2006. 5. 21 2006 Presidium Regional Court, by way supervisory review, quashed conviction ordered new trial. By same decision authorised applicant’s release an undertaking appear. 6. A copy Presidium’s was sent regular mail reached facility where serving sentence only 9 January 2007. Upon receipt certified copy, released 15 7. 5 June 2007 acquitted all charges, relying Court’s in Vanyan v. Russia case (no. 53203/99, 2005). 8. complained court, seeking declaration that delay from prison covering period had been unlawful. 25 April Oktyabrskiy Belgorod, noting provisions Article 173 § Code Execution Sentences, according which early may be carried out day order, held unlawfully detained 9. In August 2009 applied compensation for unlawful prosecution. October 2009, Civil relating damage incurred account or prosecution, found “deprived liberty 2007” but later charges. awarded 170,000 roubles (approximately 4,300 euros (EUR) at material time), amount calculated with due fact detention declared 10. upheld appeal 22 2009. award paid full 2010.
|
[
2
] |
5. The applicants were born in 1969, 1975 and 2002 respectively. They have been residing the Netherlands since 1996. 6. first applicant entered applied for asylum on 10 March 1996, submitting following account to immigration authorities. He stated that he was a single Afghan national of Tajik origin, had never joined political party, worked from 1988 1992 security service Khadimat-e Atal’at-e Dowlati / Wezarat-e Amniyat-e (“KhAD/WAD”)[1] former communist regime Afghanistan. 7. In reported compulsory military service. response his request be posted close home, assigned KhAD/WAD Herat. After basic training, which lasted three months, started work Department 5 Herat, – under President Najibullah’s reconciliation policy sought establish peaceful relations with mujahideen their reintegration into institutions did not combat opposition but try negotiate persuade groups conclude peace agreements. These agreements entailed remunerated cooperation ruling People’s Democratic Party Afghanistan (“PDPA”). 8. year as conscript, performed guard duties certain administrative tasks, such making propaganda posters PDPA’s policy, taking minutes meetings, copying information reports books held central archives, collecting recording neighbourhood reports. 9. having agreed become professional soldier. appointed rank Second Lieutenant (“Doham Bridman”). His activities consisted mainly relating processing gathered by more senior officers about commanders. until April 1992, when left after Najibullah overthrown mujahedin. Shortly they seized power, proclaimed an amnesty persons who KhAD/WAD. returned work, given other tasks 18 or 19 January Taliban power Until moment, Herat governed commander who, like applicant, origin. One day arrival second half 1996 fearing life, fled Turkmenistan where travelled air Netherlands. 10. On 12 September Deputy Minister Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected claim then made holding failed personal circumstances warranting decision grant him asylum. mere fact belonged ethnic minority suffice respect. Although acknowledged it unlikely KhAD staff members might experience problems new Government Afghanistan, she found this case regards continued working authorities during rule without experiencing any problems. further considered would aware applicant’s past regime. 11. did, however, conditional residence permit (voorwaardelijke vergunning tot verblijf), valid one basis unabated bad situation (“onverminderd slechte situatie”) 12. 11 October submitted objection (bezwaar) against reject request. December objection. could appealed Regional Court (rechtbank) Hague, do so. 13. 4 June 1998, claim, pursuant article 4:6 General Administrative Law Act (Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht) based newly emerged facts and/or altered (“nova”) reconsideration initial refusal. elements fresh relationship woman 1993 out child born, KhAD, various documents, including copy judgment handed down October/November 1995 Islamic - proceedings absentia convicted seven others conspiracy sentenced them death. For identification purposes, photographs convicts, appended judgment. only learned existence 26 November 1997, thus flight mother sent mail Iran, gone medical reasons. know how obtained judgment, assumed put up around at some point time, local custom prescribed. also informed, letter mother, brother captured tortured order locate him. 1998 detailed written KhAD. 14. Meanwhile, 1999, sufficiently improved, ex lege converted indefinite period years. 15. her 28 February 2001, interviewed again inter alia First and, considering there serious reasons believing guilty acts referred Article 1F 1951 Geneva Convention Relating Status Refugees (the Refugee Convention), exclusion clause. 16. Referring official report, drawn 29 2000 Ministry Foreign Affairs “Security Services Communist (1978-1992), AGSA, KAM, WAD” (“Veiligheidsdiensten communistisch en WAD”) concerning particular question whether, if so which, employees those services should regarded implicated human rights violations (see A.A.Q. v. (dec.), no. 42331/05, §§ 50-52, 30 2015), emphasised widely known cruel character KhAD/WAD, its lawless methods, grave crimes committed torture, murder, arbitrary executions violations, climate terror spread throughout whole society, army. 17. Having established, elaborate argumentation international involved likely fall within scope Convention, proceeded analysis individual responsibility Convention. She noted elite unit regime, whose loyalty beyond doubt eligible recruitment Furthermore, recruited initially placed departments specifically responsible investigating “elements State security”, prove unequivocally directly violations. light above, noting KhAD’s Directorate 5, two interrogation centres Kabul, plea career department dismissed. dismissed nature. found, statements, actually operational nature: persuading enemies cooperate accompanying superiors field missions meetings taken place between enemies, namely mujahideen. attach credence ignorant regard commanders chief accompanied missions. It therefore highly implausible no knowledge whatsoever responsible. concluded functions effected 18. underlined application require proof commission alleged crimes; sufficed existed consider had, bore them, voluntarily assumed. Accordingly, consequence purposes denied. 19. revoked permit, Minister’s correct full insight activities, done so, stood way issuing granted. 20. requested Public Prosecutor’s Office (Openbaar Ministerie), examine possibilities prosecuting imputed another same effect 2003. No follow-up these letters has submitted. 21. 27 decision. 20 2002, heard before board enquiry (ambtelijke commissie). 2003, Immigration Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken Integratie) upheld previous proceeded, addition thereto, prescribed so-called “knowing participation test”. 22. As “knowing” element, relying aforementioned report Affairs, criminal Basing himself Aliens Implementation Guidelines (Vreemdelingencirculaire), that, according 3 2000, knowing principle cases categories organisations, belonged. paragraph 17 above) materials, systematic large-scale common acts. argument low rank, attributed accepted Minister, declared everyone feared successfully post mandatory admitting ubiquitous fear admitted atrocities conduct, act omission, prevented being committed. held, therefore, personally participated 23. ruled run risk treatment contrary expelled nevertheless obligation leave 24. lastly three-year (this entitling asylum-seekers requests finally determined years, provided contraindications as, instance, record) him, constituted contraindication. 25. refusal 26. granted purpose husband time still provisional permit. 27. 16 2001 linked revoked. 8 birth third applicant. 28. Both Hague decisions namely, 2003 separate 29. both applicants’ appeals May 2005, underlying reasoning hold consequential revoke permits applicants. However, reference case-law Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak) Council State, should, wherever possible, avoid creating seeker refused country origin reason, demonstrate examined whether lastingly (duurzaam) stand expulsion possible consequences person concerned. This, present case, reason quashed all applicants, remitted take 30. accordance court’s view changed once 24 August took objections maintained accordingly ineligible 31. issued July officials identified abuses current holders population (families victims) mujahideen, unless enjoyed protection virtue good contacts influential parties tribes. To determine level risk, enumerated set factors need balanced each case: extent ideology, ties family membership PDPA real subjected breach 32. went attracted attention individuals prior coming Taliban. easily job police headquarters governor Ismail Khan, currently Energy 33. Taliban, general improved 2004 insurgents concentrated mostly areas outside execution death sentence pronounced basing herself most recent register, already inaccurate, due illiteracy lack interest maintaining it. many courts law destroyed armed conflict. was, Moreover, judgments delivered executed verification court compliance law. much submissions allowed collect possessions son’s conviction court. addition, Afghanistan’s courts, submission branded infidel value today’s denunciation government itself status. 34. noted, person-specific (individueel ambtsbericht) 1999 passport through diplomatic representation United Kingdom. Since Kingdom recognised lawful government, embassy represented Burhanuddin Rabbani, president capitulation Kabul note Mr Rabbani’s Jamiat-e-Islami, well Government. come Jamiat-e-Islami’s negative attention. than years down. appear religion ways offended Islam, find deemed 35. present-day finding pose over led conclusion encounter future. mention, course interviews may nor expected upon return result ties. 36. demonstrated exposed 37. appeal 2006 sitting Arnhem. concurred points. lay 38. 2008, separation divorce, request, 2009, position woman, themselves returning
|
[] |
4. The applicants, a married couple, were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively live Piliscsaba. 5. On 7 December 2001 the first applicant was deliberately shot by one of his colleagues suffered serious injuries making him disabled. 6. an unspecified date 2004, family (including wife, second applicant) brought action damages against applicant’s employer. 14 June 2005 president Pest County Labour Court ordered priority treatment case. 7. 19 January 2006 found for applicants interim judgment establishing well-foundedness legal basis claim. instance upheld on 5 2007. 8. exact compensation amount to be paid employer decided 9 November 2010. decision partly amended final adopted 4 May 2011.
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1985 and lives Sokołów Podlaski. 6. On 8 April 2009 the arrested remanded custody. He charged with, inter alia, murder, attempted illegal possession of firearms. 7. 2 December 2011 Ostrołęka Regional Court convicted battery murder sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. 8. 25 October 2012 Białystok Appeal upheld first‑instance judgment. 9. November 2013 Supreme dismissed applicant’s cassation appeal. 10. 10 Czerwony Bór Prison Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified as a “dangerous detainee”. It considered that it necessary place cell for dangerous detainees he had been with committed use commission referred “personal circumstances serious lack moral character”. did not appeal against decision. 11. Between 7 July January 2010, reviewed its decision every three months. In renewing classify detainee”, reiterated same reasoning, which read follows: “His characteristics, personal circumstances, character [the fact of] being offences firearm, pose danger society security remand centre.” 12. reasoning given on 5 April, 30 June September differed slightly gave detailed description grounds extending regime. attempts commit firearm. 13. lodged an 2011. 14. 13 appeal, holding lawful. 15. 29 extended application detainee” regime eleventh time. decisions 2009. 16. March lifted respect applicant. that, basis relevant documentation assessment behaviour, no longer posed or centre.
|
[
1
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1953 and is serving his sentence correctional colony no. 2 the Astrakhan Region. 6. On 9 May 2012 arrested on suspicion of murder committed during a fight with victim. Two days later Kirovskiy District Court authorised remand custody, having noted gravity charges, previous convictions, including for violent crimes, failure to “get road improvement”, absence an “official” source income, lack dependants. 7. That decision upheld appeal by Regional Court, which fully endorsed Court’s reasoning. In addition, took into account that suffering from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but stated there no medical evidence he could not continue being detained conditions temporary detention facility. 8. Another extension applicant’s followed July 2012, when accepted investigator’s arguments likely re-offend, abscond interfere investigation. linked those risks charges against applicant, received “negative characteristics” at place residence, as well already been “the subject criminal prosecution”. At same time court examined produced support claim fact advanced stage HIV precluded detention. dismissed claim, stressing regularly medication prescribed prison doctor facility did pose risk health. 9. issued further orders extending pre‑trial August, 6 September 7 November 2012. Each time, it relied flowing absconding, interfering course justice reoffending. Neither order mentioned had record. about progress infection rapid deterioration health convince Court. extended until December It 14 reference “personality”. relevant part reads follows: “On 11 ... ordered [the applicant’s] Subsequently, lawfully extended. up seven months, reasonably applicant] charged particularly serious offence that, view personality circumstances case, liable reoffend or destroy evidence. also correctly held case complex, due large number investigatory activities complex expert examinations be conducted. lengthy treatment hospital. concluded were grounds changing measure restraint.” address arguments, raised statement appeal, investigating authorities significantly delayed procedural actions, examination scheduled early June yet performed. 10. pre-trial 8 summarily referring “personality” “socially dangerous conduct”. pointed out some unspecified conducted, “objectively influenced length investigation”. 11. 30 again continued absconding justice. used similar wording orders. 12. 16 March 2013 served final version bill indictment. indicated 13. August convicted murder. found killed victim altercation caused victim’s insults. sentenced years imprisonment, taken following mitigating circumstances: record, “positively characterised”, surrendered himself police, confessed killing felt deep remorse, behaved provocatively initiated conflict applicant. 14. January 2004 diagnosed 4A HIV. He under supervision specialists Centre Protection AIDS (hereinafter Centre”). 15. Medical certificates provided show started receiving antiretroviral therapy 22 2011 very positive results. viral load decreased immune status improved. A CD4 cell-count test carried 17 February showed level cells 489 cells/mm3. 16. placed 1. date doctor, who recorded complaints him stomach ulcer remission. 17. 26 doctors condition. They recommended continuation in-patient examination. 18. Between 12 underwent check-up hospital (“the hospital”). chronic pancreatitis, gastroduodenitis, iron deficiency anaemia, fungal esophagitis, urolithiasis, hepatic haemangioma. 19. appears immunological 649 20. Since have condition increase load. prior interruptions therapy. clear documents submitted why occurred. 21. 20 continued. 22. recommendation staff Centre, admitted esophagitis. October returned 23. Throughout special diet. 24. According typed copy file Government, admission 1 whom informed 25. allowed see one month’s dose drugs (Reyataz Combivir). 26. monitored AIDS-Centre, Following their recommendations, response complaint fatigue pain epigastrium (upper abdomen), transferred in-depth drugs. entries dated taking 27. While hospital, infectious diseases specialist, twenty-four occasions. ultrasound fibrogastroduodenoscopy. 27 urologist gastroenterologist civil observed otolaryngologist neurologist. diagnosis was: aggravated secondary illnesses, oesophageal candidiasis, hemangioma, prostatitis, cholecystitis, duodenal bulb ulcer. illnesses. 28. improved, discharged him. 29. strict adherence, virological testing, another 30. additional tests. back 31. 18 complained fatigue, coughing headaches. bronchitis anti-candidiasis cough medication, vitamins. 32. 4 entry made “last” shown 513 33. 13 heaviness abdomen, dizziness heartburn. effects complying diet gastroduodenitis. 34. pyrosis. transfer diagnosis. 35. 3 heartburn aches recorded. seen infections specialist several times week, neurologist otolaryngologist, addition previously prostate adenoma. non-communicable diseases, before. 36. “in satisfactory condition”, proviso actively supervised personnel. needed “dynamic supervision” pancreatitis 37. 23 2013, pains, anti-inflammatory 38. psychiatrist sleeping problems irritability, antidepressants. 39. paid visit. doctor’s recommendation, arrival poor appetite, heartburn, pains chest ache. then ophthalmologist, cardiologist change infections. April week later, despite significant improvement condition, since appear hearing. 40. 19 re-admitted Under cholecystitis neurologist, cerebrovascular disease. An record enough last 2013. 25 complied “satisfactory 41. 24 doctors, 42. doctor. fibrogastroduodenoscopy 43. 10 Centre. oesophagus chest, drugs, namely Reyataz Combivir. undergo test. suggested subjected refused 44. lawyer wrote administration 1, drawing attention state asking expert. director illness preventing accordingly, 45. reiterated request. 46. requested investigator charge request refused. However, 2014 revoked, authorised. 47. administration’s inaction asked authorise
|
[
1,
2
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives Vienna. 6. At the time of events worked for association “Asyl Not”, which offers legal social support to asylum seekers refugees. 7. In 2005, an amendment a number laws concerning status foreigners relevant proceedings (Fremdenrechtspaket 2005) drafted adopted by Parliament. amendments entered into force on 1 January 2006. 8. On 31 December 2006 then Federal Minister Interior Affairs, L.P., died unexpectedly aneurysm at age 55. 9. 2007 published statement association’s website entitled “One less. What’s coming now?” (“Eine weniger. Was kommt danach?”). It continued: “The good news New Year: torture deportation, is dead.” (“Die gute Meldung zum Jahresbeginn: Bundesministerin für Folter und Deportation, ist tot”) After referring some specific individual stories seekers, text stated further that “Mrs P. desk war criminal just like many others there have been atrocious history this country: completely desensitised, indifferent consequences their regulations, compliant instrument bureaucracy contaminated with racism. No decent human shedding tears over her death.” (“L.P. eine Schreibtischtäterin, wie es viele gab der grausamen Geschichte dieses Landes; völlig abgestumpft, gleichgültig gegen die Folgen ihrer Gesetze Erlässe, ein willfähiges Werkzeug einer rassistisch verseuchten Beamtenschaft. Kein anständiger Mensch weint ihr Träne nach.”). concluded suggesting goal Year fight new minister who would make damage done L.P. so Austria could return being country welcoming place where rights were respected. 10. G.P., late Minister’s husband, filed private prosecution (Privatanklage) defamation against association. 11. 19 September Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht Strafsachen Wien) convicted respect above-quoted passages sentenced him fine amount EUR 1,200. Half suspended three years. dismissed G.P.’s request recognition liability its employee’s actions. 12. court found average reader understand mean had ordered or tolerated pending expulsion deportation detainees violated rights. word “torture”, particular, implied intentional infliction physical psychological suffering. An also “deportation” (Deportation) context historical under national-socialist regime forcefully deported segregated groups people ghettos camps subject them forced labour extermination. question suggested exercised political function particularly despicable way, she officials’ abuse authority relation actions motivated racist, sadistic, xenophobic attitudes. publication triggered considerable reaction from media public. criticised as tactless disrespectful. response thereto, 9 2007, daily newspaper reply he his comments directed solely towards apologised family members, not responsible inhumane policies. 13. acknowledged charge odds right freedom expression guaranteed Convention. voicing opinions refugee associations criticising politicians legislative projects represented important corrective element limits acceptable criticism widely drawn present case. However, court’s opinion, overstepped criticism. background governing fact allowed be shocking, still justify positioning racist ill-treatment “deportations”. Such accusations only recently passed away L.P – together acclamation death call “decent” mourn passing clearly went beyond democratic society. Moreover, allegations made proven true, nor shown any journalistic diligence regard. 14. appeal points law fact, appealed sentence. 15. 7 May 2008 Appeal (Oberlandesgericht appeal. Referring reasoning first-instance court, it conceded nowadays acquired additional meaning “expulsion removal” used regime, but foreigners. (“a country”) acted reminder country. Therefore, even though statements issue value judgments (“politische Wertungen”), produced proof factual basis allegations. argued that, following case-law European Human Rights domestic courts regard Article 10, impugned covered expression. Appeal, however, such did provide carte blanche comparisons without basis. 16. That decision served applicant’s counsel 3 June 2008. 17. November lodged renewal (“Erneuerung des Strafverfahrens”) pursuant 363a Code Criminal Procedure aim having re-opened conviction set aside. 18. 14 October 2009 Supreme request. admittedly broad tolerable discourse cover excessive Statements heated conflicts needed minimum decency moderation. case evaluation rightly led conclusion justified limitation judgment behaviour part no misjudged public interest discussion migration policy. contributed discussion, since they defaming discrediting Minister. noted sanction imposed was, view disrespectful temporal proximity L.P.’s death, appropriate moderate. 19. Court’s 10 2009.
|
[] |
5. The applicants are all Romanian nationals of Roma origin and heirs I.B., who, together with some the applicants, initiated domestic proceedings. Those proceedings were still pending when I.B. died on 1 April 2010. 6. I.B.’s pursued case before courts lodged a complaint Court his behalf their own behalf. 7. On 30 March 2006 at around 5 p.m. A.N., daughter-in-law, was attacked near home. three sons (the nos. (1)-(3) in appendix) C.G.M., victim’s father, went to Clejani Police Station report assault. 8. In front police station they allegedly by group fifty villagers. When arrived there, attracted noise, he saw C.G.M. injured, head covered blood. His sons’ car also damaged windows broken car’s bonnet concertinaed). villagers chasing attacking them stones, bats bricks. 9. At 6 officers T.B. M.N. from station, accompanied colleagues Giurgiu Rapid Intervention Squad (Detaşamentul Poliţiei pentru Intervenţie Rapidă) home take him into custody. intervention team entered yard took force car, while shouting abuse calling gypsy (ţigan). To question whether had search warrant, pointed special squad said “They my warrant!”. Then made two children household, one aged 13 14, lie down stomachs called wretched disgraceful gypsies (ţigani borâţi). sixth applicant, Marian Boacă, who time, M.D., taken same car. 10. Later, first other sons, apprehended street ten masked officers, shouted then kicked stomach face “wretched gypsies”. They where found applicant M.D. standing arms up, facing wall. 11. interrogations place chief police’s office. there first. He beaten up officer officers. Two more joined later. ribs, right side; punched beat weapon butts abuse. lost consciousness. brought office tripped over father’s body, which lying unattended floor. ordered hit at. Letca Noua told come for “a match boys” (la o partidă cu băieţii). Some fifteen minutes later started hitting applicants. According been drinking alcohol. 12. applicant’s request, eventually allowed leave but that sign confessions concerning rape foreign woman theft pipes. statements written not read contents those confessions. denied committing any crime, signed station. 13. an altercation broke out between Boacă family G. family, both parties behaving aggressively towards each armed dangerous objects. occurred (belonging Ursari community – țigani ursari) going make criminal against applicants’ about previous day. police, members related third tried and, driving dangerously, managed instead 14. this context, 6.30 restore public order. A four driver 7 a.m. next agents’ statements, no incidents during operation, as concerned willingly complied orders given apprehended. Four eyewitnesses, proposed declared seen feeling ill, apparent indications attacked. 15. M.N., did participate investigation fear reprisals family. 16. ambulance County Hospital, underwent pulmonary X-ray investigations received treatment. Bucharest University remained 31 4 2006. 17. 11 forensic doctor examined him. medical certificate concluded suffered thoracic trauma inflicted “blow caused hard object or body impact”. needed nineteen days recover. 18. Mihăileşti investigating events accusations pipes brawl involving twenty-one people, mainly belonging families (Boacă G.). Statements involved eyewitnesses. various investigations, police. opposing driven son, applicant. 19. 9 May 2007 prosecutor’s attached decided prosecute incidents. noted returned rightful owner, wish seek damages family; brawl, prosecutor “reciprocal violence” therefore impose administrative fines involved. 20. It appears decision contested. 21. June ill-treated them. stated friendly Clejani, whom conflict. complained discrimination, arguing because aggressive racist names. 22. investigations. six events, including having harmed plaintiffs way. squad’s official well prosecution file fight (see paragraph 18 above). 23. December dismissed ground officers’ actions disclose appearance offence. rapid scene local could longer contain. it explained required “for Gypsy clans” (scandal între două grupuri de ţigani). considered failed provide evidence injuries sustained, 24. appealed prosecutor‑in‑chief, objection 29 January 2007. challenged Court, reiterating complaints ill-treatment discrimination. 25. 16 upheld decision, considering provided proof allegations. 26. appealed, 27 Appeal quashed above-mentioned continue investigation. account delivered heard either produce (medical witnesses). 27. August 2008 refused institute substantiated allegations acted lawfully trying counter plaintiffs, used gas guns sharp One eyewitness prosecutor. 28. 21 October prosecutor-in-chief objections thus decision. 28 once again Court. 29. 3 February 2009 appeal decisions prosecutor-in-chief, sent back prosecutor, court carried 30. 12 points law part. should be continued regarding injuries. As far concerned, closed because, failing 2008, fact endorsed application within assigned deadline lodge appeal. 31. consistent professional duties. being coming out. reported see signs violence witness hear screaming wailing came asked call feel well. 32. 22 2010 have left unsubstantiated discrimination 33. causes unrelated present instituted courts. 34. 14 raised heirs. reiterated witnesses beating victims, alone irrelevant, already gathered case. 35. United Nations Committee Elimination Racial Discrimination its Annual Report held respect situation people Romania following: “(15) notes concern excessive use force, authority enforcement persons minority groups, particular. is racial profiling judicial officials.” 36. Council Europe’s Advisory Framework Convention Protection National Minorities published opinion 23 Romania’s compliance Convention. relevant parts Article tolerance intercultural dialogue follows: “101. Although has significant improvement following efforts authorities, reports inappropriate behaviour certain vis-à-vis community, cases violence, although such now much less frequent. Non‑governmental sources indicate shortcomings 102. Despite Ministry Interior procedures deal apply sanctions appropriate, concerns regard impartiality ... 104. authorities identify most appropriate solutions ensure efficient impartial forces. Additional measures train inform legal profession legislation provisions Criminal Code racism intolerance fully applied.” 37. Europe High Level Meeting adopted “Strasbourg Declaration Roma”. Under heading “Access justice”, recommends member States: “(27) Ensure timely effective due process alleged offences Roma. (28) Provide targeted training services.” 38. letter addressed Prime Minister 17 November Commissioner Human Rights expressed particular pervasive Romania. stated, inter alia, that: “anti-Roma rhetoric political discourse. politicians stigmatising among others linking criminality, blaming population integrate, referring popular stereotypes.” 39. 2012 Ministers rise anti-Gypsyism Europe, deep “In many countries, subject directed property. These attacks sometimes resulted serious deaths. This new phenomenon prevalent centuries. However, notable increase number States, anti-Roma rhetoric, generalisations behaviour.” 40. 2014 Romania, CommDH(2014)14, “196. wishes underline view NGOs confronted institutionalised combined law-enforcement authorities. frequently reported, seem current problem several resulting deaths injury. 2013, searches homes Reghin, Mureș county. year, May, 10 July 2012, gendarmerie different country killed men pursuits.” further display diligence possible motives Roma: “197. Court’s judgment Stoica v. motivated ethnic (Roma). Cobzaru man custody, circumstances disclosed prima facie indication behind ill-treatment; however, prosecuting displayed Nevertheless, investigate racially biased remarks part Barbu Anghelescu cases, primarily under responsibility ineffectiveness ill-treatment. execution judgments supervision since 2005.”
|
[
8,
1
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives Panevėžys. 6. employed as the head of a municipal kindergarten 7. On 11 December 2007 she informed by local office Special Investigation Service that, person equivalent status to civil servant, under investigation on suspicion fraudulent management accounts, abuse forgery documents. In May 2008 additional suspicions against her concerning further acts office, documents misappropriation property. 8. June submitted request pre-trial judge terminate criminal grounds that it had been excessively long. refused request, noting completed earlier month case ready for trial. 9. 4 July referred judicial examination. 13 2009 Panevėžys District Court (hereinafter “the first-instance court”) found guilty several charges her. She sentenced fine 2,600 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 753 euros (EUR)) prohibition working service two years six months. 10. judgment amended appeal: 19 February 2010 Regional appellate upheld applicant’s conviction some acquitted others. Her sentence reduced LTL 1,820 (EUR 527) one year nine Soon afterwards dismissed from job City Municipality line with decision court. 11. By final 16 November Supreme Lithuania reasoning court but changed sentence. when determining length service, necessary take into account fact suspended post during (see paragraphs 12-19 below). As result, period three 12. Immediately after launch paragraph 7 above), 12 granted prosecutor’s have held there were believe applicant, might use official position hinder by, example, destroying or fabricating evidence, attempting influence witnesses case, who subordinates. 13. appealed decision, arguing could not be equated servant because worked an employment contract Municipality. argued all important already collected relevant questioned, so no possibility interfere investigation. also prior convictions never subject any disciplinary action at work employer’s evaluation always positive; thus would Lastly, only source income therefore suspension cause significant difficulties young daughter, whom raising alone. However, appeal 14. Subsequently requests extend periods months essentially same grounds. decisions, arguments before, appeals (on 27 2007, 21 March 2008, 26 18 6 August 2008). noted, inter alia, holding specific particular kindergarten, did affect ability different obtain income. 15. each above-mentioned occasions taken following written procedure, while oral hearings 23 25 Neither nor representative present these hearings. prosecutor hearing 2008. 16. After examination 9 October which extended before. hearing. subsequently 17. 1 present, terminated post. almost attempt them otherwise returned day. 18. overturned court, finding yet, still risk may it. Since authorised law adopt new extending suspension, extension During this continued kindergarten. 19. January renewed allowed quashed above ordered remained until dismissal 10 above). 20. 20 complaint Inspector Journalistic Ethics articles Panevėžio rytas newspaper. publications commented presented statements subordinates criticising competence personality. complained defamatory insulting. about comment posted user website Lietuvos newspaper insulted daughter single mother. 21. partly satisfied complaint. insulting remove website. With respect rytas, public figure accept greater level media attention criticism. question reflected opinions interviewed individuals, accountable their factual accuracy. 22. Inspector’s indicated within thirty days. appeal.
