7.  The applicants are a mother and child born in 1990 and 2012 respectively. 8.  On 16 January 2012 the first applicant, who was in the fifth month of pregnancy, was detained by the police on suspicion of robbery. 9.  On 26 January 2012 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Dzerzhynskyy Court”) ordered her pre-trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial. 10.  On the same date she was placed in the Kharkiv SIZO. 11.  On 22 May 2012 the first applicant was taken to Kharkiv Maternity Hospital no. 7 (“the maternity hospital”). 12.  On the same date she gave birth to the second applicant. He measured 49 cm and weighed 2.9 kg. 13.  Three female security officers guarded the first applicant in the hospital. According to her, they stayed on the ward at all times. The Government submitted that they had left the ward during the delivery. 14.  The first applicant alleged she had been continuously shackled to her hospital bed or to a gynaecological examination chair, the only exception being during the delivery when the shackles had been removed. It is not clear from her submissions exactly how she had been shackled; on one occasion, she submitted that after the delivery she had had her foot shackled to the bed. At the same time, she submitted that the guards had only removed the shackles from her wrists for breastfeeding. 15.  According to the Government, the first applicant was never handcuffed or shackled in the maternity hospital. 16.  On 25 May 2012 the applicants were discharged. 17.  On 12 November 2012 the first applicant wrote in a statement for the SIZO administration (see paragraphs 41 and 76) that the maternity hospital staff had treated her well, that she had not been handcuffed or shackled, and that the two female security officers who had been on her ward had been helping her take care of the baby. 18.  In December 2012 and January 2013 the prosecution authorities questioned some maternity hospital staff and the security officers who had guarded the first applicant with a view to verifying her allegations, particularly as regards her shackling (see also paragraphs 76-82 below). 19.  On 21 December 2012 the chief doctor of the maternity hospital wrote to the governor of the Kharkiv SIZO, in reply to an enquiry by the latter, to say that during her stay in the maternity hospital the first applicant had been guarded by SIZO officers at all times, that the officers in question had not been on the delivery ward, and that the first applicant had not been handcuffed or shackled during the delivery. 20.  On 24 December 2012 the chief obstetrician, Ms Ti., gave a written statement to the prosecution authorities. She submitted that the first applicant had been shackled by the wrists to the gynaecological examination chair during her examinations both in the admissions unit and later in the obstetric unit, and that it was usual practice for detainees to be shackled and guarded by three guards. 21.  Two other obstetricians, Ms F. and Ms S., and a nurse, Ms To., made similar statements. Ms F. submitted that she could not remember any details regarding the second applicant’s delivery. Ms To. specified that the first applicant had not been shackled during the delivery or subsequently during breastfeeding. 22.  The chief doctor of the neonatal unit Ms Vl. also submitted that the first applicant had been shackled to a gynaecological examination chair. Furthermore, she indicated that two guards had been staying on the ward near the applicants, with a third near the door. 23.  The security officers who had guarded the first applicant denied that she had been handcuffed or shackled in hospital. 24.  The applicant’s lawyer enquired with a former nurse, Ms P., about the conditions faced by women in detention during delivery, with reference to her related work experience. On 7 February 2013 Ms P. wrote to him indicating that she had indeed worked as a nurse at Donetsk Regional Childcare and Maternal Health Centre from 1996 to 2005, and that in 2004 or 2005 a detained woman had been shackled to her bed during her baby’s delivery there. 25.  While the first applicant was held in several different cells in the SIZO, her application form referred only to the conditions of her detention with her baby in cell no. 408, in which she had been held from 14 March to 8 November 2012. The summary of facts below therefore only concerns that cell.
(a)  The first applicant’s account 26.  The cell, situated in a semi-basement, was cold and damp. There was no hot water and only an irregular supply of cold water. The first applicant therefore rarely had the opportunity to take a shower and bath her new-born son. She also had to store cold water in plastic bottles for her own use. She boiled water on a defective electric cooker in a kettle, which she had to borrow from the administration and which was provided to her for no longer than fifteen minutes each time. The toilet and shower were in a niche not separated from the living area. The toilet was often blocked. There was no baby changing table or cot in the cell. 27.  The first applicant was not provided with any baby hygiene products. Nor did she receive nutrition suitable to her needs. On the days of court hearings her only meal was breakfast, which consisted of bread and tea. No packed lunches were provided to her. 28.  The applicants were able to have outdoor walks of about ten minutes per day, but not every day, in a communal walking area. 29.  Lastly, one of the inmates she shared with was HIV positive.