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicants were born in 1943, 1975 and 1969, respectively, live London, the United Kingdom. 6. During 1991 1992 Serbian paramilitary forces gained control of about a third territory Croatia proclaimed “Serbian Autonomous Region Krajina” (Srpska autonomna oblast Krajina, hereinafter “Krajina”). At beginning August 1995 Croatian authorities announced their intention to take military action with aim regaining over Krajina. operation was codenamed “Storm” (Oluja) took place from 4 7 1995. Before action, vast majority population Krajina fled Croatia. Most them went Bosnia Herzegovina, also Serbia. Some returned after war. number people who is estimated at between 100,000 150,000. 7. On 5 November 1997 ratified Convention. 8. documents submitted by parties reveal following facts. 9. lived Knin, within Operation Storm town Knin shelled army. shelling hid basement building. J.T. found dead near petrol station one attacks. It appears that he buried cemetery Knin. 10. 25 April 2001, during exhumations “New Cemetery” (Novo groblje) first applicant approached police said her husband, J.T., had been cemetery. Šibenik-Knin Police Department, Station (Policijska uprava šibensko-kninska, Policijska postaja Knin), then interviewed circumstances death husband. She stated husband died on Given under artillery attack, assumed killed shell. further she seen husband’s body lying pavement above-mentioned station. gave detailed description his appearance clothes wearing. Members army appeared crime scene UNPROFOR (United Nations Protection Force) camp obtained no knowledge whereabouts body. 11. A remains exhumed May June 2001 process conducted auspices International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (Međunarodni kazneni sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju) County State Attorney’s Office Šibenik (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Šibeniku). After they exhumed, examined Institute Forensic Medicine Zagreb (Zavod sudsku medicinu i kriminalistiku) but J.T.’s not identified time. 20 issued an autopsy report which concluded probable cause only 2010 as being those gunshot neck. 12. 26 Department (Odjel kriminalističke policije, šibensko-kninska) its official notes interviews it families Storm. interview submitted. 13. 28 2003 extracted genotype compared DNA samples database. However, failed find match could establish identity remains. 14. February 2007 filed claim damages connection killing (see paragraph below), opened inquiry into death. 15. December M.T., told events useful information. 16. 13 2008 Lj.M. described follows. attack family hidden basement. left led civilians furniture shop, where taken barracks known “southern camp” (južni logor). second this group civilians. As passing through witness He dressed civilian visible injuries. Lj.M indicated recollection seeing wearing uniform Republic (RSK: Republika Srpska Krajina). Lj.M’s statement confirmed mother-in-law, Z.M. 17. 19 I.M., neighbour Treskavica family. member or never him uniform. hiding residential occasionally come basement, present all last time I.M. alive 1995, 10 11 a.m. street. 18. informed case yet registered determine whether possible conduct applicant, since resided England. most likely His transferred Zagreb, still identified. 19. 2009 P.T., brother, provided information ante-mortem physical features Red Cross Serbia (Crveni Krst Srbije) order post-mortem might be same day P.T. requested search undertaken 20. 14 members blood. analysis conducted, dated 16 2010, 21. 24 invited final identification preliminary 22. 8 July list missing persons Station, together request disappearance neighbours. listed persons. 23. local accordance wishes applicants. 24. note disappearance. interviewing determined Markovac. 6 September notified findings. 25. 2014 Ministry War Veterans (Ministarstvo branitelja) replied Crimes Interior unutarnjih poslova, Služba ratnih zločina) concerning exhumation 26. respect refused. 27. brought civil against Municipal Court (Općinski Kninu), seeking Liability Act. 28. 17 municipal court dismissed ground there “no evidence result terror violence aimed gravely disturbing public order.” That judgment upheld (Županijski Šibeniku) 1 March Supreme (Vrhovni Republike Hrvatske) 21 2012. 29. applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaint 3 October 2012 Constitutional (Ustavni Hrvatske).
|
[] |
5. The applicant was born in 1966 and is detained Stargard Szczeciński. 6. a habitual offender. He arrested on an unspecified date suspicion of uttering threats. subsequently convicted as charged sentenced to three years six months’ imprisonment. first Nowogard Prison Goleniów Prison. 7. On 7 September 2011 the applicant’s cell searched. During search prison officers found note entitled “Protest letter” signed by 135 prisoners. prisoners stated their opposition forthcoming changes Code Execution Criminal Sentences affecting, particular, possibility shopping during visits. letter confiscated authorities. 8. 8 Penitentiary Commission imposed so-called “dangerous detainee” regime. commission held that one organisers planned collective remonstrance Prison, it therefore necessary isolate him from other 9. appealed against decision. submitted he not organiser protest but merely 140 who had letter. 10. 29 November Szczecin Regional Court dismissed appeal. court decision been lawful. 11. unknown transferred 12. 6 December extended imposition regime, holding represented serious threat community should be kept solitary cell. appealed. 13. 31 January 2012 quashed remitted case commission. only original impose regime justified. following taken indicated any new circumstances justifying continuing application its reasoning scarce. noted several months elapsed since suppositions regarding allegedly confirmed. 14. 14 February decided lift for total five seven days.
|
[
1
] |
4. The applicant was born in 1977 and is serving a sentence Diyarbakır prison. 5. On 11 January 1996 the arrested taken into police custody on suspicion of being member Hizbullah, an illegal organisation. same day he examined by doctor at request police. noted, document, that there no sign physical violence applicant’s body. 6. 24 statement acknowledged Hizbullah gave detailed account his activities within did not benefit from assistance lawyer when made statement. 7. 2 February once again who, document issued headquarters to which name added, noted 8. brought before public prosecutor and, subsequently, judge, who questioned him recorded statements. both occasions retracted statements had police, claiming signed them under duress. judge remanded custody. 9. placed detention. 10. 29 State Security Court filed indictment with court, accusing several other persons – pursuant Article 125 former Criminal Code, force material time carrying out aim bringing about secession part national territory. alleged killing eight wounding four Hizbullah. 11. 18 April held first hearing merits case (case no. 1996/113). 12. 8 May court denied charges against him, been coerced signing containing 13. 13 June 1996, end third case, released pending trial. 14. 1999 Constitution amended military judges bench state security courts were replaced civilian judges. 15. 21 2002 while 1996/113 still again, having involved certain armed acts undertaken According arrest report, three officers applicant, use order apprehend since latter attempted resist flee. 16. Batman hospital. signs six areas back, bruises wrists, two cuts left ear injury right eye. 17. absence lawyer, explaining detail structure organisation role as member. acknowledged, inter alia, number killings abductions committed 18. 25 In directorate cut ear. 19. Magistrates’ Court. During questioning, without any legal assistance, He blindfolded document. 20. 27 lodged objection decision remanding petition, submitted subjected ill-treatment particular, stripped naked, blindfolded, given electric shocks genitals, “Palestinian hanging”, threatened rape wife, insulted. 21. March new 146 then applicable undermine constitutional force. bill indictment, had, acting hierarchy instructions for abduction others. 22. 16 initiated prosecutor’s dated 2002/81). hearing, him. further stated flee report untrue. present during medical examinations; therefore, able inform doctors ill-treated. At prosecutor, first-instance decided join 1996/113. 23. thirty-third 1996/113, 6 2002, various documents contained untruths. 24. 2004 be allowed Reintegration Offenders Society Act (“Law 4959”). 25. 2004, confirmed accuracy maintained, however, never but only provided intelligence members reiterated Law 4959 hearings petitions November 3 2005, 2006, 22 2007 noting negative comments make respect or authorities. 26. By 5190 published Official Gazette 30 Courts abolished. accordingly transferred Assize 27. 10 2008 delivered its judgment case. 28. acquitted (i) all (see paragraph above), (ii) charge involvement one (iii) above). acquitting those charges, evidence than allegedly 29. hand, found ordered kill furtherance Hizbullah’s aims executed members. relied 17 trial gunmen carried upon (iv) prosecutors investigating after they arrested. considered aforementioned consistent each proved instructed mentioned indictment. convicted attempting Code sentenced life imprisonment. It rejected 4959, information could have contributed dissolution light facts unknown 30. judgment, also referred reports drawn up refer allegations ill-treatment. reports, indicated ill‑treatment, whereas others, respectively (before detention custody) referred, respectively, trauma body 31. 12 appealed arguing basis 32. another application requested reduction view fact minor offence. 33. October 2009 Cassation dismissed requests upheld court.
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicant is a limited liability company registered under Hungarian law, with its seat in Budapest. 6. In dispute concerning construction project envisaged public procurement, January 2012 the brought an action damages against university. 7. President of territorially competent Budapest High Court requested National Judicial Office (“NJO”) to reassign case another court same jurisdictional level. request provided particulars about be reassigned and indicated data circumstances which prevented adjudication, within reasonable time, this case, deemed high importance, by relying on, particular, case-load judges hearing civil cases, significantly exceeding national average. 8. NJO examined statistics Court, including volume highly important priority cases workload cases. She found that, view short statutory time-limits, adjudication time could only ensured reassigning court. 9. By requesting information from Zalaegerszeg also operational conditions, staff facilities, Civil Division Court. On basis information, was satisfied that reassignment would not impose disproportionate burden on 10. For sake judicial economy as appreciated above, 16 February assigned (decision no. 29/2012. (II.16.) OBHE), acting powers conferred upon her law. 11. heard dismissed claim 5 June 2012. That decision confirmed Pécs Appeal 18 September 2012, ruling served 12 October latter’s territorial competence hear appeal consequence having been 12. Meanwhile, 17 Council issued 58/2012 “the guidelines observed respect reassignment”. 13. 7 2013 Kúria upheld decisions review proceedings. courts held essence company’s perception according university had unlawfully backed out investment contract (namely, dormitory) nothing more than misconception law tendentious interpretation circumstances, facts did reveal any compensation respondent’s side, for want unlawfulness. 14. 13 December filed constitutional complaint. It counted – complied sixty-day time-limit do so service final i.e. claimed firstly domestic reached their arbitrary manner and, secondly, it deprived “tribunal established law”, since OBHE originally 15. complaint declared inadmissible 10 3123/2013. (VI. 24.) AB). Constitutional whole arbitrariness or unfairness such. As regards specific reassignment, issue severable main procedure. run, respect, very rather construed reason part motion time-barred. 16. 2 adopted 36/2013. (XII.5.) AB matter pursuit complaints originating other applicant. regulations entitled among (notably, sections 62 63 Act CLXI 2011 Organisation Administration Courts, force between 1 July see paragraph 20 below) unconstitutional violation Article 6 Convention. According right one’s “natural” (lawful) judge flows have “established law” requires belonging jurisdiction designated pre-established objective rules assignment Court’s view, impugned regulations, responsibility at least material period, entirely NJO, breach those principles. Moreover, violated requirement appearance impartiality. lack remedy Fundamental Law, well prescribe particular legal ongoing procedures concerned re-assignment. Consequently, invalidate taken previously (see paragraphs 19 24 below).
|
[
3
] |
5. The first and second applicants are a married couple who were born in 1959 1966. third, fourth fifth their children, daughter two sons 1991, 1996 2007. 6. four entered the Netherlands on 7 April 1999 applied for asylum. In course of proceedings this asylum application, both interviewed by immigration authorities on, inter alia, reasons seeking 7. applicant gave following account to authorities. He had become member communist People’s Democratic Party Afghanistan (“the PDPA”) 1978. During his studies he volunteered guard duties at PDPA headquarters Kabul’s district. been charged with guarding homes against possible mujahideen attacks checking traffic intersections illegal weapons. 8. order avoid being sent front during compulsory military service had, upon graduating as construction engineer from University Kabul, voluntarily reported duty 1982 security battalion Council Ministers Shar-e-Now, neighbourhood Kabul. After working there three days, requested transfer Pol-e-Charki prison, where conditions better they indoors. stationed block 3, political prisoners detained. With fifteen other colleagues responsible block. no contact 150 200 whom responsible. His tasks comprised cell patrol occasional transport hospital fallen ill. never witnessed any ill‑treatment or torture Afghan that period. only once ill-treatment prisoner, “bashi” (leader). 9. six months transfer, which granted deputy head Khadimat-e Atal’at-e Dowlati/Wezarat-e Amniyat-e Dowlati (“KhAD/WAD”)[1]. At end July started within ranks KhAD, position held until 1992, when ended PDPA’s regime Afghanistan. employed buildings department Logistics Directorate KHAD, renamed Buildings 1986. For department/Directorate team 100-200 workers constructed five including an office building KhAD’s 1. also twenty ammunition depots. 10. initially declared highest rank attained was lieutenant-colonel, later changed major. further stated decorated times achievements. 11. involved distribution party propaganda, delivered him Political Affairs Department Directorate, meetings twice week. addition, organised courses illiterate labourers. 12. fall 1992 fled Mazar-e-Sharif, continued work municipality 1998. On 10 August 1998 – one day after Taliban taken control Mazar-e-Sharif applicants’ home raided searched eight armed fighters, found, applicant’s identity card, some medals, bayonet. suspicion keeping weapons home, arrested brother. 13. incarcerated about seven questioned several times, disclosed detail past career KhAD/WAD. A nephew cousin bribed commander concerned obtain release, successful but condition left immediately. evening supposed be executed. number fellow detainees indeed executed, according records, so it because deal struck secretly led away. 14. told heard relatives Canada another cousin, PDPA, killed Kabul 2005 soldiers Ministry Interior Taliban. 15. support her request asylum, submitted account. She studied educational theory she teacher high school 1989 1991. joined women’s organisation same time taking up teacher. stopped child born. Out fear refrained employment family lived Mazar-e-Sharif. beaten street wearing burka judged too short. This occurred husband According applicant, ill-treated subjected forced labour incarceration. 16. 12 25 November 26 September 2000, Deputy Minister Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) issued 9 October 2001 notice intention (voornemen) reject application hold Article 1F 1951 Refugee Convention him. claim considered light of, official report (ambtsbericht), drawn 29 February 2000 Foreign “Security Services Communist (1978-1992), AGSA, KAM, KhAD WAD” (“Veiligheidsdiensten communistisch en WAD”; DPC/AM 663896) concerning particular question whether, if which, former employees those services should regarded implicated human rights violations. basis report, adopted could virtually every seeker who, third lieutenant higher, worked its successor WAD. intent, analysed, elaborate argumentation based various international materials, nature acts imputed framework well individual responsibility under Convention. 17. Having regard country documentation public sources such United Nations, Amnesty International Human Rights Watch, emphasised widely known cruel character KhAD/WAD, lawless methods, grave crimes committed violations, “climate terror” spread throughout whole society. felt KhAD/WAD itself. Staff members needed prove loyalty almost daily basis, failure do put them risk removed KhAD/WAD; often entailed death person concerned. 18. opinion must have criminal methods made career. Furthermore, relying excluded possibility remained ignorant did not attach credence statement atrocities Prison, performed months. point, referred 1979 reports States State obvious associated heinous crimes. 19. noted respect prisoner assistant interrogator. No value attached fact subsequently corrected initial incident amongst detainees. reason change statements into more favourable ones learned investigation assess whether very detailed. 20. permission, transferred suited professional profile. Minister, meant found proven beyond doubt, considering given relatively short Pol-e-Charki, new opened opportunities promoted (senior) officer, enabled enter study many buildings. concluded serious least Prison. 21. Taking account, anonymised 15 (DPC/AM 648554), highly implausible ten years experience would aware certain uses KhAD/WAD’s designed, what use de facto put. As systemic interrogation centres, impossible persons belonging higher management unaware it. By reaching lieutenant-colonel echelons Further achievements performing regime, reached conclusion competence doubt. due involvement Department, violations committed. reference December 635082) 20 699244) Affairs, regards affairs departments that, relevant part, main task guarantee means reporting dubious behaviour individuals cooperated closely providing information. 22. These considerations conclude personal participation attributed established fact. Considering reputation Prison denial statements. failed making plausible (aannemelijk maken) objective ignorance terms activities long time, service, albeit accessory capacity, thus able perform without efforts. supported Department; although itself, important element apparatus. 23. written comments (zienswijze) intent 2001. 24. 2002, rejected confirming reasoning set out rebutting comments. Disagreeing (see paragraph 17 above) great extent lay decision, seen isolated document, rather product thorough research sources. than unfounded rebuttals. 25. dismissed argument remotely connected specific organisation. Relying UNHCR’s “The Exclusion Clauses: Guidelines Application” 71 below) merely supporting like may itself suffice render applicable 26. appeal Regional Court (rechtbank) Hague sitting Alkmaar 2004. analysed accountability impugned prescribed so-called “personal knowing participation” test. 27. “knowing” element, erred imputing knowledge way had. context Minister’s drafted unbiased manner, accurate objective, provided required insight information, therefore entitled rely them. It furnish adequate evidence allegation inaccurate assumed 28. reiterated codified policy Aliens Act Implementation (Vreemdelingencirculaire 2000) notion included, besides commission concerned, facilitation said Facilitation defined substantial positive effect person’s conduct how these committed, lack preventing facilitated having chosen Pol‑e‑Charki subsequent start circumstances personally participated despite conscript soldier. 29. 3 right residence, examining provision. 30. lodged Administrative Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak) (Raad State), quashed Court’s judgment finding relation Convention, should, wherever possible, creating situation is refused residence permit cannot expelled his/her origin 3. reason, decision demonstrate examined lastingly (duurzaam) stand expulsion consequences This, present case, remitted case successor, Immigration Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken Integratie) fresh decision. 31. March 2005, application. conclusions, part grounds, 2002 employer consequent large used book Professor Dr. M. Osman Rostar Pulicharki Inferno Afghanistan”. Prof. detained considerable period between 1981 1986-87. 32. considered, far relevant, furnished grounds real treatment contrary mujahideen, and/or groups Government persecuting intellectual classes Afghanistan, background employee mere suspicions. declared, interview know anyone specifically looking killing agents constitute circumstance furthermore, source information relative residing unreliable. 33. January communists personnel, possibly ran stressed, however, mean meeting criteria run return underlined experienced problems caused membership convictions 1992. greater kidnappings robberies countrymen’s perception rich unfounded. 34. 2005. 2 fully endorsed rejection and, addition thereto dismissing held, following. 35. argued worked, located separate building, hence away allegedly blocks 1 2. relied regard. distinction hand literature also, unsuccessfully, advanced inconsistencies Rostar. 36. all officers sinister interrogation, execution suspects. pursuant case-law Division, complete, altered confirm findings report. 37. 1998, acknowledge living safe haven time. brother regime. none arguments constituted concrete justifying acceptance existence 38. ‘s-Hertogenbosch 19 2006. Limiting analysis matter sufficiently result provision court nobody Although claimed past, still object Taliban’s negative attention. detention place different situation. 39. While accepted country, everyone nature. posts mentioned western lifestyle alter either. 40. 27 2007 summary reasoning. provide quashing ruling section 91 § (Vreemdelingenwet 2000), called for, raise questions requiring determination interest legal unity, development protection general sense. ruling. 41. declare undesirable alien entailing imposition exclusion (ongewenstverklaring) accordance article 67 (e) procedure. followed actual impose order. 42. 1999. second, latter applicants, minors, included proceedings. motives dependent motives. rejected, claims assessed own merits. 43. Referring 16 1999, rule assessing sought might thumb, forcing suspected be. Even Taliban, since admission, even believed unlikely, therefore, attract attention husband’s activities. 44. threatened search house threats uttered directed men women present. regrettable insufficient length, single occurrence indications her. 45. believing foreseeable, successfully. aforementioned occurrences 46. “policy categories” (categoriaal beschermingsbeleid), force nationals rise contraindication issuing permits relatives, admittance children likelihood bring protracted stay husband. 47. 13 2002. 48. 28 2003 Integration, 49. endorsing went consider longer categorial policy. Moreover, persecution hands, appeared society greatly improved. context, gender conclusive factor assessment make well-founded circumstances, so. always major cities improved, opposed countryside. saw assume again settle city. 50. enough themselves grant people sole previously ties 51. receiving 2004, adding demonstrated ever side either establish 52. 2006 ‘s-Hertogenbosch. agreed returned Her 53. applicant. 54. 24 2009, day. Following notified Justice, holding became final 4 2011, obligation leave Netherlands. 55. 2012, Security noting cancelling 41 above), entry ban (inreisverbod) has ban. 56. behalf minor namely applicants. refusal May 2011 (WBV 2011/5; see 64 below), Immigration, Asylum Policy Immigratie Asiel) 30 temporary purposes (verblijfsvergunning asiel bepaalde tijd), valid 2016. letter notifying adult son (the applicant) wished apply reliance 2011/5) existed contraindication, record Netherlands, examination future 57. Also come age, 2009 convicted violence, presented danger westernised young man deteriorated exposed 8 open basis. challenge lodging Division. 58. 5 2011. accompanying provisional measure 2012 provisional-measures judge (voorzieningenrechter) Zutphen. To newly emerged facts (“nova”) warranting reconsideration 4:6 General Law (Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht), find qualified alleged deterioration prohibited record, strict separation system asylum-based regular (reguliere aanvraag) permit, reside life meaning provisional‑measures lastly event proceeded removal avail himself remedies this. There indication file availed opportunity lodge 59. parents siblings 2012. outset visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf). Such entitles holder exceeding categories exempted visa. mother younger father permit. each siblings, obstacles exercise outside finding, balance between, hand, interests other, considerations. presence obstacle weighty necessarily decisive balancing exercise, includes factors conducted origin, minimum income requirements rules met, considerations, origin. Noting him, proceedings, denied adult, submissions disclose “more normal emotional ties” separately father, wandering existence, staying occasionally friends, go parent son, concluded, outweighed interests. (terugkeerbesluit). informed now twenty-four hours, failing eligible removal, submission objection (bezwaar) suspensive effect. 60. issue allowing await outcome 61. Utrecht measure, appear assessment, - “guiding principles” formulated judgments European Boultif 18 Üner duration seriousness offences convicted, elapsed period, social weight indicating ‘guiding principles”, reasonable chance success. Consequently, suspended pending 62. submitted.
|
[] |
4. The applicants was born in 1976 and lives Porto. 5. On 28 August 1996 the applicant instituted an action for settlement of accounts inventory proceedings (ação especial de prestação contas em inventário) before Penafiel Court. 6. From 20 December to 24 April 1997 administrator estate (cabeça casal) notified, challenged submitted relevant accounts, which were contested by applicant. 7. 23 February 1998 judge gave instructions setting out matters that had already been established those remained outstanding (despacho saneador). 17 June evidence parties admitted 8. September revoked power attorney given her lawyer on 6 November requested legal aid, granted State’s Attorney’s Office 5 1999. 22 1999 a appointed represent 9. 19 March 1999, following request applicant’s representative, hearing scheduled adjourned. 10. October adjourned because representative failed appear. 9 May 2000. 11. 2 2000 herself proceedings. 12. first held. continued 13. Court adopted decision with regard factual basis (matéria facto) 14 it delivered its judgment ruled against 14. 25 appealed Porto Appeal, remitting case first-instance court 2001. 15. Between 2001 2010 again analysed they remitted twice. fourth 16. 7 July 2013 lodged different appeals Supreme Justice Constitutional 17. 10 final 18. 1995 (processo 19. 13 several procedural steps took place, namely, appointment declarations from parties. 20. conference between (conferência interessados) started. at who argued would try reach agreement. 21. 1997, parties, stayed ten days. 22. 8 information certain amounts allegedly received her. replied. 23. 27 suspension due death latter. 24. 4 taken view continuation heirs deceased (incidente habilitação herdeiros). In this period second appointed. 25. 18 January granted. 26. 26 27. 21 set father. as 28. attempted notify one heirs. 29. J.L.E, party initiated seeking their intervention 30. sought agreement failed. 31. 30 2002 2006 requests Court, promptly 32. third M.P.E., proceedings, initiated; having ended 16 2003. 33. 11 2003 partition (sentença partilha). 34. 29 Appeal. By 2004 Appeal quashed decision, annulled all 35. 2005 particular, notifications, made delivering declarations. 36. ordered order determine standing 2005, – dismissed continuing determined 37. 31 2007 3 2007, 2007. 38. 2011 applications notifications replied requests. 39. estate. 2012. 40. 2012 three two dismissed, last being 2013. 41. 2014 started enforcement execução inventário), is still pending
|
[
3
] |
6. The applicants were born in 1976 and 1986 respectively live Budapest. 7. When introducing the application, staff members of Eötvös Károly Közpolitikai Intézet, a non-governmental, “watchdog” organisation voicing criticism Government. subsequent employer one was subjected to financial control measures by Government 2014, which according verged on vexation. 8. Act no. CXLVII 2010 defines combating terrorism as tasks police. Within force, specific Anti-Terrorism Task Force (“TEK”) established 1 January 2011. Its competence is defined section 7/E XXXIV 1994 Police, amended CCVII 2011 (the “Police Act”). 9. Under this legislation, TEK’s prerogatives field secret intelligence gathering include house search surveillance with recording, opening letters parcels, well checking recording contents electronic or computerised communications, all without consent persons concerned. 10. authorisation process for these activities dependent actual exercised TEK, namely whether it within framework linked investigation certain crimes enumerated law (section (2)) national security (3)). 11. Whereas scenario under (2) such subject judicial authorisation, (3) authorised Minister charge justice, (i) order prevent terrorist acts interests Hungary’s (ii) rescue Hungarian citizens from capture abroad war zones context acts. 12. “Section surveillance” takes place rules National Security condition that necessary cannot be obtained any other way. Otherwise, does not contain particular circumstances measure can ordered, opposed “section surveillance”, conditional suspicion serious crimes. time-frame 90 days, prolonged another 90-day period Minister; however, latter has no right know about results ongoing when called decide its prolongation. Once terminated, imposes obligation authorities destroy irrelevant obtained. 13. filed constitutional complaint 15 June 2012, arguing essence sweeping infringed their privacy. They emphasised legislation purposes provided fewer safeguards protection privacy than provision pointed out always crime could only ordered identifying locating suspects, whereas crime; court, government minister justice; (iii) decision ordering detailed reasoning, reasoning included minister’s surveillance”; (iv) relating collected but information had destroyed eight unlike case surveillance”. 14. On 18 November 2013 Constitutional Court dismissed majority applicants’ complaints. In aspect agreed applicants, namely, held supported reasons. However, scope security-related much broader related For purpose security, events real life examined criminal relevance; therefore they might necessarily crime. Furthermore, external Parliament’s Committee (which call give account both general terms concrete cases) Ombudsman, scheme sufficient guarantee respect those Finally, opinion Act, applies contained provisions ex officio deletion data unnecessary achieving aim underlying intelligence. 15. This published Official Gazette 22 2013.
|
[
4
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives Grozny, Chechnya. 6. In early October 1999 the Russian Government launched a counter-terrorist operation Chechen Republic. 7. On 14 December 1999, during an identity check, military servicemen seized truck (and registration papers) from home of his family at 90, Shkolnaya Street, town Shali, had following vehicle details: model – “KAMAZ”-53212; year manufacture 1991; number И 05-92 ЧИ; engine ‑ 798859; chassis 071560; cab 1392122; colour khaki. According to applicant, working order use. failed present any document authorising seizure. 8. several occasions between February 2000 applicant’s father, Mr Abu-Sultan Salamov, complained various civilian authorities, as well local police prosecutor’s office, requested return truck. 9. unspecified date Major-General V., head “East” zone group joint forces internal troops Ministry Interior, wrote Shali district office: “In reply your written enquiry 22 concerning A. Salamov’s complaint, I would like confirm that “KAMAZ”-53212, made 1991, 798859, khaki colour, 071560, is indeed located base unit no. 3702. At not being used; it has been sealed placed car park for wanted cars. Enquiries about with above details have sent units [Ministry the] Interior other armed verify ownership on basis lists vehicles (stolen or lost) anti‑terrorist operations 1994-1995 1999-2000. Upon confirmation concerned does belong forces, will be returned its owner, Salamov.” 10. 24 April applicant. same Colonel K., Commander operative headquarters operation, issued certificate: “The given Aslambek residing ..., passport certify officers KAMAZ-53212, khaki, Ч Ш, him 2000. vehicle’s plates were lost while unit.” 11. 27 commission consisting deputy two employees council presence father drew up evaluation report damage caused It stated (referred owner) without documents plates. prepared list parts missing (which amounted 69 items) estimated total 147,650 roubles (RUB). 12. 26 May 2003 forensic expert examined erased, but (1392122) remained intact. 13. brought action Oktyabrskiy District Court Grozny title recognised. 14. 21 August granted action. noted by state archives destroyed conflict. statements witnesses, relevant submitted court held owner KAMAZ corresponding details, ЧИ, identification number. 1 September judgment became final. 15. attempted obtain compensation authorities lodged complaints law-enforcement administrative Chechnya, describing detail seizure alleging used stationed village Avtury, district, referring inflicted. written, inter alia, Chechnya Administration (on 28 January 2001), prosecutor 3 2003), office 2003). 20116 advised seek damages civil proceedings. 16. 17 2004 sued 3702 Prikubanskiy Krasnodar unlawful He also claimed parts, cost repairs use military. sought non-pecuniary damages. referred Articles 151 1064 Civil Code (see “Relevant domestic law practice” below), which set out general principles liability respect pecuniary damage. 17. July delivered judgment. log book period 16 found no record heard evidence who served time denied alien unit. this basis, doubted veracity information contained letter V. paragraph 9 above) kept sources such that, event, question unclear time. declined calculate amount because representatives special knowledge expertise enabling accurately assess case reference 1069 1070 below). Under those provisions, act failure part State municipal bodies, their officials, compensated expense federal, regional treasury, appropriate. thus concluded proper defendant case. 18. Regional appeal hearing. endorsed reasoning first-instance court. 19. communication case, another check carried North Caucasus Military Circuit (“the prosecutor”). They attesting following. 20. 13 2009 informed although involved Gudermes [in district], they conducted Shali. Further nature could disclosed classified. archive alleged regarding 21. chief command centre centre”) 1999. allegedly effect. Finally, Interior. 22. notes, effect Avtury undertaken actions there aimed stolen 23. four signed affidavits events confirmed serving recall inhabitant. 24. 2 investigation into retention begun 2008 complaint Government. produced paragraphs 10 allegation. further mission 1999-2000 colonels lieutenant-colonels aware preceding paragraph). established
|
[
9
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1987 and is detained Lublin. 6. On 1 December 2005 the arrested remanded custody. In 2006 he convicted of three counts battery robbery received prison sentences ranging from two to four years. 28 November Lublin Regional Court imposed a cumulative sentence for criminal convictions. 7. 5 2010 Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission on so-called “dangerous detainee” regime. commission held that had been leader or an active participant planned collective remonstrance (Article 88a § 2 (2a) Code Execution Criminal Sentences), as detainees refused accept food provided by authorities. authorities learned were planning another protest 11 2010. also considered particularly depraved. 8. 18 January 2011 rejected appeal lodged dismissed his request leave examine outside statutory time-limit. 9. Subsequently, transferred Remand Centre. 10. 3 February Centre reviewed upheld decision apply regime applicant, considering posed serious threat security detention centre. appealed. 11. 4 April appeal. court referred reasons given 2010, holding lawful justified. 12. March complaint with Inspectorate Prisons. He complained having difficulties accessing educational activities complaint, not organised dangerous prisoners. 13. unspecified date notified police allegedly unlawful classification claimed exceeded their powers imposing him. 29 District Prosecutor open investigation case, no offence committed. 14. revoked its classify detainee”. It applicant’s behaviour improved longer remand
|
[
1
] |
4. The applicant was born in 1996 and before his arrest lived Zhovten village the Odessa region. 5. On 21 May 2012 cousin, M., travelled to Donetsk, approximately seven hundred kilometres from Zhovten. 6. 24 they snatched a handbag lady sitting at tramway stop Donetsk. 7. According applicant, on 2012, police arrested him M. Donetsk bus station while were trying sell mobile phone which had found stolen bag. 8. detention order available Court, 25 2012. 9. questioned who said that he with mother, Vera Adajie, two sisters not working or studying. also “presently [was leading] vagrant lifestyle”. told “earn some money”. 22 arrived for following three days earned money by busking trams. gone because intended return their homes village. However, been apprehended police. 10. assigned lawyer L. as applicant’s defence counsel. 11. 26 sent ITT (a facility). 12. 28 charged robbery. same day V., an investigator, asked Kyivskyy District Court of pre-trial detention. He noted serious offence punishable up years’ imprisonment, if liberty could hinder investigation, flee reoffend, came poor family did receive any financial support it, living permanent place residence but “leading lifestyle all over territory Ukraine early age”. investigator stated, without developing further, influence victim. 13. 31 P. counsel instead 14. 1 June examined investigator’s request presence lawyer, court choose non-custodial preventive measure applicant. exerted physical pressure him. 15. held well-founded ordered that, live reoffend. placed SIZO 16. Lawyer appealed against decision Regional Appeal release subject undertaking abscond. 17. 13 upheld While stating region, it fact led lifestyle, warranted proved “insufficient make [him] comply procedural obligations criminal trial”. 18. March 2013 sentenced one year imprisonment 19. In application form, submitted 24, “depriving sleep” “exerting [on him] pressure”, forced sign documents reflect oral statements actually made 20. relevant provisions Code Criminal Procedure, worded material time, read follows: Article 106: Arrest suspect investigating force “An shall be entitled person suspected penalty form deprivation may imposed only grounds: 3. clear traces are either body suspect, his/her clothing, him/her, home. If there is other information giving grounds offence, such latter attempted flee, does have residence, identity has established. For each incidence being arrested, required draw (протокол затримання) outlining grounds, motives, day, month, arrest, explanatory detained recorded time informed right meet accordance procedure provided paragraph 2 present Code. signed drew detainee. A copy list rights immediately handed detainee prosecutor. At prosecutor, evidence served him/her well ... Within seventy-two hours shall: (1) suspicion he/she committed crime confirmed, term preliminary established law expired effected violation requirements paragraphs Article; (2) select measure; (3) bring judge impose custodial him/her. court, detainee’s complaint head facility court. consider together measure. received after applied, examine within receiving it. detention, considered five 165-2 this Following its examination, give ruling, declaring lawful allowing finding unlawful. ruling date adoption concerned, her legal representative. Lodging appeal suspend execution court’s ruling. Preliminary last more than hours. If, terms law, facility, drawing effect, inform official carried out accordingly.” 148: Purpose measures “Preventive accused, defendant, convicted prevent attempting abscond justice, obstructing establishment truth case, pursuing activities, ensure decisions. Preventive where sufficient believe defendant would attempt fails decisions, obstructs case pursues activities.” 149: “The written abscond; personal guarantee; guarantee public organisation labour collective; (3-1) bail; (4) detention; (5) supervision commander military unit. ...” 434: Detention placement custody minor “Detention applied exceptional circumstances, seriousness of, according procedures Articles 106 148 minor’s parents guardian must notified detention.” 436: Release under parents, guardians administration residential children “Apart enumerated 149 Code, can released children. guardians, facility’s gives will proper conduct appearance prosecutor court.” 21. international summarised Korneykova v. (no. 39884/05, §§ 25-27, 19 January 2012).
|
[
2
] |
6. The applicant was born in 1967. He is currently serving a life sentence Ladyzhynska Correctional Colony no. 39, Gubnyk (“the Colony”), the Vinnytsia Region. 7. On 14 October 2003 applicant, with several other individuals, arrested on suspicion of having formed criminal association and committed murders, robberies crimes. 8. 6 January 2005 Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court Appeal, acting as court first instance, convicted charged sentenced him to imprisonment. 9. 4 Supreme Ukraine dismissed applicant’s appeal. 10. In remanded custody pending proceedings against placed Pre-trial Detention Centre (SIZO) 3, where he remained detention until April 2007. 11. According conditions his SIZO 3 were incompatible human dignity. particular, for some time had share ten-bed cell nineteen detainees. However, most an inmate shared two-bunk one inmate. spent day cell, which measured 1.9 by 3.7 metres. located basement so exposed hardly any daylight or fresh air, while electric light dim there no artificial ventilation. lacked basic furniture appliances, such cupboards, mirror rubbish bin. toilet 1.2 metres from dining table not separated living quarters. It smelled excrement frequently flooded. premises infested rats never disinfected. detainees very limited access news information about outside world, only source being radio, turned guards part each weekday off completely at weekends. food meagre consisted mostly bread wheat cereal. numerous occasions requests medical treatment after-effects head injury sustained 2001 elevated blood pressure ignored rejected. Likewise, request be solitary account unstable psychological state refused. 12. submitted copies abundant correspondence that mother conducted throughout stay prosecutorial authorities relating variety issues concerning detention. their responses, maintained been breaches law respect applicant. number letters various received response all. (b) Government’s 13. Government stated adequate. They certificate dated February 2010 attesting inspection they carried out date determined comprised least 3.5 square per detainee housed. dimensions bunks used 1.85 0.70 cells, prisoners held, windows measuring 1.10 meters 1 meter, afforded sufficient daylight. evenings cells lit 100-watt bulbs, enabled read write without damaging eyes. Each window special ventilation pane could opened air cells. addition, ventilator corridor ensured radiators ensure stable temperature between 18C 20C. equipped two metal bunks, chair, shelf personal belongings, table, small cupboards (which also stools sitting on), clothes hanger, tap sink, mirror, toilet. toilets “U-bend” pipes prevent unpleasant odours; area fixed partitions. 14. further (without providing documents) that, regards sanitary arrangements, weekly bathing facilities, provided razors scissors. cleaned disinfected regularly; twice year (in spring autumn) thorough measures implemented entire facility meals three times day, freshly cooked cooks. varied conformity applicable regulations nutrition. 15. able consult doctors when needed monitored regularly neurasthenic condition suffered. 16. May 2007 moved 39 Colony”) serve sentence, where, according case-file, has accommodated present. present application covers period June 2010. 17. Before case communicated respondent Government, effectively denied service Colony. Because colony allowed inmates lie beds 10 p.m. a.m., floor during days felt unwell. this, contracted kidney condition, receiving treatment. 18. after communication 25 November 2009, additionally notified matters which, him, constituted rights. These included alleged prolonged failure administration repair clean facilities exterminate rats; administration’s renovate transfer second floor, despite fact parents made donations towards cost renovating prison; instances beating arbitrary orders wear woollen hats summer assume unnatural positions moving around doors guards. All submissions forwarded Government. 19. fair prompt attention required. Upon arrival, examined Colony’s found suffering illness active phase. Subsequently, often consulted treated chronic diseases, including hypertension, neurasthenia, intestinal dyskinesia, bladder infections, haemorrhoids, complaints. presented detailed excerpt record consultations (comprising over forty visits winter 2010). evidence support complaints ill-treatment administration. 20. 24 August 2006 severely beaten eight radio on. doctor examine injuries refused given painkiller way Subsequently (on 16 2007), temporary 15 Simferopol, X-rayed course tuberculosis screening told traces recent rib fracture observed X-ray. unable, however, obtain written conversation. 21. statements detainees, M. Ch., who heard crying out. Ch. cellmate seen bruised pain. both complained incident governor prosecutor’s office, but those response. handwritten referred incident, did records confirming actually sent. 22. office 2006. 23. 2008 lodged administrative complaint claiming compensation “moral damage” “honour dignity” result governor’s omissions, investigate Kyiv District Administrative gave rectify procedural shortcomings pay fee). file, fee appeal aforementioned decision. 24. 9 September senior issued 13 23 March pathological fractures visible 25. From autumn filed applications (specifically, 11 2005, 28 February, March, 26 July, 5 October, 27 November, 11, 21 December 2007) State Department Enforcement Punishments Prison Department”) requesting closer hometown Crimea, order facilitate minor son. noted, pensioners (his 1940 stepfather 1925) unable undertake long-distance travel financial health reasons step-father serious disability; suffered hypertension diseases stepfather’s primary caregiver). sent similar authorities. 26. July 18 7 12 responded promising take into if space became available appropriate facility. 27. 31 January, 19 2006) informed them it possible accommodate requests, penal institutions accommodating Crimea. 28. 2007, following Colony, National Ombudsman transferred paying regard whatsoever wish maintain contact family. village Gubnyk, train connection, 1,000 kilometres parents’ home Simferopol. took rides trains, followed either expensive private taxi infrequent bus, Gubnyk. journey twenty-four hours way, impossible disabled difficult ailing mother, addition financially burdensome. noted best knowledge, 55 Volniansk, Zaporizhzhia Region, accessed direct prisoners, asked explore possibility transferring establishment. 29. 29 Department, Ombudsman’s grant because under law, prisoner had, general rule, her establishment, save exceptional circumstances preventing remaining there. 30. 2015 review decision placement situation mutual means regular visits. down, reference legal rule absence “exceptional circumstances” staying 8 30 2008, 2010) unavailability establishments 31. 2011 brought action seeking oblige Service (the successor Punishments) (hereinafter “Prison establishment situated – Volniansk reiterating previous arguments difficulties faced travelling visit 2009), even though rules eligible receive four-hour (before now (since four One lasted instead four, catch bus. 32. 20 claims. unless more relaxed regime case), equivalent existed current remoteness prison place residence prisoner’s constitute circumstances”. 33. Appeal above judgment endorsed first-instance court’s reasoning. 34. 2014 died. aged 75 walk aid cane, 1,000-kilometre public transport him.
|
[
1,
4
] |
4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives Kyiv. 5. On 22 July 2006 the applicant’s son – a young man who 1982 left home never returned. 6. that day found severely injured unconscious, lying street An ambulance police attended scene of incident. According to report officer Podilskyy District Police Department Kyiv (“the Department”), doctor explained him had fallen from building with height approximately five metres; also specified man’s surname, which same as son. 7. taken hospital, where his surname noted down slightly differently. 29 he died hospital. post-mortem examination, serious craniocerebral injury; injuries identified on body (including one fatal) could have been sustained result fall. 8. 31 no information concerning whereabouts her reported disappearance Department. 9. 18 September unclaimed buried municipal cemetery. 10. In March 2007 invited by look at picture street. very closely resembled 11. Following exhumation street, forensic medical experts conducted two DNA examinations. 14 2008 they concluded 98.73% certainty it 12. 16 October Podilsky Prosecutor’s Office Office”), having pre-investigation enquiries, refused open criminal investigation into regard unsuccessful searches carried out statements G., K., D. L., acquaintances but not give any whereabouts. 13. 24 May incident regarding unconscious decision, identity established. L. other people, submitted known often talked about suicide. 14. 12 Court quashed decision unsubstantiated, ordered further enquiries. 15. 25 additional enquiries establish circumstances deceased. 16. addition above decisions refusing investigations, more than ten occasions between 2012 (following enquiries) investigations death Those were unsubstantiated supervising courts or prosecutors, ordered. particular, 3 August 2011 stating necessary carry an inspection expert. Among things, court stated detailed drawings photographs site be prepared; expert questioned order whether and, if so, body; steps identify potential witnesses. 17. last 9 2012, proceedings relation identified, high degree certainty, He fatal fall; there evidence violence did appear element.
|
[
0
] |
4. The applicants are spouses who were born in 1960 and 1961 respectively live the village of Shchorsove, Odessa Region. 5. Late evening 18 June 1997 A., applicants’ son (born 1982), died a traffic accident. According to applicants, on that day D., driver car, compelled A. sit vehicle travel with him. During drive, D. exceeded speed limit car turned over. from his injuries. other passengers survived. 6. Between 00.40 a.m. 1.55 19 police prepared site inspection report. They also questioned witnesses same day. 7. On 20 instituted criminal proceedings related death son. 8. 1 October was charged violating safety rules causing applicant’s Given had not appeared before whereabouts unknown, investigator, following approval by prosecutor Ivanivka District Region (“the Prosecutor”), ordered placing custody as preventive measure. 9. 11 November placed list wanted persons. 10. 14 April 1998 visited department charge case stated between August February he been undergoing medical treatment outside Ukraine. Prosecutor, changed measure pre-trial detention written undertaking abscond. 11. 24 first applicant brought civil claims for damages requested D.’s property be held security claims. joined file. 12. In July referred Court Court”) consideration merits. 13. January 1999 put persons, stating failed appear court hearings several occasions. custody. 14. 29 March 2010 informed president arrested taken local centre. 15. new claims, seeking within against 16. May closed basis an Amnesty Act passed 1998, releasing liability punishment. dismissed without considering them 17. appealed. 18. 26 Appeal upheld Court’s decision concerning termination As it found unlawfully they considered further accordance procedure. 19. 22 September 2011 Higher Specialised Civil Criminal Matters appeal points law unsubstantiated. 20. 2013 partly allowed Referring results proceedings, responsible accident, It awarded each 400,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) respect non-pecuniary damage UAH 16,050 pecuniary damage. 21. reduced award 50,000 applicant. 22. sought increase amount damages. 23. 2014 State Bailiffs Service returned letters execution no funds or belonging debtor could found.
|
[
0
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives Bucharest. 6. At the relevant time a member of teaching staff, as associate professor (“conferenţiar universitar”), University Agronomical Sciences Veterinary Medicine (hereafter “the University”), which is State university. 7. Between 2002 2005 submitted many requests to education authorities Ministry Education for creation position full his department. He claimed that he met all required professional criteria occupying such position. On 23 March rector informed financial other objective reasons, new could not be created. 8. also non-profit organisation called European Association Teaching Staff Romania (“the Association”). Its general aim stop degradation research standards by making known abuses, unlawful acts corruption education. 9. 8 2005, journalist, S.A., had an article published newspaper România liberă entitled “Corruption at university level”. stated intellectual theft plagiarism been noted Medicine. journalist this connection O.A.A. book, mostly (80%) copy another book. She nonetheless enjoyed status lecturer under protection deputy rector, Professor N.C.I., who scientific referent 10. 7 June S.A. same newspaper, “University ostracised because denounced corruption”. referred applicant, who, having disclosure about O.A.A.’s dean followed up any measures, press. Instead benefiting from provided Law no. 571/2004 employees revealed infringements law within public institutions, invited meeting organised on 14 asked why 19 April applicant’s faculty. pretext redistribution faculty’s space, they cleared laboratory used practical activities with students. 11. 3 August press conference main topic level. Seven cases alleged were presented. While members existent universities, capacity secretary-general Association, delivered speech own O.A.A., colleague, N.C.I. former book Chemistry Wine according him Oenology, 1994 author. mentioned written direct supervision guidance N.C.I, eulogistic foreword 12. criticised way managed AGRAL programme concerning funding stations; offered only stations make personal gains. 13. preferential regime past secretary Romanian Communist Party. According too positions able handle them properly: several different universities; Medicine; president National Office Vineyards; director stations. head Department Viticulture Oenology. 14. involved sabotaging department Oenology led there mafia-type (“încregătură de tip mafiot”). 15. Most those statements repeated “Professor Piteşti accused corruption” weekly Impact în Argeş 26-30 September 2005. 16. 10 November lodged joint criminal civil complaint against defamation. containing views expressed 17. adduced extensive documentary evidence before Bucharest District Court. certificates universities taught, statute documents programme, including composition management few letters issued Odobeşti station O.A.A performed activity. articles criticism 18. gave statement court 13 February 2006. acknowledged cumulatively University, Vineyards even made defamatory addressed Faculty Education. 19. 2006 heard witness behalf one journalists (see paragraphs 9 above). attended As regards allegation responsible incorrect manner money allocated research, pointed out basis seen occasion, salary slips reports, it clear discriminatory treatment applied researchers working University. very high payments received certain staff convinced accepted agreed plaintiff obtained funding. fact universities. Lastly, based material presented but sources, reveal. 20. By judgment 17 2006, Court dismissed complaint. It held though prove veracity statements, element crime defamation missing, namely intent damage reputation accuracy intended present case most part read follows: “In instant case, defendant did despite (taking into account morality legality system level obviously interest, interest informing opinion serious legitimate accordance Article 207 Criminal Code Court’s case-law – Castells v. Spain[1] Colombani France[2]) admitted proposed behalf. ... Moreover, (namely, signed injured party (N.C.I.), copies covers original chapters two books) do encouraged plagiarism. Some resemblance form contents works reading parallel cannot lead conclusion liable denouncing Such would mean knew perfectly well previously comparative analysis both works, noting some inconsistencies ignored However, role (and general) express point view work does represent critical opinion.” “Moreover, blackmailed (copies pay station, records salaries paid collaborators, report assessment authority Agriculture Minister 20 July 2005) station”. addition, defendant’s allegations undeserved profit unlawfully have proved true, sources income lawfully offices. damaging types hybrids then selling greenhouse carried evidence. minute (“proces-verbal”) Horticulture private company latter rented building adjacent greenhouse, no plants cultivated; moreover party. Under these circumstances, after examination evidence, concluded has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, aspects are true.” 21. commit defamation, first‑instance following: “The notes context (of secretary-general), committed level, being object monitoring irregularities academic system. Even shocking exaggerated, should regarded namely, among legislative moral reform system, desired whole society. Liberă Wine, drafted situation Romania. teachers simultaneously (“cu normă întreagă”) teachers, guilty fraud, maintained their (a Association). These debated context. time, important aspect documents, as: sheets (“fişe pontaj”), plagiarised ..., considered acts. Notwithstanding directly accused, formed intimate conviction committing irregularities. In context, obvious honour objectively harmed, considers result itself, since speaker viewpoint person, intention contributing extreme already Consequently, act gratuitously harm party’s reputation, revealing case.” 22. partially allowed complaint, ordering compensation non-pecuniary amounting 3,000 lei (RON) (approximately 860 euros (EUR)). applicable slightest fault. Therefore, ordered brought attention information regarding passages decision journalists’ attention, without facts plausible respect daily newspapers Iaşi Fortune). presentation superficial information, degree suggestibility, constitutes illicit act. liability, must emphasised court’s finding good faith relevance given order establish liability enough find true ECHR’s case-law, persons acting whistleblowers can share topics if disturbing; however, take others, § 1 Convention Fressoz Roire France [GC], 29183/95, ECHR 1999‑I).” 23. Appeals points parties allowed. 11 County consequence amendment decriminalisation left unresolved. 24. December separate action Civil First Instance. remarks occasions constituted attack reputation. 25. produced testimonial demonstrate statements. books underlined said copied hear individuals author “protégée” registered employee benefited granted ever turning there. tried law, right teach more than N.C.I least three 26. 2 2007 Instance sum RON 20,000 awarded damage. above journalists, newspapers. endorsed reasoning its copying judgment. Thus, things, writing opinion. positions. N.C.I.’s legal expenses. 27. appeal turned “in oenology mafia‑type mafiot”) “is organisation”. 30 October appeal, upholding court. 28. 2008 seizure third monthly 27,877 EUR 7,470), representing expenses domestic courts. 29. unspecified date accusing her prosecutor’s office attached decided institute proceedings grounds aggrieved noted, significant books, similar. 30. 6 May 2009 together They accomplice coordinator 2010 discontinued investigation statutory time-limit prosecuting offence expired. 31. University’s decrease unjustified absence work. measure illegal timesheets registering presence introduced until days question. Among aspects, actual reason sanctioning conflict 32. 26 Labour Litigation amounts withdrawn 287 burden proof lay employer unable produce 33. disciplinary sanction consisting suspension, period years, apply higher position, obtain or reasons (i) absences classes activities; (ii) non-compliance curriculum; (iii) contempt ignorance decisions taken faculty clearance space assigned setting laboratory. 34. challenged 35. 25 county remained revoke
|
[
6
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1974. He is serving a life sentence prison. 6. On 21 July 2005 the requested from Governor of Pärnu Prison access to (i) online version Riigi Teataja (the State Gazette), (ii) decisions Supreme Court and administrative courts, which are available on Internet, (iii) HUDOC database judgments European Human Rights. refused his request. applicant’s subsequent complaint dismissed by Administrative Court; Tallinn Appeal further appeal. then appealed Court. 7. Law Chamber delivered its judgment 31 May 2007 (case no. 3-3-1-20-07). In respect Estonian legislation Court’s rulings, noted that these were paper Teataja; it considered sufficient found prison’s refusal grant had been lawful. 8. However, 1 January primary official since only five “control copies” each edition printed. Despite fact, prisons duty ensure detainees reasonable possibility searching for familiarising themselves with legal acts. 9. Furthermore, prison administration rulings courts Rights interfered their right freely obtain information disseminated public use. Given legislature not specified any restrictions this regard prisoners, – enshrined Article 44 § Constitution Republic Estonia (Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus) be given an equal level protection as afforded persons at liberty. Accordingly, unlawful. 10. 18 October Tartu transferred meantime request granted Internet sites www.coe.ee Council Europe Information Office Tallinn), www.oiguskantsler.ee Chancellor Justice, or Õiguskantsler)) www.riigikogu.ee Parliament, Riigikogu). According applicant, he involved number disputes needed those order able defend rights court. 11. 23 November Ministry Justice. 12. By 17 2008 upheld site ordered him supervised via computer adapted purpose. Teataja, judicial decisions, referred (see paragraphs 7 9 above) section 31-1 Imprisonment Act (Vangistusseadus) paragraph below), entered into force June 2008. It contained English French, whereas translations Tallinn. burden having translated could placed concluded also www.coe.ee. similar Act. www.riigikogu.ee, court foreseen Act; case, directly institutions concerned Prison. 13. Both parties appealed. both appeals first-instance court’s judgment. 14. challenged before case plenary session point constitutionality. December 2009 appeal Prison’s quashed lower courts’ so far 15. question did fall under exceptions provided below). Thus, determine whether provision conformity Constitution. aims imprisonment included steering towards law-abiding behaviour. As technically excluded might misuse use prohibited them exception made databases necessary effective protect own rights. taken account texts acts accessible Internet. 16. observed prohibition primarily restrict detainees’ ability engage communication purposes accord detention, such obtaining jeopardise security run counter directing Granting additional increased risk running contrary imprisonment. Moreover, create opportunity other than www.coe.ee, justified need achieve particular secure safety. 17. proportionality restriction denial prevented misusing safety thereby protected. granting increase engaging communication; turn would necessitate levels control (and therefore costs). there no alternative, equally means besides imposed achieving legitimate aim question. Lastly, contact Riigikogu Justice mail make (teabenõue). Therefore, unduly restricted. Detainees’ guaranteed, pursuant Europe’s conventions treaties ratified www.riigiteataja.ee. doubt printed works through libraries, nor contacting post. preventing accessing www.oiguskantsler.ee, one “low intensity”; gave more weight sought restriction. permitting extensive likelihood authorities losing over activities, completely other, unauthorised purposes. impugned 18. Four judges out eighteen dissenting opinion according should have all three They generally pose threat unclear what costs bear, line applicable law equipped computers specially allow service exercised supervision resources. aided exercising recourse courts. While true avail information, time-consuming avenue and, particularly required knowledge sites. No Public (Avaliku teabe seadus) (unlike unofficial published www.coe.ee), presumed command French read them. libraries include four unconstitutional.