(b)  The Government’s account 30.  Cell no. 408 was a high-comfort cell designed for pregnant women and women with children. It was located on the ground floor, measured fifty-two square metres and could accommodate up to six people. The first applicant shared it with two or sometimes three inmates. 31.  The cell had three windows measuring over eight square metres in total. There was hot and cold water, as well as a drinking water cooler with a capacity of ten litres. 32.  Furthermore, there were all the necessary furniture and facilities such as air conditioning, a refrigerator, an electric stove, a baby cot and a pram. There was also a supply of nappies and hygiene products. The toilet and shower were separated from the living area. 33.  The first applicant was provided with adequate nutrition in accordance with the applicable standards (the total energy value of her daily meals being 3,284 kilocalories). She received three hot meals per day with the exception of hearing days, when she missed lunch. She breastfed her son and refused the baby food provided by the SIZO. There were no restrictions on food or other parcels she received from her relatives. 34.  The applicants had a daily two-hour walk in a specially designated area. 35.  They never shared a cell with inmates with HIV. 36.  The Government provided four colour photographs of cell no. 408, showing a spacious and light room in a visually good state of repair. There were three large windows with sheer curtains. The cell had a washbasin. There was also a lavatory with a bidet and a shower cubicle, both separated from the living area by opaque glass doors. Also on the photographs were a wardrobe, two beds with bedside cabinets, a cot, a table with two stools, a baby stool, a shelf with some tableware, a microwave, a television and a baby changing table. 37.  Another photograph showed a walking area for detained mothers with babies, with a flowerbed and a wall with a nature mural. The first applicant and her baby were on the photograph, as well as another woman with a pram.
(c)  Other detainees’ accounts and relevant information 38.  On 1 and 2 February 2012 the local sanitary and epidemiological service inspected the SIZO in the context of an unspecified investigation. It observed that there was a special cell for women with babies, with all the essential amenities. It was noted in the report that there had been no pregnant inmates or inmates with babies in the SIZO at the time of the inspection. 39.  On 24 May 2012 the sanitary and epidemiological service also inspected the drinking water in the SIZO to check that it complied with the relevant standards. No irregularities were found. 40.  On 22 October 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the Agent of the Government that there had been no complaints from the first applicant regarding the conditions of detention or the second applicant’s medical care in the SIZO. 41.  On 12 November 2012 the first applicant wrote a statement giving a detailed description of her cell in the SIZO similar to that submitted by the Government (see paragraphs 30-37 above). The last paragraph also concerned her stay in the maternity hospital (see paragraph 17 above). 42.  On 13 November 2012 one of the SIZO staff wrote to the State Prisons Service to say that the first applicant’s statement had been made freely. 43.  During her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO the first applicant received about thirty food parcels from her mother, often with basic foodstuffs such as bread, butter, tea, sugar and milk. 44.  The first applicant lodged numerous requests for release with the trial court dealing with her criminal case, subject to an undertaking not to abscond (dated 6 July, 6, 26 and 31 August, 3 September and 9 October 2012). She alleged, in particular, that the conditions in the SIZO were not adequate for her baby. The court rejected those requests. 45.  The applicants’ case received some media coverage. For example, in November 2012 the article “Baby as a victim of inhuman treatment” was published online by the Kharkiv Human Rights Group. In December 2012 a television programme was broadcast, in which the first applicant and the State authorities gave accounts, particularly as regards the conditions of the applicants’ detention in the SIZO. The parties did not submit to the Court a copy of the relevant article or video footage or a transcript of the television programme. 46.  On 12 December 2012 one of the detainees, Ms B., wrote a statement addressed to the head of the local department of the State Prisons Service. She submitted that in November 2012 she had been held in the same cell as the first applicant and had been satisfied with the conditions of detention there. It was noted in the statement that there had been large windows in the cell, a shower cubicle with hot and cold water and all the necessary furniture and appliances, including a refrigerator and a television. 47.  On 19 December 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Department of the State Prisons Service issued a memorandum stating that the first applicant had not submitted any complaints during her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO. 48.  The case file contains three statements by detainee Ms M. concerning the conditions of detention in the SIZO. She wrote two of them while detained there (on an unspecified date and on 25 December 2012), and a third on 30 January 2013 when she had already begun serving her prison sentence elsewhere. In the first two statements Ms M. described the conditions of her detention in cell no. 408 as quite satisfactory and comfortable. Her account was similar to that given by the Government (see paragraphs 30-32 above). The first two statements also contained critical remarks regarding the first applicant claiming, in particular, that she had displayed a careless attitude towards her baby and had acted in bad faith in applying to the Court. In her third statement, Ms M. stated that the food in the SIZO had been poor. More specifically, the bread had been stale and the meat had been tinged blue. She also submitted that there had been no hot water in cell no. 408. Lastly, she submitted that on two occasions she had witnessed the first applicant requesting medical care for her baby when he had had stomachache, but her requests had been ignored. 49.  On 28 December 2012 a former detainee, Ms Sa., wrote a statement for the first applicant’s lawyer and had it certified by a notary. She stated that she had shared cell no. 408 with the first applicant from an unspecified date in March to 19 April 2012. Ms Sa. had been pregnant at the time. She described the conditions of their detention as follows. The cell was located in a semi-basement and inmates saw practically no daylight. The windows were so high that they could not be opened without the assistance of a guard. There were about seven inmates in the cell, some of them with HIV and some suffering from other illnesses. The toilet was separated from the living area by a waist-high wall and leaked. As a result, there was always a bad smell. The shower also leaked and the cubicle door was broken. It was so humid in the cell that the plaster had fallen off the ceiling and the walls were covered in mould. The cell was infested with mice and lice. There were no household appliances like a kettle or microwave. Nor were there any beds or bedside cabinets as shown by the State Prisons Service on television (see paragraph 45 above). Ms Sa. specified that in fact none of the detainees had ever been held in the cell presented by the authorities on television. There was no hot water and the pressure in the cold water taps was so low that inmates had to store water for their own use. Furthermore, the SIZO administration did not provide them with any tableware. Their daily walk lasted only twenty minutes and took place in a small walking area covered with bars. Furthermore, according to Ms Sa., the food in the SIZO was neither fresh nor tasty. Lastly, she stated that she had been shackled to her bed when undergoing some treatment in the maternity hospital in Kharkiv while pregnant. 50.  On an unspecified date Ms Ve., who had also shared cell no. 408 with the first applicant (the exact period is unknown), wrote a statement about the conditions of detention there. Her description was similar to that given by Ms Sa. as regards the leaking toilet, high humidity levels, lack of hot water and irregular supply of cold water, as well as the duration and conditions of the daily outdoor walks and poor nutrition. 51.  On 25 May 2012 the applicants were discharged from the maternity hospital. The second applicant was found to be in good health. 52.  According to a letter from its chief doctor to the first applicant’s lawyer dated 12 December 2012, on 25 May 2012 the second applicant was transferred to Children’s Hospital no. 19 (“the children’s hospital”). All the other relevant documents in the case file indicate that on 25 May 2012 both applicants were taken to the Kharkiv SIZO. 53.  As submitted by the first applicant and noted in a letter by the chief doctor of the children’s hospital to the first applicant’s lawyer dated 6 September 2012, a paediatrician from that hospital had examined the second applicant on 28 May 2012. The baby was found to be in good health but to have phimosis (a condition of the penis where the foreskin cannot be fully retracted). 54.  However, according to the second applicant’s medical file kept by the SIZO, the first time a paediatrician of the children’s hospital examined him was on 31 May 2012. He was found to be in an adaptation period and the first applicant received advice regarding childcare. 55.  According to the second applicant’s medical file, on 12 June 2012 he was examined again by a paediatrician, who diagnosed him with intestinal colic and recommended Espumisan, massage, feeding on demand and outdoor walks. The doctor also suspected that the boy had a patent (open) foramen ovale (PFO; the foramen ovale allows blood circulation in the fetal heart and closes in most individuals at birth). 56.  The second applicant’s next medical examination appears to have taken place on 20 July 2012. It was noted in his medical file that the paediatrician had given advice to the first applicant regarding feeding and care. 57.  The first applicant denied that any of the examinations following that on 28 May 2012 had taken place. She alleged that her baby had not been examined by a paediatrician until 10 September 2012. She submitted that the records of her son’s earlier examinations in the medical file had been forged. According to her, the first page of that book referred to an examination on 10 September 2012, whereas the records of his earlier examinations had been written on separate pages and subsequently glued into the file. The case file as it stands before the Court contains a separate copy of each page of the file, which makes it impossible to verify the first applicant’s allegation. 58.  On 28 August 2012 the first applicant’s lawyer asked the Kharkiv SIZO administration to provide him with details of when the second applicant had been examined by a paediatrician and whether the conditions of detention had been appropriate for such a small baby. He also requested copies of the relevant documents. 59.  On 4 September 2012 the SIZO administration replied that it would be able to provide comprehensive information on the second applicant’s health after a complete medical examination in the children’s hospital, which was due to take place. 60.  On 31 August 2012 the first applicant asked the judge dealing with her case to order a medical examination of her son “given that the SIZO administration [was] ignoring her requests to that effect”. It appears that her request was rejected. 61.  On 6 September 2012 the chief doctor of the children’s hospital wrote to the first applicant’s lawyer in reply to an enquiry by him dated 5 September 2012. He said that with no paediatrician at the Kharkiv SIZO, a paediatrician from that hospital monitored babies born there. He also indicated that the second applicant had been examined by the hospital paediatrician on 28 May 2012 (see also paragraph 53 above). In so far as the lawyer enquired about the baby’s medical condition at the material time, the chief doctor stated that it was impossible to provide him with such information because the first applicant had not requested any medical care for him until then. 62.  On 10 September 2012 a dermatologist, cardiologist, ear, nose and throat specialist, neurologist and paediatrician all examined the second applicant. He was found to have allergic dermatitis, dysplastic cardiomyopathy and phimosis. Furthermore, the patent foramen ovale diagnosis had been called into question (see paragraph 55 above). The doctors concluded that the second applicant did not require any medical treatment, but recommended that the mother follow a hypoallergenic diet. 63.  According to the first applicant, the examination was carried out in the context of custody proceedings initiated by the second applicant’s stepfather. She specified that it had been done with her consent so that the second applicant could be taken from the SIZO, where he was not receiving adequate care. 64.  On 14 September 2012 the SIZO sent a copy of the second applicant’s medical file to the applicants’ representative, further to a request made by him on 28 August 2012 (see paragraph 58 above). 