|
[
6
] |
4. The applicant was born in 1992 and lives Diyarbakır. 5. On 14 July 2008 a demonstration held Diyarbakır to protest about the conditions of detention Abdullah Öcalan, leader PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party), an illegal armed organisation. 6. According report prepared by four police officers on 21 following examination video footage recorded police, 11 Fırat News Agency, website which controlled PKK, had published declaration Democratic People’s Initiative Turkey Kurdistan. contained instructions hold meetings marches each town city show support for Öcalan. also stated that www.rojaciwan.com, news article containing call participation reading out press statement be Party Society (Demokratik Toplum Partisi (DTP)) been published. 7. received information according branch DTP organiser MPs, mayors local politicians from as well members number non-governmental organisations would gather front DTP’s party office at around 5.30 p.m. march Koşuyolu Park, where they make statement. took necessary measures suspected there could violent protests during march, become PKK. 8. report, people started assemble 4.30 office. Mayors MPs were among demonstrators. By 5.50 approximately 3,000 gathered. Thereafter, demonstrators arriving 6.30 p.m.at made. At 7 while Emine Ayna, Member Parliament DTP, giving speech, group throwing stones cars parked neighbourhood. Both chanted slogans praising such “Every Kurd is Öcalan’s fedai[1]” (“Her Kürt Apo’nun Fedaisidir”), “We will drop world without Öcalan your head” (“Öcalansız dünyayı başınıza yıkarız”), “The Youth Botan[2], free country” (“Gençlik Botan’a, Özgür Vatana”), “Salutations İmralı [3]” (“Selam Selam İmralı’ya Bin Selam”), “With our blood, with life, we are you, Öcalan” (“Canımızla, kanımızla, seninleyiz Öcalan”) , “Long live President (“Biji Serok Apo”), “Martyrs immortal” (“Şehîd Namirin”), “No life Leader, Mr./Esteemed (“Başkansız yaşam olmaz, Sayın Öcalan”). They carried banners “Stop torture İmralı” (“İmralı işkencesine son”) war die peace” (Yaşamak için savaşırız; Barış ölürüz”); photographs flags so-called “Confederation” brandished. Subsequent statements, when crowd dispersed, some within knocked over waste containers attacked shops neighbourhood bats chanting its leader. gave warning those asked them disperse. refused obey warnings. As result, use proportionate force against group, who holding demonstration. intervened using truncheons, water tear gas. noted taken down Turkish flag schoolyard nursery school. 9. end it that, footage, thrown together other persons acted 10. twenty-four extracted police. In photographs, seen young men while, security forces. two he standing pole. A total six concern taking flag; one photograph contains image knocked-over container; shows damaged passenger van. remaining contain images building or walking. 11. arrested 2008. arrest transfer recording showed schoolyard. drafted therein informed his rights transferred children’s Security Directorate, found minor subsequent medical check. “I am not signing” put signature under sentence report. 12. 22 made statements before public prosecutor presence lawyer. His reads follows: “...I primary school graduate peddler. my brother I selling watermelons Park Suddenly, large slogan Apo”) approached us. Subsequently, into custody. Some individuals then began officers. joined beginning Öcalan”. threw After short went them. climbed flagpole garden. replaced flag. involved did have any particular purpose only crowd. do know why connection person you shown me.” 13. same day brought judge Fifth Division Assize Court. He maintained reflected truth. lawyer court remand custody, submitting therefore capable realising meaning consequences acts. 14. remanded custody view existence strong suspicion committed offences “committing offence behalf organisation being member organisation”, breach Law no. 2911, “dissemination propaganda terrorist having regard evidence. 15. filed bill indictment Court, special jurisdiction try aggravated crimes enumerated Article 250 § 1 Code Criminal Procedure material time. charged membership considered crime 314 2 (Law 5237) basis Articles 220 6 3 Code, resisting forces way sections 23(b) 33(c) Meetings Demonstration Marches Act 2911), disseminating section 7(2) Prevention Terrorism 3713) denigration symbols sovereignty State 300 Code. 16. October Court first hearing case. During hearing, reiterated released. participated demonstration, intervened. submitted 17. convict 5237, 3713 2911. requested sentences reduced account fact aged between 15 18 years old 18. November rendered judgment case applicant. noted, outset, summary applicant’s defence submissions, prosecutor’s observations merits evidence file: 2008; identity documents document showing previous criminal record; incident dated printed versions downloaded Internet; describing events 2008[4] events; police; reports. 19. judgment, “... THE INCIDENT, EVIDENCE AND ASSESSMENT organisation, Kurdistan instructions: ‘This year’s celebrations should approach “live leadership live”... city, 14th respect This nature Serhildan (rebellion); paralyse enemy handled how deal Kurdish people’s ... form vicious notification people, time, reason every district determine itinerary depending get today, well, attacks this victory human dignity.’ Similarly, entitled published: “...while shaving off provoking heated reaction, lent Party. NGOs described treatment participate.” Against background, DTP. Among crowd, Members arrived fedai” Botan, Öcalan”), “Confederation”. speeches began. p.m., vicinity interfere connection, light indictment, indirect confessions, description accused whole content file, has established Ferit Gülcü actively part demonstrations accordance PKK; crowd; stones; school; incited flag, thereby strengthening their commit offence. accepted demonstration; organisation; resisted stones. denied, however, veracity allegation Having understood An convicted if question scope [illegal] organisation’s activities serve present case, demonstrations, subsequently became illegal, result general calls disseminated media purposes aim, offences: dissemination propaganda, State. It thus concluded these acts, knowledge line perpetrated Therefore, reference 5237 along convictions acts...” 20. acquitted charge noting 21. However, Code; 3713; 2911 sentenced him seven months imprisonment. 22. pursuant upon Applying minimum penalty, five years’ imprisonment; increased half times virtue 5 (seven months); third 31 time (five years); and, finally, sixth 62 accused’s “sincere confessions”, attitude behaviour proceedings (thus reaching imprisonment). 23. 3713. year (eight further twenty days). decided commute fine Counter-Terrorism 3713, defer 13 No. finally 231 governing suspension pronouncement inapplicable circumstances 24. first-instance resistance (three confessions” years, nine ten days’ fine, either, overall give impression refrain committing crime. 25. 2009 Cassation upheld 26. 16 December final decision deposited registry court. 27. 25 2010 6008 entered force. 28. 26 representative lodged petition Noting amended certain provisions Laws nos. examine whether favour so, execution suspended. 29. suspend juvenile offenders. released prison new procedure initiated difference legal date commission after date, provision more favourable applied offender. 30. no longer paragraph added 6008. paragraph, minors tried assize courts jurisdiction. 31. 20 January 2011 February Juvenile decided, respectively, competent 32. Upon both declining jurisdiction, resolve issue 2012 33. re‑assessment determining applicable (see 29 above) amendments (uyarlama yargılaması). 34. unspecified contended already served contested procedure. 35. regarding 6008, revoked 2008, 36. 34/A 50 below). 37. imprisonment head; possible implications length record, suspended condition another wilful period three 5271) 23 Protection 5395). 38. possession prohibited materials 33(1) months’ (four Considering 5271 5395. 39. used disperse 32(1) 40. obstructing duties influence 32(2) 265 head. collectively 4 (twelve 41. absence objection.
|
[
7
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1975. When introducing her application to the Court, she lived Meckenheim, Germany, where continues reside this day. 6. In 2001, married E.B., a German citizen. Their marriage registered Lithuania 2008. They have two daughters, who were 2002 and 2003. all Lithuania. 7. January 2010 Lithuanian authorities granted legal aid connection with intent start divorce custody proceedings. following month applied Marijampolė District Court dissolved. She also asked for permission both daughters permanently, child maintenance from E.B. 8. March Municipal Children’s Rights Protection Service (Vaiko teisių apsaugos tarnyba – hereinafter “the service”) informed court writing that girls’ answers regarding they would like live unclear. wished parents. Given young age, absence of information not performing maternal duties properly, service stated residing be against children’s interests. 9. applicant’s husband then lodged counterclaim, asking make residence order his favour. 10. grant temporary protective measure girls temporarily until case decided on merits. submitted had no citizenship. level conflict between feared he might take Germany him face obstacles securing their return. 11. On 12 April allowed request measure. thus stay end ruling upheld 31 May by Kaunas Regional Court. latter ruling, however, specified retained right contact at place or educational institutions. 12. 19 provided conclusions indicating clearly state with. father suitable accommodation which raise them. concluded interests girls, “as future women (kaip būsimoms moterims)” better met if together mother. Information obtained doctors institutions confirmed took care (earlier) attended kindergarten school Marijampolė. nevertheless noted its could revised new circumstances emerged. 9 wrote (hereinafter stating 6 tried call telephone, but one answered. applicant, whom be, did answer telephone either. older daughter Marijampolė, been seen as April. He went apartment renting found doors locked. considered abused parental rights, obstructed communicate even guarantee girl’s attend school. suspected taken Kaunas. investigate situation promised full cooperation. reply, 27 since living Between June kindergarten, other Conditions flat appropriate girls. 13. It transpires police report 4 contacted see day returned them her. established 10 officer visited safe. telephoned come replied already bailiff going pick up herself. 14. 8 made further measures, restrict husband’s daughters. 15. deemed it necessary ask services provide information, hold an oral hearing establish whether any evolved. 22 2010, agreement parents June, yet colleagues, specialists service, father’s home. explained liked there; rights compromised. that, accordance Article 3.164 Civil Code, express views heard wishes into account, unless For specialists, desirable setting out how pending 23 earlier E.B.’s twice, without prior notification, 11 21 June. communicated naturally tension. There reason believe physically emotionally unsafe common applicant. A couple hours later, when return reached telephone. therefore suggestions kidnap unfounded. unclear why so go visit (a point remade separate letter same date). stressed manner chose resolve which, due complaints, required officers negatively affected children. 16. 28 declared exchanged number letters replying various requests assistance. noted, inter alia, matter home declined do so. having home, found. wish mother’s want there force. enquired herself calling assistance meeting solve dispute psychological well-being, because often. competent enforce decisions. 17. July measures presence lawyers specialist. Upon recommendation latter, given merits action scheduled July, deciding hear children, avoid causing more stress. acknowledged three urged arrange mother reach final decision However, each parent own conflicting opinions, only served worsen strained relations children them, suggest communication cause harm. Nor failing Accordingly, pursuant 376 §§ 2 3 Code Procedure, courts aim protect minors (see paragraph 61 below), taking account rulings should above), ordered Should fail so, bailiff, documents hand over Until proceedings, every weekend Saturday morning Sunday evening, collect spend time forbidden travelling outside day, is execution belonged exclusive competence bailiff. Seven days later became enforceable. Pursuant issued writ execution, transmitted 26 August (also 46 below). 18. September fined non-compliance requiring over. prohibit seeing turn, remain him, arguing refused 1 started attending caused refusal psychologists saw twice. observed attached good emotional him. father. psychologist assess mother, contacted. 13 Kaunas, know relevant assist answering question grounds limiting paternal 3.180 Code. 19. According Government, complaints alleging inactivity part services, 5 Ombudsperson kontrolierius Ombudsperson”) report. relationship broken down hostile. instigated conflict, involved different State municipal solving problems gave little importance personal responsibility, efforts benevolence looking solutions best indicated police, soon opportunities recommended questions mutual father, 20. 20 held representatives services. Over followed hearings questioned judge lawyers. One testified missed together. otherwise preferred 21. dismissed forbid November 2010. avoided conditions better. Moreover, change months. mature enough alone suffice residence. 22. principal beginning visiting communicating teachers, administration social workers regular basis. occasion worker meetings talked warmly sincerely, acceded February 2011, reply about daughters’ achievements requesting premises, always open autumn often possible, teachers. ‘the message (deja, Jūs šito raginimo neišgirdote)’. ready help possible way showed initiative daughters; notification coming necessary. principal, pleas particularly odd, fully fledged members list pupils. well aware effort settle matter. serious future, wanted think seriously depended solely upon 23. October 2011 least five hearings, participated. assessment 25 regard after-school activities, 24. At 29 admitted interests, came lessons well-presented. of, felt study there. time. very seldom; last 2011. told assistance, neither such request. Without referral provided. teachers particular concerns well-being. 25. experts Vilnius City Child Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry Department (Vaikų ir paauglių teismo psichiatrijos skyrius) examined respect parent’s meet equal parents, important both. positive, active laughed lot. Both “positive, warm strong”. ambivalent feelings torn (dominuoja prieštaringi (ir teigiami, neigiami) jausmai). Even doubt person Having maturity particularities, able formulate opinions regards determined objective factors, namely than year being insufficient. Unnatural hostility towards traumatised alienation syndrome, enhanced influence, behaviour. Lastly, other, separating traumatic. 26. Germany. 27. absence. maintained civil claims. words, forensic expertise performed, [paragraph above] I consider evidence has collected examined, terminated immediately, my am ill.” agreed lawyer representing forward. 28. lawyer, authorities. During light expecting another man. those residence, especially initial accusation above). postpone hearing, questioned. 29. Later medicate certificate client risk premature birth experienced physical present, suspend after birth. 30. 24 lawyer. national, intended immediately giving during year. regretted hearing. Relying experts’ heightened attitude pregnancy factor child’s citizen, suggested citizen approached find easier. and, far aware, view unsuccessful. probably while traumatising 31. representative known family history 2008, disagreements started. really thought minds developed ages. behaviour conditioned actions show interest lives, formed. ago, expressed above) remember moment opinion. Indeed, 2006 United Nations Children Rights’ Committee reproached paying attention opinion 65 ignore fact currently live. psychologists’ contradictory (yra prieštaringos). girls; warm, positive stable safe actively shared activities. easily approach hug tell school, prized places mathematics competitions. specialist emphasised psychologically distressed underlined changed inform conclusion finally persuaded environment, friends; receiving certain decisions first ran called words specialist, attempted put odd months prepared above considerations, what needed. To pull environment familiar spent most significant choose view, service. 32. case. file either immoral. acted mind, proceedings compromise grow used to. though actual themselves first-instance although some influence choice with, decisive. 15 court’s short (seven days) dates sufficient clear tension 33. court, irrelevant event spoke German; previously adjust easily. What essential ascertain to, devoted disregarded nothing neglecting duties, 34. pay (60 euros (EUR) per month) set weekends § Procedure ex officio time-frame too restrictive build wider order, allowing holidays place. obligation example divorced husband. 35. 7 December appealed decision. contested explicitly held, re-examination witnesses 36. By 2012, admit postmarked sent post. claimed interfered relied 314 59 37. 2012 written left lower unchanged. outset Articles 321 322 appeals indispensable. As questioned, appeal requested confirm, instance. court. necessary, opportunity examination appeal. appellate related correspondence it, pieces analysed general requirement appeal, it. 38. unfounded plea properly examine evidence, included explanations authorities, reports, witness testimony Ombudsperson’s conclusions. conflictive responsibility good-will finding expert reports state, addition, agreeing conducted. 39. paramount relied, convictions sexual drug-related offences committed 1996 1998 much significance case, expired part, criminal conviction forgery document investigation fraud terminated. mattered Germany; addresses lived, habitual merely episodic, whereas proper participated raising conditions. whole close effect prove opposite, done. under Convention Child, matters affecting done present aforementioned 3.156 obligations contrary suggestion closer gender, gender 40. rule, aimed guaranteeing compliance adopting examining bound measures. 41. Following complaint dismissing allegations partiality failure consultations. Court’s judgment Mihailova v. Bulgaria (no. 35978/02, 97, 2006), violation 8, irrespective obstructions former husband, lack understanding need careful preparation precondition effective enforcement played role events. instant attempts once organised psychologists, transfer service’s work correctly placed well-being 42. note 2011/2012 43. 18 repeated accusing organise early use Furthermore, offered purpose date, responded. invited conversation preferences shown via specialists. directly psychologist, discussed 2011; received, accept one. means facilities purpose. school’s (tiesiogiai), disregarded, letters. pointed 3.170 separately upbringing; direct 44. points law. summon outcome litigation, primarily challenged courts’ insisting erred concluding asserted previous crimes violence significantly weightier terms moral values documents. dissatisfied argued entirety evidence. long ago. unfair bring issue now. years. period claims occasion. acceptance re-examine delayed pursue reasonable. 45. 14 adopted Supreme primary consideration cases. cassation Neulinger Shuruk Switzerland ([GC], no. 41615/07, 139, ECHR 2010), said in-depth entire achieve result child. achieved attachment fond Those entirely independently form criteria evaluating formation negative barred them; interested lives bond stronger. restricted. Lithuania, name third registered. proof impact contrary, studied extracurricular correct weight convictions. Overall, whilst noting refusing affect overall lawfulness ruling. 46. After final, transmitting 17 fine). Meetings psychologists. process. 47. attempt failed fell ill proved medical certificates, specify blamed unsuccessful transfer. 48. next handed This produce results date arrested charges 49. because, girl leave room granted. equated object. Taking trauma force situation. supported argument. bailiff’s recommendation, based 771 enforcing preserve findings enforced compromising 50. Eventually, discontinued paragraphs 39 45 51. guilty comply approximately EUR 750 (2,600 litai). however claim non-pecuniary damage, contention consequence actions. 52. Alleging relying syndrome prosecutor abusing (Article 163 Criminal 63 53. 16 initiate pre-trial investigation. eagerly present. comfortable ease; demands. call. unlawful acts prosecutor’s
|
[] |
5. The applicant was born in 1962. According to the latest information, released from prison January 2015. 6. On 26 May 1995 a businessman, R.G., killed heart of Vilnius, near building that houses Lithuanian Government, when bomb detonated under his car. crime received much media coverage. 7. 15 October 1998, after being accused having been involved R.G.’s killing, certain G.B. stated testimony he had order murder R.G. O.L., but did not know whether it O.L. who wished or contract put out by someone else. 29 1998 changed testimony, stating ‘Alius Kaunas’. 9 November showed investigators place where claimed have met ‘Alius’ 1995. This applicant’s home address Kaunas. 8. From this point time, prosecutor began suspect applicant, previous conviction dating 1985, murder. gathered information about property and obtained telephone number, which turn linked him one suspects 9. By judgment 21 2001, Vilnius Regional Court convicted twenty-one individuals acted together an armed gang its surroundings 1990 1998. members criminal organisation were 13 murders 12 attempted use firearms explosives, as well number robberies kidnappings businesspeople. same judgment, three belonging association, G.B., I.M. V.J., R.G.s court established ordered because unidentified person unwilling repay considerable sum money also known alias “Alius”. fifth murder, hiding. sentenced total 19 years’ imprisonment for all crimes concerned. 10. 1 March 2002, on basis G.B.’s concluded likely “Alius” fact applicant. testified unknown date would recognise if saw him. day organised police establish residence, obtain records examine links with 11. 2002 photographs four shown at time already serving sentence. identified Kaunas’ – contract. 12. 2 September informed writing living apartment registered admitted they could locate undertook notify whereabouts soon found 13. there sufficient evidence charge issued decision charging (nutarimas patraukti kaltinamuoju). gave account facts construed contained detailed description crime, including time-frame, between those (G.B., V.J.) sums paid execution. contain any references against 14. day, instituted search conduct it. addressed request City First District be detained once arrested. Taking into attract life sentence, given specific located, took view fled justice. “his accomplices’ recognised organiser [by accomplices]”. authorised pre-trial detention absentia. 15. asked found. documents before appears Kaunas their colleagues 10 December residence known. 16. Over two years later, 17 2005, European Arrest Warrant respect 17. 24 2005 arrest. 18. arrested 25 temporary arrest record (įtariamojo laikino sulaikymo protokolas) context investigation suspicion referred ordering detention, Warrant, prior 1985 property-related crime. hiding long time. signed prosecutor’s (see paragraph above). 19. is say notice (pranešimas apie įtarimą) repeated surrounding described No suspicion, lawyer signed. Later questioned. Of people knowing only denied involvement car bombing testify without lawyer. then questioning apklausos protokolas). 20. case file material (gynėjo supažindinimo su bylos medžiaga dated provided lawyer, request, following file: 1) 18 above); 2) 3) 4) 21. submitted Second written pending trial (pareiškimas skirti suėmimą). paragraphs It mentioned linking witnesses’ other individuals’ identification (parodymų atpažinti protokolai), searches factual data. document explain particular piece As grounds cited years, conviction, severity penalty ‒ itself prompt flee need carry more investigative steps. mention risk might try influence witnesses detention. 22. held hearing presence prosecutor, shows, start thereof evidential investigation, client detained. able acquaint himself above), no made available him, even though Supreme Court’s guidelines require otherwise 52 below). contended understand what was, firstly, suspecting and, secondly, detaining insisted right consult file, purposes ascertaining reasonable detain client. 23. In reply, “in necessary (šiuo atveju gynėjas supažindintas tiek, kiek reikia)”. Moreover, accordance Article 177 Code Criminal Procedure, public. instant case, permitted see entire doing so prejudiced success investigation. conducted [since 2002], indicates “to concerning reasonableness examined evaluated it, decided lawyer’s said denied, since disclose detrimental effective investigation”. 24. When questioned hearing, acknowledged knew However, maintained never nickname He wife lived Ireland wealthy. summoned questioning, nor investigators: renewed identity documents, crossed State border, taken part rally competitions, winning President’s cup 2003, elected president committee. 25. grant operative ruling, summarised arguments forward defence, noted suspected very serious imposed. abroad pertinent discrepancies [witnesses’] investigators. There thus reason believe “the attempt participants proceedings (those convicted, witnesses, others) destroy evidence” left liberty. A steps still carried out. Lastly, commit new crimes. 26. 7 June attended parade included three-man line-up, ‘Alius’, naming requirements present 27. approached another prisoner. Due relations prevailing prison, preferred name prisoner told outside world (iš laisvės)” underworld (Kauno nusiklastamo pasaulio)” ask return 200,000 litai (LTL), identify To replied too late, further proposition. couple days 8 2015, proposition: should write statement effect mistaken identifying June. lawyers considering challenging lawfulness procedure. allegedly offered changing stayed same. At target threats testifying 28. appeal complained judge allowed procedure therefore adversarial. ago. critical light, latter, person, own reasons incriminating Furthermore, data endorsing witnesses. far understood knowledge isolated society real possibility influencing them. anyone pervert course justice, she done some during ten elapsed Now sense that. support claims safe leave liberty, client’s family work situation. 29. 27 dismissed appeal. hearing. accepted existed form showing both person. that, according gone connections abroad, regard. seriousness factor establishment appellate absence well-founded (pagrįstų įrodymų) indicating attempt, either through third parties, victims, individuals, evidence”. Keeping merely yet collected build constitute valid such either. existence testimonies (byloje užfiksuotų parodymų nenuoseklumas) blamed 30. During face-to-face confrontation (akistata) August reaffirmed 31. extended 22 again 20 2005. His hearings. courts charged severe sentence these rulings bombing, 32. wife. She her husband witness directed evidence, warned careful. second half daughter calls men asking meet talk, refused do. funeral wreath front entrance door café owned. gesture veiled threat change testimony. 33. trial. Having aforementioned keeping detained, argument evading justice ever tried, 34. April 2006 guilty finding relied Even slandering observed consistent first line-up Other nine namely former business partners, officer, brother widow. Telephone numerous conversations addition, extracts bank accounts company, customs declarations, municipality illustrated financial dealings 35. eleven passed committed. “without (nepagrįsta)” called for. broken law worked, supported family, children minors, participated public life. posed danger society. lastly officers’ fault punished many impose unjust. Eight deprivation liberty correctional appropriate. spent until counted towards period. 36. An lodged verdict, 2007 acquitted Appeal. − main prosecution site recognising inconsistent, credible contradictory (nelogiški, prieštaraujantys kitiems įrodymams ir nenuoseklūs). giving sought improve position. connection Appeal diminish role plea mitigation 411 old 54 emphasised additional link release stay travel 37. acquit later quashed Court, remitted fresh examination. 38. Before reiterated complaint prosecutor. alleged undue week incident supposedly place. incriminate using means possible. 39. 2009 upholding earlier (nėra nuoseklūs). categorised unfounded (nepagrista), elaborating issue. authorities, suppress assessment, (also 40 41 obligation returned 40. 257 Procedure 53 below), adopted separate noting suspect’s investigators, who, obliged take find her. however, contrary, Kaunas, competitions won participating “Around Lithuania” year border airline passenger least times, worked private company social security contributions. All events conducted. office none inquiries visited officers. confirmed 2006, (paieškos byla) opened 2003 (sulaikytas) Šiauliai town insulted officers released. 41. light above, deliberately unnecessarily (nepagrįstai) measures whereabouts. misled providing them clearly untrue making goals view, determine been. Nevertheless, consequence possible unlawfully almost 2007. Attorney General’s Office actions constituted abuse office, law. apparent approving remand addition [announced prolonging it”. 42. Deputy General committed offence. performed duties properly failing 10, result call questioning. whose accomplices above) hardly measure considered justified interests successful Once whereabouts, immediately places based circumstances lawful. conclude deciding 43. General, requests 14 significant owned wealth gravity suspected. had, moreover, actively exercised defence rights followed restricted lawful basis. 44. investigator executing erratic. deemed disciplinary offence, longer force punished. open ruling 2009. sent inclusion file. 45. 3 instance examination evidence. cassation automatically become less cooperated authorities telling assassination, requested 46. 2011 others debts amounting 280,000 US dollars (USD). five 47. 2012 re-interpreted domestic upheld court’s sentencing eight 2015
|
[
2
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives Yerevan. She is unemployed receives state welfare benefit. 6. On 10 October 1991 the Republic of Armenia Executive Committee Mashtots District Council People’s Deputies decided to allocate a flat building Yerevan, which be constructed by Kanaz Aluminium Factory (hereafter - Factory). 7. It appears that foundation future laid but, as Soviet Union collapsed, construction stopped. 8. an unspecified date went bankrupt liquidation commission commission) set up. 9. on 8 May 2007 lodged request with seeking allocated or receive money equivalent its value. 10. head rejected applicant’s ground building, one applicant, had not been due lack financial means. He stated carried out activities direct support from Government after collapsed it stop projects for 11. 13 June who represented lawyer, claim Arabkir Kanaker-Zeytun Court Yerevan oblige her provide compensation 12. 19 July dismissed same grounds those relied commission. also found declared no legal successor such. 13. 23 still unrepresented, appeal against this judgment. 14. 15 Civil Appeal upheld judgment Court. 15. did lodge points law Cassation. alleges she unable do so could afford hire advocate authorised act before court, whose services were costly. further claims applied many lawyers free regards application However, requests turned down issue concerned apartment aid available type dispute.