65.  On 18 October 2012 the chief doctor of the children’s hospital wrote to the first applicant’s lawyer, in reply to an enquiry made on 10 October 2012, to say that hospital was in charge of the medical supervision of children in the Kharkiv SIZO where needed, subject to the SIZO administration making the relevant application. It was also noted that the second applicant required an additional examination in the regional cardiology centre, and that the children’s hospital had already requested the SIZO administration’s cooperation in that regard. 66.  On 19 October 2012 a paediatrician and a cardiologist examined the second applicant again. He was diagnosed with a patent foramen ovale (a heart condition, see paragraph 55 above for further details) and an additional examination was recommended. 67.  On the same date the second applicant underwent an echocardiogram and was found to be healthy. 68.  On 14 November 2012 the first applicant refused to allow her son to undergo a paediatrician examination, which she had been offered. 69.  The following day the first applicant was released (see also paragraph 75 below). 70.  On 30 November 2012 the first applicant’s lawyer enquired with the children’s hospital whether it had kept a medical file in respect of the second applicant and whether he had been vaccinated during his stay with the first applicant in the SIZO. 71.  On 4 December 2012 the chief doctor replied that the children’s hospital provided medical care to children residing permanently in its catchment area. As regards children residing there temporarily, a written application by one of the parents was required. The first applicant had never submitted such an application. Accordingly, the hospital had not opened a medical file in respect of the second applicant. At the same time, its doctors had examined him when requested by the SIZO administration. The results of each examination had been reflected in the medical file provided by the SIZO. In so far as the second applicant’s vaccinations were concerned, it was noted that he had always been brought for examinations without his mother, and without her consent no vaccinations had been given. 72.  On 12 April, 17 May, 15 June, 2 and 31 August and 15 November 2012 the first applicant participated in court hearings, during which she was held in a metal cage. Her requests not to be placed in a cage were rejected. 73.  On 14 March 2013 the judge of the Dzerzhynskyy Court, who had been in charge of the first applicant’s case, wrote to the Agent of the Government, in reply to the latter’s request, to say that the first applicant had indeed been held in a metal cage in the courtroom during hearings. The judge emphasised that it was a legal requirement to place criminal defendants in a metal cage and there were no exceptions to this rule. Furthermore, he considered that allowing the first applicant to remain outside the cage in the courtroom would have been equal to her temporary release, contrary to the custodial preventive measure applied. 74.  On 15 March 2013 the Ministry of the Interior confirmed once again to the Agent of the Government that the first applicant had been held in a metal cage in the courtroom during hearings. It further specified that the second applicant had remained with the SIZO medical specialist outside the cage and had been passed to her for breastfeeding when requested. 75.  On 15 November 2012 the first applicant was released on an undertaking not to abscond. 76.  On 25 December 2012 she complained to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office that she had been shackled to her bed in the maternity hospital at all times, including during the delivery. She also complained that the conditions of detention and nutrition in the SIZO had been inadequate. Lastly, the first applicant alleged that the statement she had written on 12 November 2012 expressing her satisfaction with the conditions of detention had been made under psychological pressure (see paragraphs 17 and 41 above). 77.  On 27 December 2012 the State Prisons Service completed the internal investigation it had undertaken following the media coverage of the applicants’ case (see paragraph 45 above). The first applicant’s allegations were dismissed as unsubstantiated. 78.  On 2 January 2013 the first applicant complained to the Kharkiv Zhovtnevyy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the Zhovtnevyy Prosecutor’s Office”) that she had not been provided with adequate medical care during her pregnancy and the delivery; that she had been shackled by her wrists and feet to a gynaecological examination chair or her bed in the maternity hospital at all times, including during the delivery; that the conditions of her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO had been poor; and that neither she nor her baby had received adequate medical care there. On the same date her complaint was registered in the Integrated Register of Pre-trial Investigations and the investigation was started. 79.  On 18 January 2013 the Zhovtnevyy Prosecutor’s Office ordered a forensic medical examination of the case material with a view to establishing: (i) whether the first applicant had any injuries and, if so, how they had been caused; (ii) whether there was any forensic medical evidence that the first applicant had been handcuffed or shackled between 26 January and 15 November 2012; (iii) whether there was any forensic medical evidence that the applicants had not been provided with adequate or sufficient medical care in the Kharkiv SIZO; (iv) whether there was any forensic medical evidence that the applicants had not been provided with adequate or sufficient medical care in the maternity hospital; and (v) if the applicants had not received adequate or sufficient medical care, whether this had had any negative impact on their health. 80.  The aforementioned examination continued from 18 January to 26 March 2013. The answers in the report to all five questions were negative. 81.  On 1 April 2013 the Zhovtnevyy Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation for lack of evidence of a criminal offence. 82.  Also in April 2013 the State Prisons Service, following an enquiry by the Government’s Agent, undertook an internal investigation as regards the lawfulness of the second applicant’s detention in the SIZO. On 22 April 2013 it was completed, with the conclusion that there had been no violation. It was noted in the report that, although in August 2012 the first applicant had verbally expressed her intention to transfer the custody of her baby to her mother, she had later changed her mind as she had been breastfeeding.


5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, are similar to those in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011). They have the same historical context and relate to the same domestic criminal proceedings. 6.  Between 17 and 28 December 1989, many people, including the applicants and the close relatives involved in this case, took part in anti‑communist demonstrations in Bucharest, Timișoara, Slobozia, Vișina and Țăndărei, which led to the fall of the communist regime. They were injured or killed by gunfire during the demonstrations, which took place on 17 December 1989 in Timișoara, and in Bucharest and other cities across the country from 21 to 28 December 1989. 7.  In 1990, following the overthrow of the communist regime, the military prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the December 1989 armed crackdown on the anti-communist demonstrations in Bucharest and the other cities. 8.  In a number of cases concerning the events in Timișoara, the investigations culminated in referral to the courts and the conviction of senior military officers (see Şandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, §§ 6-47, 8 December 2009). 9.  As regards the events in other cities, the criminal investigation is still pending before the prosecuting authorities. The most important procedural steps were summarised in Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41). Subsequent developments in the investigation are as follows. 10.  On 18 October 2010, the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided not to institute criminal proceedings with regard to the acts committed by the military, finding that the applicants’ complaints were partly statute-barred and partly ill-founded. The investigation into crimes committed by civilians, members of Patriotic Guards, members of militia and prison staff was severed from the case file and jurisdiction was relinquished in favour of the prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 11.  On 15 April 2011 the chief prosecutor at the military prosecutor’s office set aside the decision of 18 October 2010 on the grounds that the investigation had not yet been finalised and that not all the victims and perpetrators had been identified. 12.  On 18 April 2011 the military prosecutor’s office relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice on the grounds that the investigation concerned both civilians and military personnel. 13.  On 9 March 2012 - following the opening of the classified information in the criminal investigation file to the public in 2010 - the case was re-registered with a view to an investigation in the light of the newly available data. 14.  Following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in February 2014, jurisdiction over the case was relinquished in favour of the military prosecutor’s office. 15.  On 14 October 2015, the prosecutor’s office closed the investigation, finding that the applicants’ complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences; and that some of the facts were res judicata. The parties have not submitted any information on whether there was an appeal against that decision.


5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Dębowa Kłoda. 6.  In 1997 the applicant married R. In 2004 R. underwent infertility treatment so she could conceive a child with him. 7.  In autumn 2004 the applicant met A.H. In January 2005 he moved out of the flat he had lived in with R. 8.  On 31 October 2005 A.H. gave birth to their daughter, M. 9.  On 25 September 2006 the applicant filed a petition for divorce. At first he requested a no-fault divorce. In his petition the applicant referred to various marital misunderstandings and quarrels for which he blamed the respondent. He admitted that he had moved out of the matrimonial home, but did not mention his involvement with a new partner. 10.  At a hearing held on 15 November 2006 the applicant refused to undergo the mediation process provided for by divorce law. R. did not agree to a divorce, declared that she loved the applicant and asked the court to dismiss the divorce petition. 11.  Subsequently, the applicant requested a divorce on fault‑based grounds. 12.  During the proceedings thirteen witnesses were heard. Most of them were of the opinion that the marriage seemed happy until autumn 2004. Only the applicant’s mother, his two colleagues and his cousin recalled minor arguments between the spouses. 13.  During the final hearing on 9 February 2009 the respondent reiterated her refusal to divorce. 14.  On 17 February 2009 the Lublin Regional Court refused to grant the divorce to the applicant. The court held that he was the only person responsible for the breakdown of his marriage because he had failed to respect the obligation of fidelity. The court did not find it credible that problems had already begun within the first year of the marriage. It observed that until 2004 the applicant had not wanted children. In that year he had changed his mind. For that reason R. had undergone surgery, the operation having taken place in August 2004. 15.  The marital situation had subsequently changed when the applicant had met A.H. He had no longer wished to have a child with his wife. The court noted contradictions between the testimony given by the applicant, who had referred to the alleged serious problems in marital life prior to 2004 on the one hand, and the decision to treat R.’s infertility in summer 2004 on the other. The respondent had been shocked by the applicant’s unfaithfulness and had been treated for depression since autumn 2004. 16.  The court acknowledged that there had indeed been “a complete and irretrievable marriage breakdown” within the meaning of Article 56 § 1 of the Family and Guardianship Code. Reconciliation was unlikely as the applicant had consistently rejected all attempts made by R. to reconcile their differences. Moreover, he had been in a relationship with A.H. for almost four years and had a child with her. 17.  The court emphasised that under Article 56 § 3 of the Family and Guardianship Code, a divorce could not be granted if it had been requested by the party whose fault it was that the marriage had broken down, if the other party refused to consent and the refusal of the innocent party was not “contrary to the reasonable principles of social coexistence” (zasady współżycia społecznego) within the meaning of Article 5 of the Civil Code. 18.  The court considered that R.’s refusal to divorce should be presumed to be compatible with those universally accepted principles. It referred to the case-law of the Supreme Court to the effect that a refusal of consent to a divorce was to be presumed to be compliant with those principles unless there were case-specific indications to the contrary. There was no indication that when refusing to give her consent R. had acted out of hatred, was motivated by vengeance, or simply wanted to vex the applicant. The court emphasised that she had repeatedly stated during the proceedings that she was ready to reconcile with him despite the fact that he had a child with another woman. 