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1986 and lives Sofia. 6. On 28 June 2008 a Gay Pride parade took place, for the first time Bulgaria. started at about 4.15 p.m. centre of Sofia, not far from National Palace Culture, drew two hundred fifty to three participants. It covered by forty journalists. conducted under heavy police protection, engaging almost one officers, twenty which wearing anti-riot gear, who were put place protect several extreme right nationalist groups had threatened disrupt it. nevertheless accompanied violent incidents, made more than eighty arrests. 7. At 4.30 that day, six friends his crossing public park behind Culture. They carrying bottles beer allegedly headed meet theirs. According applicant, they aggressive no intention attacking participants or anyone else. operative information submitted Government, part group seventy persons bent on parade. 8. intercepted vans. came out vehicles shouted “put down their bottles”, “fall ground”, “hands heads”, “disperse”. forced everyone lie ground hit them with truncheons kicked them. likewise ground, handcuffed, fists back, shoulders legs. He alleges officer pressed head against boot, suffocating him, only reducing pressure response applicant’s protests. written statement arrested drawn up 14 November 2014 purposes proceedings before this Court Government (the remained unidentified), among visibly inebriated trying aggressively attack did recall using force truncheon solely handcuffs, view unruly conduct. 9. other members pinned half an hour, front many passers-by. A number journalists scene pictures videos. photograph he later found Internet could see pressing back boot. Pictures apparently also taken service photographer Ministry Internal Affairs. 10. together twenty-five thirty persons, then bus nearby station. detention log brought station 7.30 record searched, but search reveal any weapons dangerous objects him. alleged some arrestees left corridor face wall hands legs apart. position hours. During time, officers passed him occasionally ankles so would keep When protested, legs, knees, because knew blows spot leave lasting marks. put, thirty-two very hot stuffy cell measuring nine ten square metres. given food drink, allowed go toilet. questioned minutes, get touch lawyer, medical doctor family, although expressed wish do official form filled 11. In course stay station, served order notice administrative offence, charging refusing obey disperse. note order, released 3.25 a.m. 29 2008. 12. support allegations relation circumstances arrest detention, affidavit September 2011 affidavits 13 detained 13. 1.30 day release, 2008, examined forensic medicine department Sofia Medical University, noted, certificate, following injuries him: (a) double stripe-shaped intensely blueish-purple bruise five centimetres upper shoulder; (b) spotted bruises seven sides one; (c) horizontal purple middle back; (d) blueish (e) eight inside arm, below armpit, lighter zones them, centimetre diameter; (f) similar four third inner forearm; (g) arm; (h) outer shank. shoulder been caused hard blunt elongated narrow object, those arms forearm strong finger-grip, shank kicks. went say all have inflicted manner pain suffering. 14. July gave fine obeying sought judicial review decision. 30 2009 District quashed decision, finding facts set it contradicted witness evidence others proceedings. noted showed ordered holding incompatible disperse mentioned therefore established indeed refused 15. meantime, 10 complained Military Prosecutor’s Office ill-treatment arrest. asked inquire into matter open criminal concerned. enclosed complaint certificate obtained (see paragraph above), photographs injuries, events Internet. 16. supplied sufficient warrant immediate institution proceedings, called preliminary inquiry 35 below). instructed military investigator look gathering available materials taking statements 17. operation, witnesses suggested applicant. report prosecuting authorities, 22 August said that, according officers’ statements, none subjected civilians “police violence”, neither nor able identify 18. 12 Office, elucidated relevant facts, complaints division Directorate Affairs take involved 19. its additional inquiry, 17 October said, based these used seen colleagues theirs so. added stated ill-treated clad identical uniforms helmets. 20. decision 1 pursuant complaint. incident considerable forces mobilised ensure safety parade, risk attacks right-wing groups. Two patrols arrived site after receiving moving armed knuckledusters, empty torches, acts aggression drop ground. This complied without need resort use force. None Moreover, account duly corroborated material file specifically whereas wrists bore traces handcuffing. His neck head, where received blows, injury either. 21. appeal dismissed Appellate January basis equivocally suggest violence”. However, further 6 April Supreme Cassation competent deal case, be sent Office. 22. refusal referred case make clear whether lawful. If used, explanation needed 2008; anything that. contrary necessary determine rendered There however point file. lawfully there error unjustifiably friends. 23. May inquiries elucidating points ascertain identity come physical contact origin above). 24. 2009, provide information. operation “auxiliary means” line requirements section 72(1) Act 2006 paragraphs 31 invite done 25. repeated, verbatim, reasons 20 adding actions recorded concerned, orders reports. 26. appealed arguing general violence during justify absence concrete friends’ ineffectiveness investigation, pointing out, inter alia, investigators interviewed conduct attempted explain injuries. 27. March 2010 City appeal. verbatim repetition pose problem. Since findings fact, reasons. All arguments relating question and, if so, irrelevant. lower prosecutor’s office correctly excessive violence. true suffered prove officers. Even gone beyond what preserve negative effect health. 28. further, reiterating arguments. upheld fully agreeing offices. 29. Chief Prosecutor. final saying 72(1)(5) below) prevent civilians, offices case.
|
[
1
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives Skopje. 6. As established the criminal proceedings described below (see paragraphs 8-18 below), on 6 June 2011 at about 12.20 a.m., I.S., a member of Special Police Forces Unit (Единица за специјални задачи) Ministry Interior (“the Ministry”), killed M.N. central square Skopje during public celebration results parliamentary elections that coincided with local cultural event. killing occurred after attempted to climb onto podium order approach certain high-ranking politicians. After I.S. warned him desist, ran away. followed hit back his neck. result, fell over. continued punching kicking M.N., despite shouting for stop beating him. post-mortem report drawn up by Forensic Institute (Институт Судска Медицина), sustained numerous severe bodily injuries. According report, cause death brain haemorrhage. died 12.30 a.m. courts (contrary I.S.’s testimony) relevant time had not been duty, but attended ceremony private capacity. 7. applicant, officials issued number conflicting statements regarding M.N.’s death, hundreds people gathered main night protest. Ministry’s spokesperson announced 7 police officer suspected having caused thousands took streets Those protests lasted forty days turned into movement called “Stop Brutality” (Стоп на полициската бруталност). On 14 over six thousand signed petition containing several demands, namely authorities establish truth punish those responsible, they introduce legislative, structural other measures concerning operation, employment accountability officials. 8. 8 prosecutor asked an investigating judge open investigation respect related 9. In course this investigation, A.N. (M.N.’s brother) requested Professional Standards Inspectorate PSI”) investigate circumstances surrounding actions officers concerned alleging unidentified committed crimes “assisting offender commission crime” “failure offence or perpetrator”, punishable under Articles 364 365 Criminal Code. 10. 28 PSI replied as follows: “... within Interior, duty 5 between midnight basis operative plan prepared before. activities ended, 12.10 [I.S.] left went, plain clothes car, centre city, where (a event) post-election celebrations were taking place. At around 4 there verbal fight ‘Macedonia’ suspect that, started run ... fallen ground, punched kicked head body. lost consciousness; pulled placed sitting position nearby bench. He bottle water poured it [M.N.’s] resuscitate together persons, [M.N.] greenery car park again helping him, tried revive meantime informed emergency unit. Soon two uniformed officers, who employed secure celebration, arrived scene. unknown destination (Police) inspectors from crime department (Одделение крвни, сексуални и сообраќајни деликти) scene, incident. They (both) did arrive delegated истрага) responsibility conducting on-site inspection. conducted inspection which photos taken. corpse handed reasons death. (post mortem) examination confirmed violent, facts, including interviewing eyewitnesses. 2.30 p.m. himself station (in Skopje). interview held, ordered identity parade eyewitnesses be organised presence prosecutor. submitted complaint murder against I.S... remanded custody 9 one persons moved bench communicated 15 Minister terminated employment.” 11. letter September Ombudsman noted he undertake immediate facts stated incident “was result consequence irresponsible unprofessional conduct part police, [the Ombudsman] repeatedly pointed out.” 12. 3 October brought indictment charging murder. indictment, trial examine twenty-seven witnesses four experts, admit considerable material evidence. 13. commenced Court First Instance court”). court heard thirty witnesses, examined evidence records parade; produced medical experts; expert evidence; photographs; documentary 14. Z.J. P.K., scene stated, particular, before incident, introduced Prime Minister’s security service told them keep eye podium. afterwards, seen chasing calling assistance. When lying unconscious. others trying water. ill (му се слошило) call services. third person, whom know, arrived. removed enable ambulance access more easily. person among greenery. Then remained until came. accepted should have identified person. realized beaten, noticed any visible injuries 15. V.B., State-owned utility (electricity) company, witnessed confirmed, pursued back, hitting upon impact. twice stomach; consciousness. up, arrived, V.B. so would easier stayed next said no 16. That immediately L.K. V.C. (the doctor nurse respectively), soon 17. 16 January 2012 delivered judgment (of forty-three pages) found guilty sentenced fourteen years’ imprisonment. further advised (who joined prosecution legal representative late M.N.) pursue compensation claim means separate civil action damages. 18. July 2012, Appeal upheld lower conviction sentence. May 2013 Supreme dismissed request extraordinary review final (барање вонредно преиспитување правосилна пресуда) courts’ judgments. 19. 12 2011, while underway, Z.J., officer. She alleged P.K. failed determine – instead apprehending allowed leave regards known murdered her son, cover moving reporting perpetrator offence. later D.I.) wrongly drug overdose. consequence, neither nor made abuse office relation (Article Code). 20. 29 December rejected applicant’s complaint, finding grounds suggest D.I. crimes. all available (including case file I.S.), present when determined feeling sick. services notified station. A (no. 025084 2011) staff responded signs violence 21. failure unintentional error urgency need save life committed. although aware Consequently, could intentionally assisted latter removal being amongst aimed facilitating ambulance. control centre, suggested staff, (незнаена смрт), possible addict. Given circumstances, accused taken intention obstructing preventing discovered, concealed contrary, necessary facilitate determination perpetrator’s identity. reported centre. unit (увидна група) 22. March higher prosecutor’s decision lawful correct based material. 23. meantime, 18 subsidiary lodged same counts (abuse office, assisting offender). 24. hearing held 10 three-judge panel recommendation 20 April president adjudicating go ahead. Accordingly, depart 2011. 25. appealed decision, arguing procedural steps place panel. appeal court’s decision. served 2013. 26. 2015 CD-ROM audio transcript English) taped telephone conversations involved, allegedly, direct perpetrator, apparently revealed political opposition respondent State also on-line.
|
[] |
5. The applicants are the son (the first applicant), daughter-in-law second applicant) and wife third of late Garegin Ghuyumchyan. They were born in 1965, 1973 1947 respectively live Vanadzor, Armenia. also Ghuyumchyan’s heirs, according to Armenian civil law. 6. applicant Ghuyumchyan ran a printing house small spirit factory as family business. 7. On 19 July 2002 was charged with bribe‑taking made an undertaking not leave his residence. A truck television set belonging him seized. It appears that he then hired defence lawyer. 8. 25 September investigating authority decided dismiss charge against for lack evidence, lifted seizure cancelled undertaking. after dismissal charge, advocate refused work any longer. 9. In 2004 sold business private person. 10. 29 October instituted proceedings seeking compensation wrongful prosecution. particular, claimed reimbursement legal transport costs. He loss business, alleging result prosecution could run it had sell at low price. 11. 9 January 2006 supplemented claim, their jobs. joined parties having additional claims. 12. 18 May Lori Regional Court granted claim part, ordering costs part As rest dismissed on ground there no causal link between sale or applicants’ leaving jobs 13. 26 lodged request Chamber Advocates Armenia, receive aid. 14. 27 Chairman Armenia informed letter Advocacy Act did provide aid type which involved. 15. 17 November complaint Prosecutor’s Office 4 been beaten by Head Region outcome this is unclear. 16. unspecified date appeal judgment Court. 17. 2007 Civil Appeal delivered its upholding respect travel well fees, but dismissing claim. 18. 22 June Cassation Appeal. 19. By 28 Chief Registrar returned appeal, informing admitted examination licensed act before Cassation, pursuant Article 223 Code Procedure. alleged afford services such advocate. 20. introductory they complained under 6 § 1 denied access 3 (c) lawyer represent compensatory rejected Advocates. Protocol No. domestic courts failed grant full. 21. died heart attack. 22. 10 2008 completed application
|
[
3
] |
6. The applicant was born on 14 July 1946 and lives in Skopje. 7. On 22 January 2008 the Parliament of respondent State passed Additional Requirement for Public Office Act (Закон за определување дополнителен услов вршење на јавна функција – hereafter “the Lustration Act”), which entered into force eight days later. 8. introduced non-collaboration with security services period between 2 August 1944 30 2008, date Act’s coming (hereafter screening period”), as an additional requirement holding public office. In other words, collaboration that became impediment to 9. All incumbent officials candidates office were required submit a statement they had not collaborated above declaration”). apply five years from its entry temporal scope”). 10. also provided establishment Facts Verification Commission (Комисија верификација факти Commission” or Commission”), be set up within sixty force. Its task examine veracity officials’ declarations. members elected by 15 2009. operational late March 11. May 2009 amendments force, adding several provisions primarily respect functioning status members. Also, scope extended, initially envisaged following ten election Commission. 12. 27 2010, petitions abstract constitutional review, Constitutional Court accepted initiative decided institute proceedings review constitutionality Act, including one extending (see paragraph 8 above) beyond adoption current Constitution (17 November 1991). It suspended application those until it their compatibility Constitution. 13. Fierce debate ensued, number politicians severely criticised Court’s decision media European Commission’s Progress Report 9 2010 109 below). For example, 29 coordinator ruling party’s Parliamentary group made statement: “Having mind composition appointed during political zenith [of former President Republic], [the party] believes cancelling lustration’s after 1991 has goal only: prevent citizens Macedonia learning whether Republic his officials, who controlled secret services, actually used structures against opponents.” 14. 4 same MP stated: “We are convinced wants harness Macedonian democracy keep hostage [bound up] web woven service collaborators. People striking back, together collaborators continued ‘snitch’, violate human rights, destroy people’s wage war opponents, even 1991.” 15. By 24 invalidated certain unconstitutional. particular, court held extend 17 1991, present Constitution, incompatible provide 16. Some contrary namely providing publication collaborators’ names Official Gazette, automatic lustration cases where no declaration been submitted, making possible introduce membership governing bodies parties, civic organisations religious communities internal regulations such non-State entities paragraphs 69-71, 78 81 17. date, applicant, at time, media, he, inter alia, commented Parliament’s written response before court: “The is seventeen pages long provides arguments necessity pursue lustration, motives behind [Lustration] adoption, implementation procedure like, but my impression legal presented ... I believe should public. Parliament, response, states ‘in terms, cannot contest scope’.... That considered argument.” 18. September established submitted false accordingly he did meet (the course applicant’s case surrounding circumstances described detail 24-58 19. 25 February 2011 amended second similar ones reintroduced. provision delimiting re-worded way end-date remained open. personal extended cover officers performing duties nature requiring them declarations non-collaboration. 20. 28 2012 again Amendments preceding 19 above). so doing, earlier circumvented view content amendments. 21. repealed new ограничување функција, пристап документи и објавување соработката со органите државната безбедност). 2014 refused legislation. 22. While total eleven false, therefore person Apart only official whose found concerned two journalists. 23. 1 2015 Repealing престанување важење законот функција) According allowed complete, years, any ongoing already issued, may longer ones. Pending issued must discontinued. Section 3 whom she banned time effect becomes final. 24. judge 2003 2011, when dismissed result below 25-58). first State. During removal 56 below) Court. 25. 2009, official, prescribed section 6 67 26. 5 Commission, letter classified confidential, requested Archive direct access all data, files documents available applicant. 27. 12 informed record local branch police Yugoslavia “SFRY”) existed invited consult documentation. 28. around various despite confidential reported allegedly identified collaborator services. speculate 29. deliberations private 16 conformity evidence disposal. notified findings 21 note “strictly confidential” (строго доверливо). He instructed that, under could, days, oral observations findings. replied session 2010. 30. daily Utrinski vesnik published article entitled ‘Judge asks speak publicly about being ‘snitch’’. relevant part reads follows: “Utrinski ‘unofficially’ learns sinned high-school capacity member organisation called ‘United Macedonia’ advocating unification ethnic territories. Once discovered, pressure police, forced disclose organisers.” 31. 23 would September, “when information used” could entirety documentation disposal hour session. 32. open broadcast addressed “opponents lustration”, Prime Minister (signed president party) stated, revealed now crystal clear sitting Court, nominated Republic, centres power, legislative reforms Government. claimed hindering process. strategy terms: “Attack [ruling [protect] declared Accuse Minister] [process] [he] accuse you becoming services’ scrapped whole range Minister’s] reforms, pose question why Republic] [secret] what centre power still controls ‘collaborator’.” “Нападни го ВМРО-ДПМНЕ, да затскриеш Уставниот суд чиј член Комисијата јавно се изјасни дека бил соработник тајните служби. Обвини Груевски ја кочи лустрацијата, не те обвини стана кристално јасно тајни служби од му сруши цела палета реформи постави прашање зошто Бранко Црвенковски предложи судија Уставен тоа лице кое било службите кој е тој центар моќ уште диригира ‘соработникот’.” 33. objected imposed constraints regarding possession 31 turn, immediately him compiled SFRY well consulted day. 34. Those forming police. contains fifty typed reports forms. appears 1964 interrogated connection involvement nationalist group, registered pseudonym “Lambe”. “proposal registration” 1964, signed inspector, I.K., approached “he gladly agreed it, [saying] do anything [security] service, father school find out”. A “questionnaire” handwritten 10 1965, states, recruited ground “compromising material” received material benefit exchange collaboration. compromising noted another questionnaire 1968 where, next “Lambe”, there “and Lamda”. dates 1966, composed mostly inspector relied “Lambe” source information, conversations statements some university students social issues time. verbally; few file based letters (which file). There copies payment receipts dated December 1965 proposal 1983 deregistration “Lamda”. referred name 1970s student Technical Faculty, working municipal Communist Party. 35. premises, meeting room twenty square metres. large representatives present. 36. session, denied initial findings, calling declaration. disputed authenticity on, neither nor them, contained therein forged, taken others’ added record. further signatures receipts, indicated money alleged confusion different pseudonyms (“Lambe” “Lamda”) appearing file, identity them. episode minor coerced having contact due misused. 37. responded Minister’s 32 means letter. finds this attack culmination continual attacks points out went powers conferred because right assess legitimacy decisions rather [was obliged] ensure unhindered implementation. considers actions indicate [either] profound ignorance, disrespect order, point undermining it. Using single [pending] stigmatise collective body reminds us events past repeated democratic society.” 38. objection accordance available, consequently fulfil record, list twenty-two documents. summarised contents stated begun collaborating deregistered 1983, activities monitored reasons evident paid “... From data [secret SFRY] rubric ‘collaboration relationship’ applicant] police] material. started early who, proposed network, ‘he service’, allocated later delivered police]. officially documentation, drafted Internal Affairs Unit Strumica, pages, giving schoolmates, [information] youth Strumica. four reports, apparent Skopje, gave faculties, concerning individuals dissatisfied authorities weak interest situation Macedonians Aegean [in Greece] Pirin Bulgaria] Macedonia, wrongs committed western Macedonia. sums 10,000 20,000 [Yugoslav] dinars him. His ended employed Municipality Karpoš active network. took account applicant], expressed disagreement [applicant’s] relevant. [It further] non-collaboration] line therewith documents] does 2(1) [and] 4(4) Act.” 39. served confidential”. 40. correspondence October copy purposes seeking judicial decision. (препис), originals Archive; advised look there. Upon request day, Archive, either day 41. pointed inconsistencies inventory simply was, listed title without inspecting contents, authorised so. Finally, supervision. 42. brought action Administrative complained unfair errors fact law. Rules Procedure adopted, have done ex lege commencing proceedings. been, planned, followed camera 35-36 above), opportunity fully file. 43. time-limit preparation appeal effectively reduced, since 40-41 obvious discrepancies to. suggested obtaining opinion expert graphology (графолошко вештачење) regards comparing sent reference confused “Lamda”, given law graduate Skopje City administration thus Party, ever studied Faculty 34 evidence, asked hearing held, leave invite assistant (стручен помагач), Mr I.B., professor intelligence retired staff clarifying methods practices opening maintenance records. 44. reply, firstly documents, then mentioned “forty-seven documents”, reply 45. 26 presence lodged competence ratione materiae case. 46. hearing, withdrew court’s jurisdiction 44 I.B. 43 testimony examined. excluded record) consideration. 47. judgment action. judgment, twenty-seven identical Archive. obliged determine (вештачења) criminal conduct adversarial admit records obtain checking rejected. concluded immaterial (беспредметно) payments (non-pecuniary) benefits suffice someone deemed terms Act. Parts 48. presiding Ms L.K., shortly afterwards, promoted newly High 49. plaintiff’s applicant’s] representative reiterated advanced expanded stating ill-founded [He argued that] assessed none. [In particular,] plaintiff collaborate police], consent regard, accepted. Moreover, mechanical analysis quoting paraphrasing no. 12736 basis reached wrong conclusion, failing establish facts complexity clarification, [Administrative] court, upon plaintiff, heard помагач). (изврши увид) compared plaintiff. [plaintiff’s] claim, [Commission’s] [thereto], submissions examined impugned 37 Disputes found: [Administrative Disputes] administrative contested if wrongly applied preceded conducted rules procedure, correctly, correctly collaboration, meaning conscious, secret, organised continuous cooperation activity document, informant ‘secret collaborator’) collecting persons, violation [their] basic rights freedom ideological-political grounds, gain employment career advancement obtained [by collaborator] Relying above, acting fact-verification proceedings, lawful consciously, secretly, continuously collected subject processing, storage use Such original kept Having checks [fact-verification procedure] created predecessors [thus reliable evidence] assessment, argument prevented participation ill-founded, evidence. Regarding plaintiff’s] [having adopted beforehand] irrelevant regulation only] regulate [which] This complaint [factual Commission]. particular part, moment ‘facts’ [underlying] [also] submissions. view] hold treat [Such complaints] support As earlier, familiarised himself content, own [contained record], facts, many shortcomings, both formal substantive, none appended these quote ‘Lambe’ while [cites] pseudonym, ‘Lamda’. [The because] operation clarified explained methodology purpose gathering collection assessment [former accept complaints minor, adult. fact, complains] take each signature, easily graphology, whereby calls of] [where argues] bogus (спакувани) planted (подметнати) aware consented [registration], misinterpretation oppressed nationalism transformed collaborator. dismissal comes verifying establishing legally bound through system genuine [, reliable] offences which, addition Criminal Code, sanctioned sections 36 bar initiating prove allegations. hand, writing, most contacts. grant [some] handwriting receipts. not, conditions place, bearing stipulating [not [but also] [may suffice].” 50. Supreme misgivings overall fairness documentary quoted acts produced differed. completely misinterpreted assistant, annexed finding powers, failed ordered otherwise appeal, whereupon reply. 51. upheld checked “original documentation” established. analysed remaining complaints, relevance produce outcome. arguments, procedures produced. 52. Judge V.S. fill vacancy caused 57 sat panel and, according acted rapporteur (известител) 53. appellant, can indisputably manner appellant gathered processed, stored way, people [who service] violated ideological grounds. Bearing definition informant. adduced disputes ill-founded. opinion, first-instance correct careful thorough every piece separately Assessing call court. possibility outcome opened ideas had, independence people. Specifically, hostile nationalism. However, network collaborator, age eighteen. appellant’s never registration deregistration, lead factual assistant’s needed, secrecy procedure. Trendafil Ivanovski, These correspond recorded doubt refer appellant. disregarded just match. regarded [reliable evidence], receiving strictly formalised. were, usually verbally. genuine, necessary report supported denies signature (правилник) existed, cash, recipient money], conclude obtained. decisive substantive action.” 54. 2011. 55. 11 become 56. April relying conclusion acknowledged fulfilled requirement, experts’ debates Gazette. 57. last elections, 52 position vacated dismissal. 58. closely international community State, notably “have raised concerns judiciary” United States Department Human Rights references tensions Government 59. Meanwhile, filed Prosecution alleging submitting offence defined Article 366a Code 79 97 60. prosecutor complaint, elements question. her reasoning, principle immediacy, constitute act rise
|
[
3,
4
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives Lviv. 6. In the 1990s a group of scholars, including applicant, who history professor at Lviv Institute Internal Affairs relevant time, conducted research series field studies, resulting manuscript on archaeology Kosiv area between ninth eighteenth centuries. 7. July 1997 L., private publishing house based Ivano-Frankivsk (“the house”), published five hundred copies book following donation from local business, apparently solicited with assistance Kosivskyy District Administration Administration”). under title Area Antiquities (“Cтарожитності Косівщини”). cover pages stated that it an “academic edition” containing “essays about history” aegis intended “for students, teachers, ethnographers, all those interested area”. 8. Pages 12-13 featuring applicant’s essay entitled “From Past Area” described economic hardships faced by inhabitants seventeenth two paragraphs concerning above period included text: “Today, as old days, complaints are only means protest available to villagers townsfolk against arbitrariness administration ... M.L. [full name given], mayor village Kosmach, behaves like omnipotent feudal prince. Before last elections he disbanded election committee, selected people loyal him new members submitted list for approval district authorities days after legal deadline had passed. This committee took extra day ‘the counting’ votes cast his chosen deputies. Subsequently acted outrageously towards L.V. category one disabled citizen. Following decision council, plot land taken away ownership transferred carpenter constructed M.L.’s summer kitchen. Council (headed M.Kh. given]) knows these shocking examples corruption; however, has never found time redress them. Meanwhile, wasted no agreeing restitution which been confiscated father-in-law (who once committed aggravated embezzlement State property) since Yablunivka hospital. It is such shame some officials not true servants people, but leeches traitors their countrymen, consciously undermining authority young eyes population. As olden respect lords, today there them; why they act so daringly impunity. because fortuitous corrupt ‘rulers’ independent Ukraine cannot rise its feet.” 9. On 12 December drafted statement claim house, seeking retraction passage, republication passage removed, compensation non-pecuniary damage. alleged received fifty personally. other four had, material hands Administration, patron sponsor studies publication, distribute books libraries schools. also maintained statements unsubstantiated, insulting defamatory. addition, question appeared context centuries, made them grossly irrelevant purpose publication. 10. 30 April 1998 form stamped “received” Court. 11. 29 May court case consideration City Court Court”) same town house. various dates unsuccessfully challenged territorial jurisdiction court, transfer 12. 3 March 1999 commenced examination case. 13. Between January 2000 scheduled adjourned hearings. Two were owing financial constraints precluding sending out correspondence good third account judge having scheduling conflict fourth representative absent. 14. 18 February held hearing admitted party proceedings. At request order archive which, according him, would prove veracity statements. 15. October more hearings, or parties failed appear. 16. 5 where confirmed remaining placed disposal Administration. 17. date delivered judgment. disputed false defamatory ordered return possession further obliged latter reprint expense removed it. Lastly, awarded 5,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) damage, be paid applicant. 18. 13 lodged “cassation appeal” this He noted, particular, evidence whatsoever “disseminated”, any person than himself read personally book, destroyed action him. could have deemed “disseminated”. 19. filed objection submitted, number statements, already distributed school libraries, earlier claimed book. letters Head Deputy expressed indignation fact gratuitous attack reputation suggested may done revenge refusal allot mother. 20. 31 Regional dismissed cassation appeal judgment became final. 21. did According instead recipients, cut contained text. 22. 11 2001 Presidium quashed judgments supervisory review (протест) remitted fresh examination. 23. counterclaim within framework initial defamation referred purported shortcomings official conduct mayor, complaining simply sought compromise among colleagues general public. complained disparaging article newspaper, damage several purportedly issue. counter-claim joined together brought 24. September appealed decision, court. 25. Appeal (the former Court) Court, noted started examining case, grounds another occasions rejected requests presiding 26. 2002 hearings failure 27. heard judgment, allowing part dismissing counterclaim. follows: “Having [and] examined materials file, considers should allowed grounds. Statements [M.L.], ‘an prince’, brutally breached legislation rebutted decisions June 1994 civil division 19 follows claimant law, deputies annulment lists committees dismissed. [M.L.] [L.V.] Kosmach Village 14 grant [L.V.]; settlement matter [O.L. (M.L.’s spouse)] Y.S. privatisation certificate issued Y.S.’s . arbitrarily used work... inserted unsubstantiated evidence. Regard being liability [applicant], gravity harm inflicted plaintiff public ..., publication negatively affected image acquaintances fellow villagers; 450 widely ([by] schools administration) [the applicant], disseminated, regard invested judicial direct applicant] inflicting harm, awarded”. 28. next UAH retracted. operative “the L. shall publish erratum sheets (додатки) Antiquities, retracting (mentioned above) do reflect reality, applicant].” 29. appealed. challenged, court’s findings impugned information disseminated widely, claiming established exactly 30. 2003 upheld claim, endorsing reasoning sufficient. sufficient reasons rejecting 31. appeal, Article 10 Convention provisions national law guaranteeing freedom speech, alleging indicative political repression lower courts overturned. maintained, final three sentences value unnamed mayor. afford pay damages. Moreover, whether actually suffered established. lodged. later public, breach requiring reprinting. Nevertheless, reached employees controversial pages, authors’ copyright. What become Even if obtained access mayor’s significant way, recapitulated reported common knowledge. support allegation, numerous newspaper articles criticising individuals offended ways. documents served true, understand how draft 32. objections appeal. contended, before distributing 33. allegations award disproportionate income speculative, disclosed income. 34. stayed pending 35. 1 2004 Supreme leave cassation. 36. Bailiff Service instituted enforcement proceedings course bound debt instalments 20% main (retirement pension). appears full 2007. 37. 2005 seven M.L., either parties’ absence unavailability recording equipment. 38. Department Education Science informed 1998, thirty-five schools, others Department’s library. None missing. acting person, recepients, notifying courts. 39. 16 November vexatious. 40. 2006 21 2008 Rivne Appeal, cassation, 41. 23 2007 bailiffs enforced 2002. file pursue further. 42. 25 comply either. 43. 2015 claimed, unlawfully “pseudo-retraction” defamatory, resulted copyright denigration dignity. currently pending.