19.  The court stressed that the duration of the applicant’s new relationship could not by itself be considered to be a sufficient reason for granting the divorce. 20.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. He argued, inter alia, that the court had erred in holding that a spouse’s refusal to consent to a divorce could be disregarded only when it was of an abusive nature or was dictated by hostility towards the spouse seeking the divorce. The court should have examined the negative social consequences caused by continuing the formal existence of failed marriages. In his case, it had failed to do so. 21.  On 16 June 2009 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 22.  The applicant did not request to be served with the written grounds for the appellate judgment. The grounds were therefore not prepared. 23.  The judgment was final, a cassation appeal against a divorce judgment not being available in law.


5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Nizhyn in the Chernihiv Region. 6.  On 1 May 2010 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody pending the outcome of the investigation and trial. 7.  On 30 April 2013 the Alchevsk Court of the Luhansk Region convicted the applicant and his four co-defendants of armed robbery committed in an organised group, banditry and illegal possession of firearms in connection with a series of armed attacks committed in the Perevalsk District of the Luhansk Region. The court sentenced the applicant to eight years and nine months’ imprisonment, to be counted from 1 May 2010 (the date on which he had been arrested), and to confiscation of his property. It ordered that the applicant remain in detention pending appeal. 8.  On 14 May 2013 the applicant’s sister, acting in the capacity of his lay defender, appealed against the judgment to the Luhansk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). Other parties lodged appeals as well. 9.  From the beginning of April 2014, armed groups started to seize official buildings in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and announced the creation of self-proclaimed entities known as the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” (“DPR” and “LPR”). 10.  In response, on 14 April 2014 the Ukrainian Government, who consider those armed groups to be terrorist organisations, authorised the use of force against them in the legal form of an “anti-terrorist operation”. 11.  As a result of extensive military action, between May and August 2015 the Ukrainian Government forces recaptured some territory in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, but certain parts of the regions have remained outside of the Government’s control since that time. The parts of the Luhansk Region not under the Government’s control include the Perevalsk District, where the offences for which the applicant was convicted were committed, Alchevsk, where the applicant was tried and convicted, and Luhansk, where the Court of Appeal was located. 12.  A ceasefire was agreed upon within the framework of the Tripartite Contact Group composed of representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (hereinafter, “the OSCE”). An obligation to uphold the ceasefire and to withdraw heavy weaponry from the contact line was enshrined in the Minsk Agreements and the Package of Measures for their Implementation of September 2014 and February 2015 respectively. However, numerous violations of the ceasefire have continued to occur ever since. 13.  At the time the events of spring and summer 2014 were unfolding, the applicant was detained in Starobilsk remand prison, located in the part of the Luhansk Region that has remained under the control of the Ukrainian Government. He remained in that prison until his release (see paragraph 30 below). 14.  On 6 June 2014 the Court of Appeal, which was still sitting in Luhansk, failed to hear the applicant’s case because the applicant could not attend the hearing on account of the armed conflict. A hearing by video conference was scheduled for 8 August 2014, but it did not take place because as from 1 August 2014 the electricity and water supply and telephone communications were cut off at the Court of Appeal’s building in Luhansk. At some point around that time, the judges of the court moved to the Government-controlled territory. The case files, however, remained at the court’s building in Luhansk. 15.  On 2 September 2014 the President of the High Civil and Criminal Court, acting under the Law of 12 August 2014 (see paragraph 44 below), reassigned jurisdiction over cases which would normally have fallen within the jurisdiction of the Alchevsk Court to the Lysychansk Court of the Luhansk Region (“the Lysychansk Court”), located in the Government‑controlled area. 16.  On 12 November 2014 the President of Ukraine issued a decree defining Sieverodonetsk in the Luhansk Region, also located in the Government-controlled area, as the seat of the Court of Appeal instead of Luhansk. 17.  On 25 February 2015 the applicant complained to the Court of Appeal about the delay in the examination of his appeal. 18.  On 3 March 2015 the applicant lodged a similar complaint with the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights. 19.  On 27 March 2015 the Court of Appeal informed the applicant that his criminal case file was in Luhansk, which was not under the Government’s control, and that this prevented the court from examining his case. In order to resolve the problem, amendments would have to be made to the relevant legislation. 20.  On 30 March 2015 the Parliamentary Commissioner’s office responded that there was no way to obtain case files from the territory that was not under the Government’s control, but that the Commissioner was working with the courts, the prosecutor’s office and other authorities to find a way to resolve the problem. 21.  In response to another complaint from the applicant, on 19 May 2015 the Court of Appeal informed him that it was unable to apprise him of the state of proceedings in his case because his criminal case file was in the court archives in Luhansk, to which there was no access. 22.  On 21 May 2015 the Parliament of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada) adopted a declaration which read, insofar as relevant, as follows:
“I. Derogation from Obligations
... 2. In view of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine involving both the regular Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and illegal armed groups guided, controlled and financed by the Russian Federation, since April 2014 an anti-terrorist operation has been conducted by the units of the Security Service of Ukraine, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and the Armed Forces of Ukraine in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (oblasts) of Ukraine. The anti-terrorist operation is part of Ukraine’s inalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Russian Federation, which has occupied and is exercising control over certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, is fully responsible for respect for and protection of human rights in these territories under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. 3. The Russian Federation’s ongoing armed aggression against Ukraine, together with war crimes and crimes against humanity committed both by the regular Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and by illegal armed groups guided, controlled and financed by the Russian Federation, constitutes ‘a public emergency threatening the life of the nation’ in the sense of ... Article 15 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 4. In order to safeguard the vital interests of society and the State in response to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, the Parliament of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and other authorities have to adopt decisions which constitute a derogation from certain obligations on the part of Ukraine under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
... 7. On 12 August 2014, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Law on Administration of Justice and Criminal Proceedings in connection with the Anti‑terrorist Operation. The Law changed, for the duration of the anti-terrorist operation, the territorial jurisdiction over cases amenable to the courts located in the anti-terrorist operation area and, concerning the situations where it is impossible to conduct a pre-trial investigation in that area, investigative jurisdiction over criminal offences perpetrated there. The application of this law makes it necessary for Ukraine to derogate from certain of its obligations under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, the courts and pre-trial investigation bodies are not currently functioning in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions because of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation and the actions of terrorist groups backed by the Russian Federation. That is why Ukraine has had to change the territorial jurisdiction of the courts and investigative jurisdiction in respect of criminal offences in conditions where the life of the nation is threatened.
...” 23.  On 5 June 2015 the Permanent Representation of Ukraine to the Council of Europe transmitted to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe a note verbale containing the text of the above declaration and its translation. 24.  On 15 June 2015 the applicant applied to the Lysychansk Court for restoration of the lost case file (відновлення матеріалів втраченого провадження). 25.  On 22 June 2015 the Lysychansk Court held a hearing in the presence of a prosecutor but in the applicant’s absence. The prosecutor stated that the case file in question was not in the area of the Luhansk Region controlled by the Ukrainian Government and that it was therefore not possible to furnish the court with any of the material therein. The court found that there was insufficient material available to restore the file. It discontinued the examination of the application, reminding the parties that if sufficient material was provided, the question of restoration could be re‑examined. 26.  On 22 October 2015 the Court of Appeal again informed the applicant that examination of his case required amendments to the legislation. In this context, it referred to draft law no. 2930 (see paragraph 47 below). 27.  On five occasions between May 2015 and February 2016 the applicant applied for release, arguing that his detention was unlawful because his conviction was not final and “would never become final”. 28.  The Starobilsk Court of the Luhansk Region rejected the applicant’s applications for release, finding that, contrary to his submissions, there were sufficient legal grounds for continuing to detain him, since he had been convicted and his case was pending before the Court of Appeal. The most recent of those decisions was taken on 25 February 2016. No appeal lay against them. 29.  On 30 December 2016 the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for release under the Law of 26 November 2015 (see paragraph 46 below). 30.  On 18 March 2016 the Lysychansk Court released the applicant. It considered that, as he had been held in pre‑trial detention since 1 May 2010, under the Law of 26 November 2015 he could be deemed to have already served his sentence. 31.  The regional prosecutor’s office appealed, arguing that the applicant’s conviction had not become final because his domestic case file had remained inaccessible in a non-Government-controlled area and appeals against his conviction were still pending before the Court of Appeal. According to the prosecutor’s office, only convicted persons whose convictions had become final could benefit from the application of the new legislation. By contrast, those whose convictions were not final could be released only once the period for which they had been detained had exceeded half of the maximum sentence for the offence of which they stood accused. Since the applicant was accused of offences, in particular banditry and aggravated robbery, the maximum punishment for which was fifteen years’ imprisonment (see paragraph 41 below), and he had served much less than half of that term, he could not be released. 32.  On 24 May 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the Lysychansk Court’s ruling of 18 March 2016 (see paragraph 30 above). 33.  Following communication of the case to the respondent Government, on 11 August 2016 the regional prosecutor’s office informed the office of the Government Agent that, apart from the applicant, there were seven other individuals still held in the region’s remand prisons against whom criminal proceedings were still pending but whose case files were in the non-Government-controlled areas. The prosecutor’s office stated that it had requested the assistance of the police in gathering the documentation necessary to restore the relevant files. That work had allowed the prosecutor’s office to gather sufficient material to ask the courts to consider the case against one of those individuals. The work was ongoing concerning two other defendants. Assistance had also been requested from the International Committee of the Red Cross, which operated in both the Government-controlled and the non-Government-controlled areas, in facilitating the transfer of files from the Court of Appeal’s building in Luhansk. 34.  At the date of last information made available to the Court (19 January 2017), the applicant’s appeal against his conviction remained pending before the Court of Appeal.