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1934 and lives Yerevan. 6. She owned a plot of land which measured 815 sq. m. situated the centre also two houses garage on plot. It appears that shared her household with four children. 7. Before 1993 applicant, without permission, built pavilion (շվաքարան) measuring about 230 m she used as venue for trade. featured ownership certificate issued to 30 November 1998 “half-ruined construction”. 8. On 1 August 2002 Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving expropriation zones real estate within administrative boundaries Kentron District Yerevan be taken State needs, having total area 345,000 applicant’s fell one such zone. 9. 7 May 2004 applied notary office request donate property children seeking make transaction official. 10. refused this request, reference stating an 11. contested refusal before courts. 14 June Nork-Marash Court dismissed claim. lodged appeal. 12. 28 July Civil Appeal granted claim ordered formalise transaction. found violation law since derived from Article 163 Code. Besides, 1151-N did not envisage any limitations type sought conclude. No appeal against judgment, entered into force. 13. unspecified date Real Estate Registry (“SRER”), divide parts transfer requested title registered respect pavilion. 14. 23 February SRER both requests. As regards second it referred 221 Code 1748‑N. 15. 16. In proceedings representative submitted had been because zone included unauthorised constructions. Its division would contrary Decrees nos. 2020‑N. 17. 20 decided dismiss sole owner question groundless seek its or sever part it. registration pavilion, similarly zone, while procedure prescribed by 1748-N, pursuant paragraph 3, apply constructions plots falling zones. 18. 19. 29 April 2005 upheld judgment Court. have divided parts, 2020-N. register recapitulated findings 20. 12 points law. argued ignored made final 2004. Furthermore, fact could serve basis restricting rights enjoyed under further immovable deprived right receive compensation at time expropriation. 21. 17 Cassation same grounds.
|
[
9
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives Chişinău. 6. On 21 August 2009 the arrested charged with offence of producing putting into circulation counterfeit money. Since then he has remained remanded custody pending criminal investigation trial. detention warrants were prolonged every month initially three months once case had reached Ialoveni District Court. Each time reasons given for that been accused a serious punishable imprisonment up to fifteen years, complex that, if released, might interfere or collude other co-accused, abscond re-offend. 7. last two extensions applicant’s before lodging present application took place on unspecified dates May 2011. argued there no risk his interfering since all witnesses parties proceedings already heard evidence examined by court. He also submitted believe would re-offend agreed be placed under house arrest could not released. according Article 186 § 8 Code Criminal Procedure, referred court, longer than six months, exceptional cases. 8. Court dismissed arguments and, relying same grounds as before, extended further months. court stated within meaning 9 Procedure. decisions 2011 contain similar wording. appeals against them rejected Appeal. 9. 30 January 2012 convicted sentenced seven years’ imprisonment. informed about final outcome proceedings.
|
[
2
] |
6. The applicant was born in 1991. He is currently detained a special facility for temporary detention of foreign nationals Moscow. 7. an ethnic Uzbek who lived Jalal-Abad Region, Kyrgyzstan. In June 2010 the region scene mass disorders and inter-ethnic clashes between Uzbeks Kyrgyz. 8. present at barricades raised by near Suzak village. On 12 he wounded Molotov cocktail admitted to hospital on account severe burns. released from 24 2010. 9. Eventually fled Kyrgyzstan Russia, together with many other Uzbeks, avoid ethnically motivated violence. 10. 2012 Kyrgyz authorities opened criminal case against charging him number violent crimes allegedly committed course riots 26 District Court ordered absentia applicant’s detention. 11. 27 January 2015 arrested Moscow because not carrying identity document. placed Special Facility Temporary Detention Foreign Nationals, (“the centre aliens”), run Russian Federal Migration Authority FMS”). 12. 28 Gagarinskiy Court, district court”) found guilty administrative offence punishable under Article 18.8 § 3 (“breach rules entry stay Moscow, St Petersburg, Region Leningrad Region”) Code Administrative Offences CAO”) sentenced as follows: “[...] punishment form fine amount 5,000 roubles (RUB) [combined] removal placement nationals, [where will remain] until into force that decision Federation 32.10 Offences”. 13. 4 February appealed Court’s arguing would be subjected ill‑treatment like Uzbeks. It appears appeal documentation reached 2015. hearing scheduled 10 March but then postponed 20 14. granted request interim measures indicated Government should expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed Russia another country duration proceedings before Court. 15. relatives were told officials aliens day. At about 8.30 p.m. contacted his lawyer stating Sheremetyevo Airport 9.30 arrived airport informed border control personnel had boarded plane Bishkek, State bailiffs been brought later returned aliens. duty officer confirmed back facility. 16. City Appeal Court”) upheld appeal. dismissed allegations risk “the documents submitted [applicant’s] defence d[id] demonstrate breach rights freedoms person question” reasoned “[a]ssessment actions law-enforcement agencies State, well [legal] acts carried out them f[ell] outside subject-matter jurisdiction court examining concerning national”. 17. April have suspended” “continues held department Service” 18. applied refugee status face persecution based origin. 19. FMS status. parties provided copy decision. 20. challenged Basmannyy are pending. 21. According applicant, severely beaten officers police squad received rubber-truncheon blows back, buttocks heels. 22. notified accordingly mobile phone photos injured back. 23. 25 two lawyers visited along several persons awaiting expulsion detainees regular beatings begun 17 following unsuccessful suicide attempts inmates. claimed rubber truncheons heels buttocks. 24. reported main investigative Investigative Committee. They emphasised medical staff refused enter detainees’ injuries logs. requested detainees, including investigated. support their they enclosed, among things, showing 25. 19 lawyers’ complaint forwarded Troitskiy investigation 26. no alleged has instituted.
|
[
1,
2
] |
5. The applicants were born in 1962 and 1994 respectively live Makhachkala, Republic of Dagestan, Russia. They are the mother wife Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev, who was 1990. 6. At material time Abakargadzhiyev applicants, along with other relatives, lived together at 115A Magomed Dalgata Street, Dagestan. According to for about eighteen months prior events question had been suspected illegal activities followed by Dagestani law enforcement agencies, particular Centre against Extremism Dagestan Ministry Interior (“the CPE”) (Центр по Борьбе с Экстремизмом МВД Республике Дагестан (ЦПЭ)). 7. 6 p.m. on 20 May 2013 drove his white GAZ Volga-3110 car Engelsa Street visit a ten-minute drive from house Makhachkala. 6.45 stopped he abducted group eight armed men driving two civilian vehicles: silver-coloured VAZ-21014, which registration number partially read “A067”, black VAZ-21099. dressed clothing masked. applicants’ relative, Ub.Ub., called during abduction upon hearing him screaming immediately informed that there problem. Directly after first applicant, went Abakargadzhiyev’s route found street police vehicles officers Sovetskiy district station Makhachkala ROVD”) (Советский районный отдел внутренних дел (РОВД)) next it. told applicant Ub.Ub. they arrived couple minutes ago few their arrival man abducted. wait home telephone call took premises ROVD. 8. Approximately twenty days abduction, is say between 9 12 June 2013, CPE searched house. 9. About month events, or around obtained video footage local resident (see paragraph 23 below). recognised one abductors voice as officer named “Shakir” authorities this. 10. On 1 July burnt male corpse five kilometres Gurbuki village Karabudakhkenstrkiy 11. December body identified 53 relatives disagreed conclusion paragraphs 54-55 12. have no news since abduction. (b) Government’s submission 13. Government did not dispute facts presented but denied any involvement State agents incident. 14. In reply Court’s request copy contents investigation file, provided ninety-eight copied pages documents it reflecting steps taken 14 26 October 2013. 15. further submitted 372 relevant documents, some illegible. legible can be summarised follows. 16. Immediately incident ROVD, gave statements investigator. also conducted own search eye witnesses several them nearby shops blocks flats. investigators findings (see, example, 17. then 24 complained investigations department department”). second complaint stated that, opinion, wilfully postponing 18. 3 examined crime scene. No evidence collected. 19. abducted; fingerprints collected chassis vehicle. same date forensic examination ordered. 20. opened criminal case no. 302564 into thereof. 21. 18 granted father, A.A., victim status questioned him. His statement similar account Court. witness stated, amongst things, witnessed learnt relatives. witness, son unpaid debts personal enemies mobile 8-903-481-61-47. 22. whose concerning before 23. shortly initial accordingly. As result, 21 Ma.Ma. smoking balcony when heard arguing. He looked out seen six seven masked pistols hands. Four those trying pull driver latter resisting. Then started beating somehow managed seat back car. Three got inside three carried immobilised put silver‑coloured VAZ-2114. all driven off VAZ-21099 afterwards gone outside asked passerby police. recorded camera CD. 24. date, seized made 25 video, 25. applicant’s mother, Ms G.G., She her 26. addition samples saliva DNA testing its database. 27. August ordered comparison 28. 30 again she received text messages unknown numbers. message contained following: “Congratulations, your became shahid path jihad ... Allah accept shahada take gardens Firdous. Allahu Akbar!” “...Your son-in-law set up neighbour Makhmud worked 7th [of police]. If you don’t believe it, follow I could do nothing nobody help me eliminate This beast spares one. hope will way out. My brother only tower strength my life. Friend.” 29. examine above messages. It established 15 located day Popovicha Makhachkala; – came different number. 30. 5 September requested District Court grant permission obtain phone operator logs (8-903-481-61-47) April 31. court’s calls. logs, 6.35 Ub.Ub handset switched off. 16 five-second number; caller area Dachi 32. morning introduced himself an Federal Security Service FSB”) (Федеральная Служба Безопасности (ФСБ)) holding Abakargadzhiyev. man, 8‑988-059-41-98, would release exchange 250,000 Russian roubles (RUB). passed husband RUB 150,000 pay 50,000 once 100,000 son’s release. being held ten twelve hour bad state health. Between 10 a.m. (5 2013) each times. deposit 8-964-519-62-69, done day. confirmed receipt money call. But disconnected 33. experts 19 above) fit identification. thereof 34. 8-988-059-41-98 (used alleged FSB Permission 4 35. 7 36. 37. 8-988-059-41-98. these contacted 32 Volgograd. 38. order expert analysis above); according her, belonging Shakir whom able identify if necessary. compare abductor’s Shakir. 39. analyse video. 40. T.G. scene neighbours. 41. 28 A.A. duty ROVD towed away left behind station. After picked unnamed individual. 42. November N., CPE, information pertaining participated 8 above). search, spoken visited A.Ub., groups. assistance A.Ub. refused Due passage recall where evening met special operation witness’ 8-967-395-69-75 using 2012. 43. forces servicemen law-enforcement aiding members Twenty-four middle son. 44. used paragaph list, Volgograd, 45. voices unspecified concluded identification 47 46. 11 N. 42 47. internal inquiry allegations concluded, “... Investigations Department R.M., enclosed complaint, involved directly indicate Ra.M. Shakir; posted Youtube under title “Abduction S. Abakargadzhiyev”. operational given inquiry, colleagues departure, ensure appear CPE. latter, related listed CPE’s database supporter terrorist groups, report enquiries later arrested charged crimes investigated. arrest, father Captain assist persuading lenient towards son, requests detainee, M.D., court addition, explained ardent Wahabiism occasions aided particular, S.Gu., attack traffic near Agachul February When questioned, head divison Ra.M., neither nor subordinate anything lies connection 30284. planned attempts lives committed S.G., A.Kh., G.A. arrest detain measures him... file Abakargadzhiyev” imposssible therein Thus, verify complaints unlawful actions owing significant discrepancies inquiry; resolved within framework ...” 48. N.’s 49. M.U., fingerprinted 33 else touched vehicle until examination. 50. suspended. 51. January 2014 resumed decision north-west this, Kaspiysk 329105 52. 29 329105. contents, 99.93% match database, shown results 53. 2014, having cases nos. joined 302564. VAZ-2107 home-made explosive device detonated. 54. March actual corpse, photograph tell Abakargadzhiyev: police, least gold teeth; any. 55. circumstances another outcome this unknown. 56. appears proceedings still pending.
|
[
0
] |
5. The applicant party was founded in 2007 and is based Aurich. It claims to represent the interests of Frisian minority Germany but limits its political activities Land Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) where East Frisians traditionally settle. estimates number people origin within territory at about 100,000 out total population approximately 7,900,000. have their own language cultural identity which similar among West Netherlands North Schleswig-Holstein, while mainly stopped speaking language. 6. Under Electoral Law (Niedersächsisches Landeswahlgesetz, see relevant domestic law, paragraph 16 below), parliamentary seats – apart from those attributed candidates obtaining majority votes constituency are allocated under D’Hondt system proportional representation. section 33 § 3 Law, only parties obtain a minimum threshold 5% validly cast. This also included Article 8 Saxonian Constitution (see 15 below). 7. By letter 27 September Prime Minister by 17 December President Parliament, asked be granted an exemption for upcoming elections. request refused. 8. In elections January 2008, attained overall 10,069 votes, amounting 0.3% all Irrespective threshold, received would not been sufficient mandate. 9. On 6 March 2008 lodged objection against validity election result. submitted, particular, that it represented residing Saxony. formed national meaning Framework Convention Protection National Minorities (“the Convention”, ETS No. 157, Council Europe documents, paragraphs 20-23 complained, resulted factual exclusion participating amounted discriminatory treatment vis‑à‑vis other small were, least theoretically, capable reaching threshold. further relied on 14 conjunction with Protocol 1 Convention. 10. 9 May Election Supervisor (Landeswahlleiter), jointly Ministry Interior, submitted written comments objection. They considered, firstly, doubtful whether group qualified as minority. declaration German Government when signing Convention, Danes citizenship members Sorbian were recognised minorities Federal Republic Germany. Conversely, merely stated applied ethnic citizenship. thus clear wording did qualify Even assuming had status minority, this necessarily entail obligation exempt votes. There no such Basic or constitution Neither could derived (Bundeswahlgesetz), Länder competent pass electoral laws without being bound Law. privileges enjoyed Danish Minority Party Schleswig-Holstein allow any conclusions, protection promotion prescribed respective Land. Finally, again Frisians, questionable assessment question depend party’s vision itself, legal circumstances. 11. 2 February 2009 Parliamentary Committee Scrutiny Elections (Wahlprüfungsausschuss) held public hearing 12. 19 Parliament rejected unfounded. Relying submissions made considered neither Saxony, nor International followed applicant’s 13. April complaint Constitutional Court (Niedersächsischer Staatsgerichtshof). requested quash decision declare result invalid; or, alternatively, unconstitutional. 14. 30 2010 observed, outset, provisions minorities. interfered principle equality vote. interference justified because pursued legitimate aim safeguarding functioning elected parliament. work democracy necessitated parliaments remain able take decisions they inhibited participation splinter parties. referred case-law regarding true certain provided exemptions. was, case minorities, Laws Brandenburg providing exemptions respectively. However, both special rights constitutions. No found declared provision constitutional, even though contain emphasised legislator margin appreciation respect. finally alleged right European Human Rights court left undecided how create conditions necessary effective persons belonging affairs. contracting wide Germany, life already guaranteed constitutional system. including exemption, Assembly given precedence parliament over granting Accordingly, find determine
|
[] |
5. The applicant was born in 1980 and lives Pleven. 6. On 25 April 2012 he arrested Sofia subsequently charged with the unlawful possession of firearms ammunition. He remained detention on remand throughout pre-trial proceedings. Eventually entered into a plea agreement prosecution, acknowledging that had committed offence been accepting suspended sentence two years’ imprisonment. 7. approved at court hearing before District Court 7 June 2012. court’s decision final. At end hearing, 5.16 p.m., ordered discontinuation applicant’s detention. 8. After brought to Investigative Service, where his formally discontinued about p.m. However, not released but instead taken police station, night next day. morning 9 transferred city Pleven where, by an order issued 12.10 once again placed custody. That measure context another set criminal proceedings against which instigated 10 investigator charge case charges connection count firearms. 9. In Court, Government submitted dated 8 2012, requiring be appear her have him. referred, particular, Article 71 §§ 1, 2 3 Code Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 12 below) and, way justifying need bring force, stated there risk absconding. explained time received Sofia, it become impossible organise transfer same is why kept station overnight only transported day,
|
[
2
] |
4. The applicant was born in 1967 and lives Kalush. 5. On 4 November 2006 the applicant’s daughter, Ms S.V., 1997, two other individuals, L.M. V.K., stayed overnight at a private house. morning of 5 V.K. were found dead room where they had been sleeping. 6. an unspecified date after incident committee composed five employees gas company conducted inquiry into drew up report (“the internal report”). According to report, visited scene on observed that accident occurred window with vent for ventilation, but it closed time examination. All equipment house good working order heater’s flue adequate draught. went note night Mrs M.T. turned heater sleeping, door left unsupervised. took view caused by strong wind M.T.’s failure check heater. 7. Between 14 24 May 2012 prosecutor’s office refused eleven times institute criminal proceedings respect death. those decisions overruled supervising prosecutors or courts as being premature owing incompleteness investigation need conduct additional investigative measures. 8. 25 January 2013, following entry force new Code Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 11 below), initiated actions suspicion neglect official duties connection death daughter. An effect made Unified Register Pre-Trial Investigations. 9. Thereafter police twice discontinued investigation, 21 December 2013 15 2014, lack corpus delicti company’s employees. Those 3 February 2014 19 August 2015 respectively.
|
[
0
] |
5. The first applicant, Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete (“MTE”) is an association seated in Budapest. It the self-regulatory body of Hungarian Internet content providers, monitoring implementation a professional code providing and ethics, as well operating arbitration commission whose decision are binding on its eleven members. second Index.hu Zrt (“Index”) company limited by shares, owner one major news portals Hungary. 6. At material time both applicants allowed users to comment publications appearing their portals. Comments could be uploaded following registration were not previously edited or moderated applicants. 7. advised readers, form disclaimers, that comments did reflect portals’ own opinion authors responsible for contents. 8. Both put place system notice-and-take-down, namely, any reader notify service provider concern request deletion. In addition, case Index, partially moderated, removed, if necessary. 9. stated infringing personality rights others websites. 10. Index’s “Principles moderation” contained following: “I. Deletion 1. that, at posting, infringe laws Hungary, indicate incite crime other unlawful act... 3. vulgar, aggressive, threatening comments. What aggressive has decided moderators, light given topic...” 11. On 5 February 2010 MTE published under title “Another unethical commercial conduct net” about two real estate management websites, owned same company. According opinion, websites provided thirty-day long advertising free charge. Following expiry period, became subject fee; this without prior notification users. This was possible because, registering website, accepted terms conditions stipulating they changed unilaterally provider. also noted removed obsolete advertisements personal data from only overdue charges paid. concluded misleading. 12. attracted some users, acting pseudonyms, amongst which there “They have talked these rubbish (“két szemét ingatlanos oldalról”) thousand times already.” “Is Benkő-Sándor-sort-of sly, rubbish, mug (“benkősándoros sunyi lehúzó cég”) again? I ran into it years ago, since then kept sending me emails my debts that. am above 100,000 [Hungarian forints] now. paid going to. That’s it.” 13. 8 portal www.vg.hu, operated Zöld Újság Zrt, reproduced word scandal”. 14. consumer protection column Index wrote “Content providers condemn [one incriminated property websites]”, publishing full text opinion. One user posted pseudonym read follows: “People like should go shit hedgehog spend all money mothers’ tombs until drop dead.” (“Azért az ilyenek szarjanak sünt és költsék összes bevételüket anyjuk sírjára, amíg meg nem dögölnek.”) 15. 17 concerned brought civil action before Budapest Regional Court against Zrt. plaintiff claimed false offensive, subsequent had infringed right good reputation. Once learning impending court action, impugned once. 16. counterclaims Court, argued they, intermediary publishers Act no. CVIII 2001, liable They business practice plaintiff, affecting wide ranges consumers, numerous complaints organs prompted several procedures 17. 31 March 2011 sustained claim, holding plaintiff’s reputation been infringed. As preliminary remark, observed bodies instituted various proceedings company, informed clients adequately policies. found (see paragraphs 12 14 above) insulting humiliating went beyond acceptable limits freedom expression. rejected applicants’ argument intermediaries sole obligation remove certain contents, complaint. constituted content, fell category readers’ letters respondents enabling publication, notwithstanding fact later them. regards such, contributed on-going social debate questionable exceed level criticism. 18. parties appealed. appeal requested them offensive Nonetheless, done so soon action. users’ distinguished letters, latter basis editorial decisions, whereas constitute content. respect comments, acted information storage. 19. 27 October Appeal upheld essence first-instance but amended reasoning. ordered each applicant pay 5,000 forints (HUF) HUF 36,000 second-instance procedural fee. 20. held – opposed publication dependent decisions unedited, reflected opinions commenters. Notwithstanding website court’s reasoning, transposing Directive 2000/31/EC Electronic Commerce law, apply related electronic services nature, particular purchases through Internet. Under section 2(3) Act, society-related purpose sale, purchase exchange tangible moveable property, situation case. event, pursuant 1(4), scope extend expressions made persons outside sphere economic activities public duties, even uttered connection with For Appeal, private utterances fall 2001 Commercial Services. Thus, no reason assess meaning ‘hosting providers’ ‘intermediaries’ Act. applicability Civil Code rules rights, notably Article 78. Since injurious bore objective liability irrespectively removal, relevant assessment compensation. 21. lodged petition review Kúria. interpretation monitor edit readers 22. 13 June 2012 Kúria previous judgments. stressed applicants, make assumed those readers. escape contents than removing third party. 2(lc) invoke hosting providers. shared Appeal’s view finding capable harming consisted having publication. imposed 75,000 costs, including costs legal representation. served 2 2012. 23. introduced constitutional complaint 3 January 2013, arguing courts’ rulings amounted unjustified restriction 24. 11 2013 Constitutional declared admissible. 25. May 2014 dismissed complaint, (decision 19/2014. (V.30.) AB). analysis proportionality interference, explained absence unconstitutionality follows. “[43] Kúria’s judgment, operator webpage moderate identities primarily responsible, unless figuring nominatively, unknown; reason, lies webpage. [44] present case, aggrieved fundamental expression elements, press. [50] doubt blogs such attract Chapter IX Fundamental Law. [59] incumbent obviously restricts press includes, doubt, communication [63] legislation pursues constitutionally justified aim. suitable webpage, person hardly receive compensation grievance. However, open perspectives: proportionate hold proved unlawful; moreover, extent (that is, amount compensation) proportionate? [65] If based very itself, distinguish between non-moderated regard question. ... already author applied order protect constitutional.”
|
[
6
] |
5. Ms N.Ts., is a Georgian national who was born in 1976 and lives Tbilisi. Her three nephews ‒ N.B., twin boys, S.B. L.B. – were 2002 2006 respectively. The facts of the case, as submitted by applicants, may be summarised follows. 6. N.Ts.’s sister started relationship with G.B. 2000 couple moved together. They had children, 7. In convicted drug abuse given five-year suspended sentence. 2008 he diagnosed psychiatric behavioural disorders. same year methadone substitution treatment (as part specialised programme). 2009 fined under Code Administrative offences for two additional incidents abuse. 8. On 26 November 2009, mother boys died unrelated circumstances. living their aunts maternal grandparents. At end December requested return but family refused his request. 9. According to medical file, February 2010 G.B.’s addiction went into remission; no signs disintegration personality observed considered reacting appropriately vis-à-vis surroundings. 10 an early remission stage. report, did not pose any threat either himself or people surrounding him motivated start healthy life. another certificate dated 2010, central nervous system damaged suffering from pathology. 10. 5 January asked Tbilisi City Court Article 1204 Civil order sons. 12 first instance court judge decided involve Social Service Agency (“the SSA”) proceedings. ordered that case file forwarded SSA, latter appoint representative protect boys’ interests, SSA conduct assessment social environment conditions father family. 11. conducted Vake-Saburtalo regional branch SSA. Their visited places residence conversations G.B., paternal grandparents, several neighbours, also former babysitter boys. worker concerned concluded satisfactory at both locations. As themselves, she noted following: “As regards children’s they are need caring safe ... Both families should consider needs children how can help them concerted mutual effort most easily overcome psychological trauma have suffered because loss ...” 12. parallel, SSA’s arranged examination psychologist involved managed see only twins presence friend. She twofold attitude towards father, warm feelings love on one hand fear other hand. further certain emotional problems predetermined subconscious protest against lack incomprehensible situation which living. conclusion, stressful being aggravated through having negative image imposed them, could itself health life report 3 March 2010”). 13. interim, issued interlocutory allowing friends. It apparent after just few meetings, third persons participate meetings. 14. 23 April taken paediatric hospital where, following examination, all separation anxiety disorder. range fears respect him. displayed severe result death mother. recommended change made avoid causing stress them. 15. addition, specialists Institute Psychology concluded, basis material view fact habitual place grandparents it advisable father. questions put been prepared lawyer acting behalf examined older boy person “... [N. B.] feels frustrated gets irritated child sensitive seeks relief fantasy world escapes everything undesirable We this stage drastic [N.B.’s] advisable, irritation traumatisation allow rehabilitation calm environment. Obviously, would useful if develop close perceive guardian protector, achieve that, our view, some more time will needed. gain confidence gradually feel communicate again For wellbeing we necessary facilitate appropriate process readjustment between i.e. period (a minimum year) within stable regime formally accepted format, regain trust.” 16. 30 scheduled But turned out impossible agreed check-up condition neutral place. However, according family, 17. 18 May returned Taking account latest record, fit resume parental responsibilities. time, competent dismissed mental state unreliable; experts’ conclusions contradicted factual circumstances based derived file. point ready reunited father; traumatised boy, − referring psychologists’ reports pre-prepared answers. 18. conclusion noted: “In above regard has passed away, breaches right raised runs contrary interests current established respondents do legal keep applicant [G.B.]’s rights restricted but, contrary, beneficial necessary. With best mind, [G.B.’s] request hereby granted, since bringing up positive effect physical intellectual development”. 19. representatives 20. filed appeal. claimed inter alia assessed available evidence one-sided manner; particular, relied unreliable while rejecting unsubstantiated manner. criticised father’s centre its decision instead guided children. 21. 24 2011 Appeal quashed first-instance court’s ruled stay appeal referred reports, forceful aggravate already situation. panel judges follows: stage, before recovery officially confirmed specialists, thereby putting risk, inappropriate chamber [from children’s] own safety. considers demonstrate recovered should, prepare psychologically [their] situation, subsequent adjustment.” 22. shared views adjustment happen naturally. Given various objective subjective reasons remained stressed biological removal could, judges, adverse effects 23. district proceedings status “interested party”. 24. 11 October Supreme Georgia remitted re-examination. gaps Appeal: specific minors, cassation detail concerning determination concludes question fails establish beyond doubt necessity separating parent indisputable influence mind person. bearing treated, evidential brought results, [his addiction] does provide drawing unambiguous insecure dangerous observes such circumstances, when there suspicion creating unhealthy civil procedural law initiative custody guardianship authorities monitor upbringing like emphasise although opinion her very important, disregarded correspond particularly notes whenever requiring urgent reaction whether properly exercised, child’s decided, bodies concerned, inquisitorial power examine obliged take measures provided actively redress When considering reference must 11981 Code, obliges body engage protecting including education, rather than simply limiting making general observations assessing conditions. clear violation perspective physical, mental, emotional, development upbringing, able requisite steps education 25. Lastly, along line reasoning importance preparation observed, however, despite measure court, meetings organised, friends those unclear natural expected. 26. recommenced Appeal. members alleged interested seeing re-establishing contact last seen 2010. spoken openly about contentious TV show, allegedly traumatised. ashamed going school everyone knew and, ask “drug-addicted” shown absolutely interest checking year. part, stated want go unless changed mind. 2011, allowed progress 27. 2012 workers family’s apartment. drawn thereafter 4 2012”), during visits reacted negatively. talk alone 2012, second meeting spoke workers. psycho-emotional deteriorated. Furthermore, N. explicitly expressed observed: “The clearly nervous, found influenced significantly hysterically repeating live “his killed monster”, “the appearance trouble eyes friends”. forced stop conversation.” 28. nine-year-old six-year-old L. S. serious. absence hostile human resources care create development. future, so fully-fledged society”. 29. hospital, where phobia undergo psychotherapy course stable, 30. By 2 reversed concluding negatively shaped accordingly. stated: worsened happened opportunity Accordingly, [their father] powerful, educational methods [used] providing upbringing”. 31. And, [T]he breach well separated This fundamental principle enshrined Convention Rights Child purposes comprehensive harmonious environment, atmosphere happiness, understanding. relevant whom living, becoming positive, which, chamber, interests. totally unacceptable 32. Relying Chid, Articles 1197-1199 aunts, 33. points law, rejected 2012. 34. June execution enforcement handover due 25 failed, A invitation afraid force cried look ways regaining trust 14 September attempt enforce likewise unsuccessful. thereafter, move 35. domestic courts’ enforced date. Neither nor purpose. currently aunts.
|
[
4
] |
6. The applicant was born in 1964. 7. In 1993 the convicted of murder and sentenced to twenty four years’ imprisonment. 8. On 8 March 2002 conditionally released from prison. 9. 23 at 8.40 p.m. arrested his home on suspicion leading a criminal organisation involvement attempted abduction certain Ş.H. son, H.H. He subsequently placed custody by organised crime division Istanbul Security Directorate. 10. 24 six other persons were examined Haseki Hospital, Istanbul, doctor who recorded single sheet paper that there no sign violence bodies these seven persons. 11. same day 10.30 once again Hospital noted he had been told hit head against wall. doctor, general practitioner, observed following injuries applicant’s body: swelling left side forehead headache, hyperaemia 0.5 cm width around both wrists 2 right neck. considered should also be neurosurgeon, carried out number tests concluded did not show any signs pathology. 12. 25 9.10 underwent further medical examination report as those mentioned 2002. 13. 26 7 taken for an examination. expert erythema 3 diameter forehead, scabbed wounds underside 14. 27 two examinations. first took place 9.30 a.m. wrists, recovering neck forehead. second Forensic Medicine Institute branch responsible State Court 11 abrasion wrist, 1 back thin abrasions put life risk but rendered him unfit carry daily activities three days. 15. According applicant, subjected ill-treatment throughout detention police custody. particular, kept blindfolded handcuffed iron bar five beaten, given electric shocks made lie bed over which arms legs stretched, genitals squeezed. 16. Government, sustained result own conduct. scratches traces body having break handcuffs, floor. support their submissions, Government provided video footage surveillance camera monitoring room detained, between 9.11 9.16 (see paragraph 21 below). 17. 9.20 eight officers signed incident according attached order prevent harming himself. states p.m., managed one handcuffs they used force handcuff result. report, occurred when 18. statements officers. document drafted 00.35 possession mobile phone whilst prison conversations held using this telephone intercepted police. alleged instructions it leader organisation. denied allegations calls question involved activities. police, accepted knew some arrestees abduct stated personally, attempt. 19. appeared before public prosecutor Court. submitted torture stretched legs, testicles squeezed, remanded judge. 20. Between into statements, These medically during after Some them found have various parts bodies. 21. During proceedings Court, produced CD-ROM containing recording. contains images room. part concerns It shows mattress, top is chairs. seen lying down mattress with straight sides chair legs. piece black cloth. room, are or plainclothes standing desk chair. begins moving view up. Four approach detach chairs, floor, kneel about half minutes keep under physical restraint period, cannot camera. Thereafter, another officer arrives instructs arrange chairs way. Subsequently, without blindfold behind holding They make stand front newly-arrived officer, douses face water plastic bottle. then hits Afterwards, back, him. 22. April lodged petition Fatih prosecutor’s office 23. 22 May complained while claimed insulted, threatened, stripped naked, blindfolded, superintendent, A.İ., director Department Organised Crime Directorate, A.S.S., among tortured names several allegedly witnessed asked take witnesses. 24. 29 July 6 August İ.E., N.K., S.G. M.G., duty time all veracity ill-treatment. 25. 17 October obtained 20 January 2003 A.S.S. maintained questioning. 26. requested Directorate submit recording demonstrating resisted officers, if such existed. 27. February capacity Crime, sent above) along letter office. letter, 28. June clarifying whether could reports conduct drafted. concerning Institute. 29. 13 experts Institute, including president, examining issued photographs prosecutor. doctors that, agitation, struggled lay camp hands bed. appear beatings footage. Having position body, must caused 30. 15 filed bill indictment Criminal accusing A.İ, İ.E, inflicting co-accused, Ö.Ç. 31. December testified Bolu acting letters rogatory. contended detention, shocks, hosed cold water, naked 32. 12 2004 hearing merits case heard evidence accused except participate hearing. ill-treated As regards upon preventing One referred hearing, C.A., lawyers represented A.K. Özcan, allowed join intervening party. His request granted. representative court obtain entire places where decided consider subsequently, obtaining 33. 5 trial adjourned hearings located. 34. allegations. reiterated questioning ordered send recordings 35. 2005 first-instance previous received. lawyers, present 36. Upon receipt 2002, viewed person suddenly bent forwards immediately intervened. very short, lasting few seconds, people identifiable. At himself, floor able lodge complaint custody, intervened stop 37. 14 Assize account lack jurisdiction, pursuant Article 94 new Code (Law no. 5237), defined servants torture, offence tried assize courts. 38. summons requiring attend November 2005. respect served Özcan. Neither nor representatives participated hearings. 39. acquitted charges them. end torture. basis it, namely reports, dated 2003, Ö.Ç., aforementioned footage, agitated injuring thus agitation. beatings. applicant. 40. 2006 judgment lawyer C.A. office, notification mayor neighbourhood, accordance provisions Law Notifications. 41. 2011 behalf officially question. 42. appeal Cassation, claiming erroneously 43. 28 rejected petition, power attorney file. already sufficient become final. therefore outside time-limit laid submission appeals 310 Procedure. 44. appealed decision 45. 2013 Cassation upheld 2011. 46. documents file, 18 unspecified date A.İ. dismissed respectively convictions. promoted became superintendent brought 47. 30 fifteen individuals. charged ransom. 4422 Struggle Profit-oriented Organisations 499 former Code. prison, co-accused connection, transcripts included investigation expanded subsequent release co‑accused either members aided it. indictment, explained details attempt regarding H.H., specifying role each accused. identified committed. 48. case. listen conversation question, tortured. described treatment detail statements. invented neither forced read out. noting formal requesting ill‑treatment investigated, information outcome investigation. 49. case, September reflect truth client’s release. its 50. third would impossible possess detained F-type 51. fourth held. pending. However, 52. son whose statement abduction. only through 53. fifth held, opinion provide observations next good relationship brother victim conspiracy senior friend brother. Finally, still 54. sixth last file than launched Another representing defence tapping illegal authorising evidence. 55. armed ransom nine years, months ten days’ conditional sentence revoked. 56. judgment, established, light content whole, repeatedly reasoning, (which included, inter alia, evidence: material collected occurred, witness co-accuseds’ judge 2002), planned This originally inmates tapped give conducted co‑accused. assessed taking legislation Cassation’s case-law, come conclusion formed prior found, referring 57. judgment. 58. Following entry 2005, reviewed conviction amended imposed years months’ imprisonment, more favourable conditions pronounced 59. 2007 2006.
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1956 and is currently detained Giurgiu Prison. 6. For the last nine years had been convicted several times he various prisons. certain periods of time held Jilava Rahova prison hospitals. 7. On 1 November 2007 by Arad County Court on two counts robbery theft sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. court also ordered applicant’s committal psychiatric section Bucharest Prison Hospital until his recovery. 8. In application forms letters sent since 2009, complained severe overcrowding endure Galaţi Prison, where thirteen fifteen detainees were a cell between 20 24 sq. m, as well Prisons. 9. alleged that quality food drinking water very poor these prisons, not always served diet accordance with Muslim religious beliefs most starving portions sufficient. 10. all three prisons hot only provided for short which there enough brush teeth. Furthermore, cold provided. 11. further that, although no financial resources family help him, authorities failed provide him necessary clothes, toilet paper, soap or toiletries 12. almost eight months six different cells including infirmary “hunger strike” (refuz de hrană) cell. this are approximately m maximum beds. shared eleven other prisoners (2.1 space per person, occupied beds furniture). 13. Cold available at intervals total hours day 9 p.m. 6:30 a.m. certified Public Health Authority. 14. received composition daily menu line regulations. 15. Toiletries budget allowed. During period spent following: tubes toothpaste, razors, four shaving cream, bars soap, rolls toothbrushes washing powder. 16. Throughout detention visits considered unfit work. He did have any income. (b) 17. days. placed measuring 21 person bathrooms equipped sinks, shower toilet. constantly twice week following schedule. 18. Food prepared standards Renovation preparation storage areas under way when Government’s observations being submitted. 19. Government submitted upon their placement facility, one set bed linen. 20. visits, work (c) 21. twenty-two few days 40.28 twenty-seven prisoners; thirty items furniture (1.43 This toilets sinks available. rest 6 personal space. 22. Hot common facilities according pre-established schedule Mondays Fridays half Tuesdays Saturdays half. wards, fourteen days, showers up prisoners, same general (two week). 23. prison, roll razor tube cream. 24. 17 May 2013 clothing could use during stay but they documents support claim. 25. “Muslim menu” internal 26. access exercise yard day. 27. 28. 11 June transferred 29. lodged numerous complaints post-sentencing judge outlining dissatisfaction overcrowding, quantity received. asked occasions be single occupancy given foods such fried eggs potatoes. 30. These rejected ill-founded. 31. 30 September District final effect complaint concerning lack adequate provision reasoning situation result budgetary constraints. Another delegate while has its reverse side note “Transferred”. 32. about solved conclusion assignment sections function prison’s administration individual possible allowed law. 33. adequate. All ill-founded allegations contradicted information concerned. 34. 7 March requested pair shoes, pairs socks tracksuit. A request says it shall examined depending stocks, subsequent mention whether requested. 35. July dental examination Hospital, diagnosed periodontitis (I II degree) frontal, lateral terminal edentulism. doctor prescribed specific treatment, mobile prosthesis liquid semi-liquid installation prosthesis. 36. Since then, taken see dentist requests bouts inflammation gums pain. consistently symptomatic treatment antibiotic anti-inflammatory drugs. doctors would repeat prescription diet. 37. 2009 chronic generalised marginal antibiotics, drugs hygienisation oral cavity within system. occasion salivary glands surgery prescribed, performed 28 2013. 38. 2010 duodenal ulcer August 2011 gastroduodenitis. 39. medical applicant, who previously personality disorders, showing symptoms paranoia; recommended committed Poarta Albă Hospital. 40. Between 15 19 October 2012 hospitalised an acute stomatitis. released eat food, teeth day, take antibiotics mouthwash. 41. tooth extracted 29 2012. 42. February 2014 hospital congestion swelling gums. with, among conditions, otitis, stomatitis, apical periodontitis, neurovegetative conjunctivitis spondylosis. 43. hospitals emergency unit public broken nose ribs after having assaulted prisoners. 44. refused or, occasions, transported conditions related problems. nervous state, seen dentist. 3 extracted. 45. before receiving doctor. complaint, agreeing from file. similar January reason. 46. 2012, 10 toothache diet, No replies found file Government. 47. prison; vegetables undercooked; bones without meat. thus chew eat. averred special regulations limits 4.06 Romanian lei prisoner (approximately euro). 8 ill-founded, considering budget. 48. again judge. due problems, prison. mentioned meat cooked through often transport raw, unsliced bacon biscuits because facts described refuted authorities. At time, 14 holding menus administered 49. 16 25 June, 23 December 12 periodontitis. replied holiday appointment scheduled future. 50. According outside ill-treated guard escorting him. 51. Immediately incident criminal against ill-treatment abusive behaviour. 52. 27 Prosecutor’s Office issued decision commence proceedings case. copy correspondence logbook, Government, 53. contest superior prosecutor Criminal Procedure Code.
|
[
1
] |
7. The facts of the case, as submitted by parties, may be summarised follows. 8. applicant was born in 1977 Uznach and lives Rapperswil‑Jona, Canton St Gallen. 9. After originally training to a hairdresser took up full‑time work shop assistant. In June 2002 she forced stop owing back trouble. 10. On 24 October 2003 applied Disability Insurance Office Gallen (“the Office”) for disability benefit on account her lower spinal pain. 11. 6 February 2004 gave birth twins. Her pain had worsened further during pregnancy. 12. 15 March 2005 carried out household assessment (Abklärung im Haushalt) at applicant’s home, which stated (i) that suffered from constant often extended down left foot; particular difficulty standing same place any length time could not remain seated more than ten minutes; walk half an hour, but daily basis; became worse when carrying children; (ii) would have half-time financial reasons since husband’s net salary just 3,700 Swiss francs (CHF) (approximately 3,602 euros (EUR)). report concluded capacity perform tasks reduced 44.6%. its dated 2 May found should classified person full-time paid employment (Vollerwerbstätige) end 2003; housewife (Hausfrau) between January 2004; (iii) theoretically capable working 50% (zu 50 % hypothetisch Erwerbstätige) 2004. 13. 16 Dr Ch.A.S. informed unable suitable occupation increase hours appeared ruled out. 14. decision 26 2006 granted period 1 31 August 2004, did qualify September onwards. arrived this result following means. With regard 20 until it assessed degree basis calculation income. As subsequent period, considered so‑called combined method applied, taking view even if children. It based finding, particular, assertion felt able only wished devote remainder Furthermore, referred above, estimated 56% (that is say, 44%). When formula set below obtained these various factors 22%, meaning reach minimum 40% needed trigger entitlement benefit: (paid employment): no loss earnings0.5 x 0 = (household childcare): 0.5 44 22 Total[1] 15. lodged complaint with Office, dismissed 14 July 2006. Following fresh recognised having 27% disability, still required order benefit. This figure applying method, using parameters: 10 5 Total[2] 27 completing first line formula, hypothetical income (for work) CHF 48,585 EUR 47,308), calculated statistical data socio‑professional category applicant, auxiliary worker (Hilfsarbeiterin), belonged. Working rate 50%, therefore 24,293 been continue without (Valideneinkommen). that, given actually earn 21,863 (Invalideneinkommen). respect “paid employment” component 10%. 16. appealed against decision. Relying Article Convention, read conjunction 8, argued discriminated less well-off, those persons who afford do were simply housewives higher thus easily benefit; way take sufficient interplay (Wechselwirkungen) “household” components; reality, worked half-time, purposes performing well beyond 44% result. 17. support appeal medical issued 28 2006, latter substance state health, engage someone employment, care children drop around 18. judgment 30 November 2007 Court allowed part. departure case-law Federal ..., usual application disregarded favour “improved” version. court’s view, level activity might reasonably resumed after twins health problems. Court’s case‑law, person’s disability. According court, taken into consideration fact basis, incorrectly incapacity twelve-hour day. Instead – which, applicable individuals engaged caring examined actual tasks, established doctor. court also criticised examining whether, good noted drawn scant information entailed (Betreuungsaufwand) whether or possibilities existed entrusting part their other persons. incomplete facts. unlikely half‑time modest what expect worker. deficient also. Consequently, remitted case investigation. 19. judgment. 20. 2008 (9C_49/2008) Office’s appeal, finding eligible reasoning began describing context viewed stating aim insurance provide cover insured risk becoming unable, reasons, carry they before disabled event triggering occurred; compensation activities never remained health; approach designed prevent situations instance, well-off previously developed problems, though probably health. 21. Accordingly, discriminatory. follows: “3.4 ... true [Federal] settled case-law, where likely generally child cease least basis. However, [then] causes income; many people suffer reduce working. criticism directed (mostly women) earnings Nevertheless, sociological reality linked covered scheme. does give rise discrimination breach European Convention Human Rights.” conceded aspects sufficiently method. however, aggravation problems regarded reducing 15%; accordingly, question account, tasks): (44 + %) 29.5 Total[3] 34.5 argument husband unemployed, raised Court, rejected grounds relied upon substantiated. legal aid lack
|
[
8,
4
] |
4. The applicants were born in 1975 and 1976 respectively are currently serving their prison sentence the Tekirdağ Prison. 5. On 13 April 1998 arrested on suspicion of membership an illegal organisation. 14 16 respectively, first applicant gave detailed police statements absence a lawyer. 15 1998, second was also interrogated by lawyer, he used his right to remain silent. 6. 19 both examined at Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute. According medical report, there no trace ill-treatment bodies. 7. same day, still brought before public prosecutor subsequently investigating judge. Before judge, statements, complained that had been ill-treated custody. judge remanded 8. 30 Public Prosecutor State Security Court filed indictment with court accused carrying out activities for purpose bringing about secession part national territory. He sought death penalty under Article 125 Criminal Code. 9. 4 May held preparatory hearing. It decided applicants’ detention remand should be continued. Between 6 July 26 1999 Court, composed two civilian judges military seven more hearings. 18 June constitution amended sitting bench replaced Thereafter, twenty During hearings, alleged they 10. 24 September 2003 which three judges, found guilty as charged sentenced them life imprisonment In convicting applicants, regard police, respectively. 11. March 2004 Cassation upheld judgment Court. This decision deposited Registry instance 22 2004.
|
[
3
] |
4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives Vienna. 5. On 29 January 2004 the applied for rent allowance (Mietbeihilfe) under Vienna Social Welfare Act (Wiener Sozialhilfegesetz). 6. 13 July Municipal Authority (Magistrat der Stadt Wien) dismissed applicant’s request, holding that not eligible as his income exceeded statutory limit (Richtsatzüberschreitung). 7. appealed complained had failed to take into account maintenance obligations towards two sons. 8. 10 August Regional Government (Amt Wiener Landesregierung) appeal, were, according Administrative Court’s case-law, be considered income-reducing, long no enforcement proceedings were instituted against income. 9. 6 October Constitutional Court granted request legal aid order file a complaint Government’s decision. 10. 8 November filed with Court, claiming essence wrongly interpreted case-law regards non‑consideration of obligations. 11. 1 March 2005 declined deal complaint, it did raise any questions constitutional law transferred case Court. 12. 11 May submitted amended 13. 23 February 2009 unfounded. Referring its held argue he state emergency due being conducted connection It therefore unlawful refrained from taking payments when assessing eligibility allowance. 14. This decision served on counsel 2009.
|
[
3
] |
4. The applicant company is a limited liability which registered in Austria and has its seat Vienna. 5. In 1998 the Federal Finance Minister made public call for tenders concerning flight services delegations of Government. submitted an offer, but simultaneously complained that tender was tailored towards one specific tenderer, namely L. company. It therefore revoked. 6. On 28 July amended issued. did not submit offer. 7. Upon request, informed Government decided on 8 October to award contract respective concluded 29 1998. 8. 19 1998, received by Procurement Authority (Bundesvergabeamt) 27 requested initiate review proceedings declare awarding null void. 9. 4 January 1999 rejected company’s holding it had failed show legal interest tender. 10. 2 March filed complaint with Constitutional Court asked seek preliminary ruling from Justice European Union (CJEU) question existence interest. 11. 10 December 2001 set aside Authority’s decision held should have ruling. 12. 14 May 2002 CJEU. 13. 12 February 2004 CJEU issued ruling, essence person who participate tendering due allegedly discriminatory may still request their review. 14. 30 November again request. 15. 2005 Court. 16. 26 September declined deal complaint, raise any questions constitutional law, transferred case Administrative 17. 5 18. 2008 decision, been eligible file proceedings. 19. 2009 letter Auditor‑General’s Department (Finanzprokuratur), asking whether Republic would be interested reaching settlement this case, referring inactivity after Court’s last fact already lasted over ten years. 20. 13 Auditor-General’s replied specify claims compensation. further stated could application against failure decide. 21. 22 decide (Säumnisbeschwerde). 22. issue, within three months, either or explain why violate duty 23. meeting took place between parties, no reached. 24. finding unlawful. 25. 24 2010 discontinued as latter 2009, awarded costs. 26. 1 27. 25 complaint. impugned deviated case-law fundamental significance. 28. This served counsel April 2010.
|
[
3
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives Baku. 6. is a mathematician physicist who worked at the Academy of Sciences Republic Azerbaijan from 1981 to 1993. He then became involved political social life country. also as editor-in-chief Talishi Sedo, bilingual Azerbaijani-Talish newspaper, chairman Talish Cultural Centre. has been Committee for Rehabilitation Detainees since 2009. 7. At around noon on 21 June 2012, when his way home, six or seven plain-clothes police officers assaulted him near Neftchilar metro station Without showing their official identification, they restrained applicant’s arms began hit below knees. They kicked lower part right ribcage slipped narcotic substances into trouser pocket. handcuffed dragged car, where continued beat him. In car started insult him, making comments about ethnic origin, threatened account video recording he had uploaded YouTube online platform. 8. did not inform reasons arrest. Indeed, even realise that arrested by until taken Narcotics Department Ministry Internal Affairs (“the NDMIA”). 9. A search conducted NDMIA. According record (no. 7/32-130 dated 2012) operational measures seizure physical evidence (əməliyyat tədbirinin keçirilməsi və maddi sübutun götürülməsi barədə protokol) drawn up investigator, carried out 1.45 2 p.m. 2012 presence applicant, three two attesting witnesses. It appears represented lawyer. During search, 5 grams substance similar heroin found 10. investigator drew 11. On same day flat without court order. record, it 6.10 7.55 lawyer witnesses were persons previously participated found. made written comment belong 12. 22 detained handcuffs deprived food water. 13. Government submitted during arrest afterwards station, subjected torture inhuman degrading treatment police. 14. charged under Article 234.4.3 (illegal preparation, production, possession, storage, transportation sale large quantity substances) Criminal Code. 15. Nizami District Court, relying charge brought against prosecutor’s request apply preventive measure remand custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), ordered detention period months. justified pending trial gravity charge, fact with criminal offence punishable more than five years’ imprisonment, likelihood if released might abscond investigation. 16. 14 August Baku Court Appeal upheld order 2012. 17. meantime, 3 July new offences Articles 274 (high treason) 283.2.2 (incitement ethnic, racial, religious hatred hostility) 18. 17 applied Nasimi be placed house instead pre-trial detention. claimed, particular, there no reason 19. 1 September dismissed application unsubstantiated. 20. 10 an appeal lodged applicant. arrest, investigation obstruct influencing those proceedings. 21. 15 extended four 22. 20 Court’s decision 23. 27 2013 Assize guilty all counts sentenced imprisonment. 24. 25 December this judgment. further 2014 Supreme Court. 25. 8.30 Police Office questioned suspect. questioning complained ill-treatment stated connection home Baku, cars stopped next one identification up. planted pointed related activities, editor‑in‑chief Sedo newspaper defending prisoners’ human rights. 26. forensic examination 27. examined expert. His report 554 23 having beaten expert noticed abrasions left calf thigh, concluded could have inflicted relevant reads follows: “Questions addressed expert: 3. which body, circumstances instrument injuries inflicted? Could these sustained result assault? 2. There are (sıyrıq), measuring 1.7x0.5 cm 1.8x0.2 cm, 4 apart, middle outer side (baldır). surface covered red scab situated level healthy skin tissue. analogical abrasion, 1.0x0.1 thigh (bud). No other body. Conclusion Relying H. Mammadov, initial information, reply questions decision, I conclude above-mentioned caused hard blunt object(s). time indicated descriptive namely degree determined because causing harm health.” 28. provided copy report. 29. case file complaint transferred Prosecutor’s Office. 30. 29 reiterated previous statement, pointing officers. NDMIA name them Q. 31. documents 31 Head Serious Crimes Prosecutor General’s asked Deputy General received 32. 6 9 separately officers, including Q., search. wording statements identical. each claimed used force 33. 13 guard duty temporary centre following Their identical, claiming that, centre, ill‑treatment. 34. investigator’s question concerning denied allegation ill-treatment, lied statements. 35. clothes wearing damaged. 36. additional commission. experts establish whether body resulted coming contact “sharp parts vehicle” (avtomobilin çıxıntı hissələri) 37. issued no. 213 24 report, confirmed existence but “angular protruding qabarıq tinli “Information case: ... brown-grey pigmentation shape strip, 1.4x0.3 calf. injury trace 1959, facts observations respect commission concludes 1. abrasion thigh. health. Taking consideration characteristics (morphological particularities) location sides such another person passenger compartment refuted described statement Mammadov. 3.1. therefore results Mammadov angular vehicle put car. 4. corresponding Mammadov’s explanation head, neck chest either 2012.” 38. 213. 39. refused institute proceedings ill-treatment. prosecutor established connection, relied conclusions “Q. territory shown any violence (A.X., C.M. Q.H.) inquiry ordering adopted. After comparatively analysed material collected inquiry, allegations proven. Accordingly, proven, act committed. accordance 39.1 Code Procedure, institution should refused.” 40. document sent time. Although signed dated. Moreover, date document. 41. response investigating authorities authorities’ failure investigate find violation protected Convention. 42. support complaint, strike 43. complaint. held already still force, deliver connection. could, however, lodge 44. Following delivery learned refusing first copies reports 45. 46. unspecified October complaints ineffectiveness inquiry. disputed quash declare unlawful. hear examinations 47. 8 November Sabail finding justified. court, mention particular requests “Having complainant NDMIA, considers thorough current legislation requirements international treaties. All possible investigation; complainant’s immediately after questioned; out; prove circumstances, collect sufficient constitute basis instituting Therefore, taking hearing, adopted within competence Mamadov’s its quashing dismissed.” 48. appealed reiterating complaints. 49. 19 first‑instance court’s decision. appellate identical 50. Government’s Working Group Arbitrary Detention Human Rights Council United Nations Detention”) delivered opinion 59/2013 2013. “2. regards deprivation liberty arbitrary cases: (a) When clearly impossible invoke legal justifying (as kept completion her sentence despite amnesty law applicable detainee) (category I); (b) exercise rights freedoms guaranteed articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, Universal Declaration and, insofar States parties concerned, 12, 21, 22, 25, 26 International Covenant Civil Political II); (c) total partial non-observance norms relating fair trial, instruments accepted give character III); (d) asylum seekers, immigrants refugees prolonged administrative possibility judicial review remedy IV); (e) constitutes discrimination based birth; national, origin; language; religion; economic condition; opinion; gender; sexual orientation; disability status, aims towards can ignoring equality V). Submissions Communication source Hilal XXXX Astara Rayon, Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani journalist defender minority Since editor‑in-chief Baku-based Tolishi Sado (The Voice Talysh), only printed Talysh language. Mr. pursuant article relation illegal manufacture, purchase, transfer, transport drugs quantity. source, alleged seized person, approximately 30 place residence. (Baku City) months’ requested permitted serve term original denying provisional release. remains day. 28 lawyers reported charges treason), racial manufacturing, transportation, transfer selling narcotics psychotropic hearing reportedly Grave preparatory session defining procedural issues took January date, motions: requesting audio‑visual hearing; client allowed sit beside rather behind secure bars. informs both motions rejected. informed Centre injured cellmate Kurdakhani prison 26, cell weeks prior attacks. several occasions removed cellmate’s behaviour aggressive point preventing sleeping night. Those ignored. medical unit hospital severe mental illness. ongoing harassment attempt silence efforts violations. points came shortly before edition authority due published (at end 2012). posting music clip Internet attracted attention culture. submits faces imprisonment sentences ranging trumped-up successively most recently signals concern regard conditions light fate befell Novruzali former allegedly acts 2007, died obvious Furthermore, protection violated. expresses fears psychological integrity Response Discussion 61. years “illegal drugs”, “high treason” “incitement hostility” 234.4.3, 283 respectively Azerbaijan. 62. fabricated work population. 63. consultant Institute Democracy Peace Sado, language head Defence prominent scientist activist 2008 espionage, subsequently 64. possession heroin. treason incitement hostility. 2013; convicted 65. response, set prosecution However, view provide satisfactory forward subsequent conviction. 66. information indicates hostility legitimate freedom expression Rights. As such, falls category II categories referred considering cases it. 67. does adequately address source’s detention, concerns health, nor groundless rejection audio-visual hearing. 68. finds violations character. III Disposition 69. foregoing, renders opinion: arbitrary, being contravention 9, 11 12 70. Consequent upon rendered, situation bring conformity standards principles 71. case, adequate would release accord enforceable compensation paragraph 5, Rights.” 51. representative, Mr Bagirov, advocate member Bar Association ABA”). affiliated Law 52. disciplinary instituted Bagirov ABA letter judge Shaki Appeal. breached ethical rules conduct advocates hearings I.M. 53. Collegium meeting Bagirov. meeting, remark system: “Like State, like If justice Judge R.H. unfair judgments, individual judge” (“Belə dövlətin belə də məhkəməsi olacaq Azərbaycanda ədalət olsaydı, hakim ədalətsiz qərəzli hökm çıxarmaz, nə onun kimisi işləməzdi”). decided refer Bagirov’s disbarment. suspend activity (vəkillik fəaliyyəti) court. 54. suspension advocate, domestic longer meet prison. 55. March 2015 Prison Service Justice asking clients specified representative individuals “I am writing you represent European penal facilities centres your authority. ask allow progress applications (the numbers mentioned below) Alif oglu (penal facility 17; 81553/12) Attachment: Copies letters persons.” 56. 57. By April 2015, “Your organisation inmates advocacy services examined. explained suspended disbarred, practise grant access establishments counsel.”
|
[
1
] |
5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives the village of Karakert, Armenia. 6. has been a member an opposition political party, National Democratic Union, since 1995. Since 1997 he headed party’s local offices Baghramyan area. 7. In March April 2004 series protest rallies were organised Yerevan by parties who voiced their criticism alleged irregularities which had taken place during presidential election February-March 2003 challenged legitimacy re-elected President. It appears that participated these rallies. He authorities retaliated arresting, harassing searching supporters. 8. On 10 at 5.10 p.m. arrested to police station where administrative case initiated against him for disobeying lawful orders officers. 9. same date Armavir Regional Court sentenced ten days’ detention. 10. running ten-day sentence be calculated from detention facility town Ejmiatsin served his sentence. 11. 20 unspecified hour, examined granted investigator’s motion, apparently lodged on date, seeking have applicant’s home searched. judicial warrant stated: “The investigating authority found it substantiated 27 around 12 noon residents Myasnikyan Region [K.K. B.K.] inflicted violence dangerous health pasture located area Lernagogh representatives performing official duties, [namely] head [S.M.] staff Village Council [A.M.]. According operative information, [B.K. K.K.] weapon incident[. F]or purpose hiding mentioned weapon, they gave resident Karakert village, Union Yezidis area, [the applicant], may hidden one homes village. Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings no. 65200604 ... concerning this fact. view fact facts provide sufficient grounds believe illegally possessed ammunition applicant’s] situated Region, as well other objects valuables having significance case, court therefore finds motion is well-founded must granted.” 12. stated could contested within 15 days before Criminal Military Appeal. 13. day, several hours expiry sentence, Police Department. From there escorted least 14. search record, conducted 6.55 seven officers Department, E.M., B.M., M.G., A.Ge., S.M., G.E. A.Ga. Two neighbours, G.G. M.S., asked team participate attesting witnesses. surrender illegal allegedly house. no home. As result search, plastic bag containing cannabis-like herb boiler hallway. did not know what belonged to. end record refused sign without providing any reasons. 15. statements two witnesses appended application form, following manner. Upon return home, accompanied officers, pregnant wife critical condition, suffering miscarriage, one-year-old son crying beside her. seeing him, fainted. A doctor called number female neighbours came help. At point informed house searched, briefly showing relevant warrant. M.S. only after already begun. war veteran suffered concussion seriously disabled, while seventy‑four years old. more than also used specially trained dogs. Having searched anything, started yard adjacent buildings. outside premises, front door left open people, including coming going. Moreover, group standing others continued search. nothing house, announced would again inside witness objected. Following additional above-mentioned bag. submitted objections recorded. persuaded bullied record. 16. back chief promised that, if renounced convictions resigned further action relation cannabis. make such deal. 17. kept overnight. There given meal, hamburger. About minutes eaten meal felt sick, vomiting lost consciousness. An ambulance some injections administered. applicant, laced with drug. 18. 21 under Article 268 § 2 Code account drug possession. 11.18 formally arrested. 19. investigator decided subject forensic toxicological examination. receive copy decision. Republican Centre Narcotics urine sample taken. 20. lawyer engaged case. questioned denied possession allegations. 21. herbal substance, weighing approximately 59 grams, expert substance 22. 23 charged detained order. 23. opinion produced, according contained traces indicating cannabis consumption. 24. filed Prosecutor stop prosecution ground inter alia, numerous procedural violations. similar complaint 2004. 25. requested examination expert. This request rejected. investigation, put pressure attend confrontations applicant. 26. 7 May applied Prosecutor, challenging impartiality complaining detail about unlawful manner executed, alleging, planted conducting 27. 9 June complained lacked proper argued failed obtain evidence when allegations irregularities. Such obtained questioning provided first aid wife, present holding between 28. brought Court. 29. Court, exclude results unlawfully evidence. take decision motion. 30. Attesting both testified trial court. reply questions stated, watching much entering going out rooms together When giving events among things helped reach water plate out. covered dust. However, dustier compared Both remember whether right might included stating discovered belong him. 31. 22 guilty half years’ imprisonment. doing so, relied on, testimony A.Gh., M.M., L.F. A.Ga., witnesses, analysis sample. 32. 29 appeal. argued, violations its particular, claimed presented get acquainted it, signature respect into authorised basis fabricated materials valid grounds. Procedure, should summoned solely connection performance duties Furthermore, submissions confirmed 33. August Appeal upheld conviction finding, significant investigation evidence, except 34. No appeal judgment statutory time-limit, so became final. 35. 6 September released parole. 36. November advocate special licence points law behalf final quashed remitted due execution 37. December Cassation merits dismiss finding required being investigation.
|
[] |
5. The applicant was born in 1946 and is currently detention Regensdorf. 6. facts of the case, as submitted by parties, may be summarised follows. 7. By a judgment 4 July 2003, Court Appeal (Obergericht) Canton Zürich sentenced to four years months’ imprisonment for multiple sexual acts with minors coercion. 8. On 1 March 2010 suspended execution custodial sentence, replacing it preventive (Verwahrung) designed prevent from reoffending. 9. 6 December 2011 requested exemption requirement work context sentences measures. 19 2012 Judicial Enforcements Office refused his request. 10. decision 29 May 2012, competent authority Pöschwies Prison placed under stricter prison regime, confining him cell, confiscated television computer fourteen days on account refusal work. That revoked 31 Directorate Justice Internal Affairs following an appeal applicant. 11. 20 June dismissed against 2012. 12. 10 January 2013 Administrative 13. 15 February appealed Federal Court, arguing particular that Articles 74, 75 81 Criminal Code had been wrongly applied, alleging violation human dignity personal freedom within meaning 7 respectively Constitution (see paragraphs 15-17 below). 14. In 6B_182/2013 18 (ATF 139 I 180), which notified 2013, applicant’s appeal. found prisoners not itself breach rights, specifically Article Convention (point 1.5 reasoning). Hence, purpose compulsory measures develop, maintain or promote prisoners’ capacity resume working life after their release. Court’s view, contributed fostered appropriate social behaviour avoid It also occupy prisoners, give structure daily lives order institution 1.6). added that, got older, greater emphasis obligation provide them necessary support (necessary-support principle) reducing negative impact (principle least possible harm). case over age 65, served avoiding harmful effects detention, instance isolation persons who reached retirement age, preventing mental physical deterioration. tailored prisoner’s abilities, training interests, therefore placing excessive burden 65. Lastly, were less physically mentally able, occupation could take form therapeutic activity further held Old-Age Survivors’ Insurance Act guarantee living income no longer able because age. However, performed connection sentence measure comparable employment contract competitive labour market, but rather should regarded closed system. rules governing pensionable did apply 1.8). carried out voluntary basis apt fulfil aims pursued 2.6.2).
|
[] |
5. The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in various districts of Chechen Republic. They close relatives individuals who disappeared after being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. In each applications, events concerned took place areas under full control federal forces. have had no news their missing since alleged arrests. 6. reported abductions to law‑enforcement bodies and official investigations were opened; however, proceedings repeatedly suspended resumed, remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. consisted mainly requests information formal operational-search measures be carried out counterparts parts Chechnya other regions North Caucasus. received either negative responses or none all. 7. From documents submitted, it appears that relevant State authorities unable identify allegedly involved arrests abductions. 8. observations, Government did not challenge description circumstances as presented applicants; they stated there was evidence prove beyond reasonable doubt agents been incidents. 9. Summaries facts respect individual application set below. Each account is based on statements provided and/or neighbours both Court domestic investigative authorities. personal details relatives, some key facts, summarised Appendix I. 10. applicant, Ms Maret Nazyrova, born 1968 lives Gekhi Urus-Martan district She sister Mr Badrudi Nazyrov, 1973. 11. On 20 April 2000, daytime, Nazyrov his friend, Said-Selim Aguyev, applicant’s house when a group about thirty forty armed from Police Special Task Unit (Отдел милиции особого назначения (ОМОН)) (hereinafter “the OMON”) comprised Perm Region arrived settlement vehicles. Some them wearing balaclavas. cordoned off area ordered residents stay inside. About fifteen broke into searched it. Then beat up brother pulled T-shirts over heads, put UAZ-type minivans Urus‑Martan military commander’s office. applicant number local witnessed events. 12. OMON unit stationed premises an orphanage vicinity house. At two brothers Kuznetsov family charge unit. It abduction masks could therefore identified applicant. following day office accepted food package but next denied he ever premises. 13. has seen 2000. 14. above witness copies investigation file furnished Government. 15. six pages criminal case no. 24074 submitted Government, ensuing can follows. 16. 4 May 2000 Nazyrov’s father, Sh.N., prosecutor’s office, stating son taken with men latter identity him. 17. around 14 report forwarded temporary police department (Временный отдел внутренних дел (ВОВД)) “VOVD”) 18. 16 returned complaint VOVD “prematurely”. 19. 17 investigators refused initiate abduction. 20. 25 November overruled refusal opened 24074. decision “during operation, lawfulness which confirmed”. 21. between January 2007 steps taken. informed thereof. 22. unspecified date February resumed request 2 she granted victim status case. 23. 1 March suspended. 24. 21 August 2008 complained Town protracted asked resumed. 25. 9 September court rejected complaint, 2008. 26. 30 again 27. still pending. 28. Satsita Babuyeva, 1958 Grozny, wife Muma Babuyev, 1958. 29. Babuyev worked driver Department Technological Equipment (Управление производственно-технологической комплектации (УПТК)) main base troops Khankala, Chechnya. morning 2002, last work, went collect year’s salary arrears. couple checkpoint entrance 10 a.m. husband inside, while told wait him entrance. 30. spent entire waiting her never came out. evening return home. days avail. 2002 managed speak woman admissions issued passes base. confirmed pass Babuyev. also made one picked up, meant must inside left since. 31. file. 32. small 52112 disappearance covering period 2002. may 33. 22 husband’s Her concerning incident similar Court. 34. same Grozny city initiated events, Article 126 § Criminal Code (kidnapping). given 52112. read follows: “...On [Muma Babuyev] Khankala arrears; employees [the department] saw [him] premises... [He] exit home...” 35. October 36. 2003 20102 further complaints, conducted inquiry established involvement incident. 37. 38. 18 unlawful arrest subsequent Prosecutor’s requested its assistance search 39. Main Military disappearance. 40. 2004 Staropromyslovskiy District declared 41. 2009 replied providing statement effect progress whereabouts yet established. 42. then 3 inform access No replies these requests. 43. 2011 44. Adam Kagermanov, 1971 (“the first applicant”) Zura Yakhayeva (also spelled Yakhyayeva), 1977 second applicant”). applicants, live Republic, niece Ruslan Kagermanov (“Mr ”), 1963. 45. applicants’ home four dwellings shared courtyard. alone separate dwelling. curfew. learnt member abducted earlier night servicemen, Ural lorry broken down door. heard abductors driving direction Urus‑Martan. thought time many young manner curfew hours. addition, armoured personnel carriers (APCs) night. 46. Later found tyre tracks footprints boots snow Kagermanov’s 47. fifty sixty APCs lorries blew household oil refinery backyard According sweeping-up operation houses refineries. 48. 49. furnish 50. mother, P.K., son’s 51. 61023. 52. dates questioned discovered 3.20 down, boots, belongings scattered watch indicating 3.10 floor. house, destroyed refinery. 53. members. 54. 55. June 2009. 56. 11 this her. 57. whose 58. neighbours, Z.K., R.G., M.I. those applicants. new obtained. 59. examined crime scene. collected. 60. 61. 15 Achkhoy-Martan ineffective 62. 12 partially allowed noted, inter alia, seven years, 2009, dormant investigators. instructed provide 63. 64. Khedi Tchapanova, 1974, Nice, France. Eduard Zaynadinov Zainadinov), 1974. 65. active illegal groups 1994 1996 1999 During more recent period, children Shali. regularly visited firearms questions whereabouts. Fearing family’s safety, moved “Kavkaz” neighbourhood joined there. 24 He released week later. 66. Between July balaclavas flat plastic bag Zaynadinov’s head unknown destination APC. 67. Several later groups. list members documents, well hidden garden. 68. 69. seventeen 59229 Zaynadinov. parties 70. 6 lodged A.Z. Shali interior (Шалинский районный (РОВД) “ROVD”). 71. A.Z., camouflage uniforms checked documents. Afterwards outside, driven off. 72. 7 (their names illegible submitted) 29 woken sound women crying. gone outside street abducted. 73. 74. 75. ROVD stating, amongst things: “ ... connection E. Zaynadinov, 59229... operational 71373 taking [...]” 76. leave Republic fear children’s lives. Since resided 77. missing. 78. His 19 79. 28 dead representative. 80. December relatives. 81. 2012 82. 13 83. Ayna Aina) Alkhotova, 1975 Ayndi Aindi) Diniyev, 1971. 84. block flats 186 Pugacheva Street Grozny. 85. ten three grey UAZ vehicles flat, quickly it, dragged Diniyev forced drove through centre. 86. 2003. 87. 88. things, APC registration numbers. 89. office”) 90. R.E. M.A., 91. 50094 Diniyev. 92. mother 93. questioned. would able faces covered. 94. failure perpetrators. 95. 96. 2005 97. reiterated statements. 98. again. 99. 8 Leninskiy inter-district 100. 2010 request. 101. supervising prosecutor criticised take basic 102. E.R. month prior unidentified robbed mother-in-law even fired shots 103. 104. day. 105. 23 2012. 106.
|
[
0,
1,
2
] |
8. In all cases the applicants brought civil proceedings before Russian courts of general jurisdiction, claiming various monetary sums (unpaid salaries, pensions, compensation payments and/or other benefits) in relation to their military or police service. 9. On dates domestic found for and these judgments became final enforceable (for more details see Appendix). 10. The defendant authorities applied supervisory review those judgments. indicated Appendix, allowed authorities’ applications quashed applicants’ favour. Their claims were dismissed either by same lower subsequent proceedings, except two Mr Bochkarev Umanets, whose partially granted. 11. Baranov case, on 8 June 1998 applicant against local authority. concluded 22 September 2004, when Amur Regional Court upheld judgment 17 2004 which Svobodnyy Town Region had applicant’s claims. During this period, case was examined nine times (four first-instance court, four appeal court once court). 12. some (Zaytsev, Kudryavtsev, Polusmyak, Russkikh, Stepanov Others, Mochalov, Barkov, Kozlovskiy Martynov) complied with fully prior quashing. rest (Baranov, Sitnikov, Belyasov, (the 15 March 2004), Kuzmin, Korchagin, Gafarova Others Dudov) favour never with. 13. 1 2006, delivered as a result new round conducted after review, binding 25 October 2006. 30 August 2007 putting family priority housing list. 14. Kudryavtsev pension paid following recovered from him review.
|
[
3,
9
] |
4. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives Pécs. He had been practising as a lawyer. 5. On 22 January 2006 Mr K. I. lodged criminal complaint against the on charges of abuse minor. 6. As it appears from case file, investigation launched around 7 August 2006. 7. Public Prosecutor preferred bill indictment 5 March 2007. 8. consequence proceedings, 3 July 2007 Komárom-Esztergom County Bar Association suspended applicant’s licence to practise 9. 25 September 2008 Pécs District Court convicted minor sentenced him one year imprisonment with enforcement for two years. appealed judgment. 10. 10 February 2010 Baranya Regional quashed judgment ordered first-instance court try again. 11. In ensuing proceedings 2 acquitted due absence proof. acquittal lack an offence. 12. Finally, early December withdrew his appeal. Arguing that he could have received several mandates clients if lawyer, decided terminate possible order resume practice.
|
[
3
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.