4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Olekminsk, Sakha (Yakutia) Republic. 5.  On 23 December 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. 6.  On 25 December 2008 the Olekminskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic remanded the applicant in custody. 7.  On 21 February, 19 March, 18 May, 18 June, 15 August, and 12 September 2009 the court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention and held that despite the fact that he had permanent residence, job and family, he should remain in detention as the investigation was still pending, he could threaten witnesses or re-offend. 8.  On 18 June 2009 the judge stated in his detention order as follows:
“... the circumstances of the case have not changed. [The applicant] ... committed the crime under the influence of alcohol ..., he concealed that he had committed the crime ...” 9.  On 27 November 2009 the court replaced the pre-trial detention with a house arrest. 10.  On 10 June 2010 the Olekminskiy District Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment. On 10 August 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld his conviction on appeal.


5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Sofia. 6.  The applicant had been employed by the National Security Service as a system operator since 1981. She submitted that, on account of the nature of her duties, she had held a security clearance permitting her access to classified information constituting State secrets. According to the applicant’s job description, being in a possession of such a security clearance had been a prerequisite to her holding her post. 7.  On 30 April 2002 the Classified Information Protection Act (hereinafter “the Act”) was promulgated in the State Gazette. Under the Classified Information Protection Act, permits granting access to classified information that had been issued under the legal provisions existing before the entry into force of the Act were to remain valid until their replacement by security clearance allowing access to classified information. The heads of organisational units employing persons who possessed an access permit and whose positions required that they have access to classified information were to request the issuance of security clearance, in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Non-compliance with that provision would result in the invalidation of the respective existing access permits. 8.  On 3 June 2003, in compliance with that obligation, the Director of the National Security Service issued a decision refusing the applicant security clearance allowing access to classified information. The applicant submitted that that decision had been based on a psychological test. The decision did not contain any reasoning in respect of the refusal, apart from a reference to Section 57 of the Classified Information Protection Act. 9.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal with the State Commission for Information Security. The latter, by a decision of 5 February 2004, upheld the refusal. That decision was final and not amenable to judicial review. 10.  On 27 April 2004, the Director of the National Security Service ordered that the applicant be dismissed. The reason given for the termination of her employment was the refusal to grant her security clearance, possession of which was an indispensable condition of her being able to perform her duties. 11.  The applicant challenged her dismissal at three levels of jurisdiction. She contested the objectivity and the lawfulness of the dismissal procedure, arguing that she had fulfilled all conditions for the issuance of security clearance and that she had been dismissed on account of the negative personal relationship between her and her direct supervisor. In the applicant’s view, the clearance had probably been refused because she had suffered from depressive neurosis in 1995, a condition which according to her was no longer relevant. The applicant’s request that a report by a psychiatric expert be commissioned was refused by the Sofia District Court. 12.  By its judgment of 11 May 2005 the Sofia District Court rejected the applicant’s claims, reasoning that the refusal of the Director of the National Security Service to grant security clearance to the applicant was a final and valid administrative act, and it rendered the applicant’s dismissal inevitable because she was no longer able to perform her duties. The court added that the refusal was not amenable to any judicial review; therefore, the court was not competent to examine, within the framework of the dismissal proceedings, any substantial or procedural questions related to its lawfulness. 13.  On appeal, the Sofia City Court, by a ruling of 6 April 2006 upheld the lower court’s decision, endorsing its reasoning. 14.  On 19 June 2008, the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld those rulings.


5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Vilnius. 6.  At around 12.30 p.m. on 28 April 2006, the applicant’s motorcycle collided with a car driven by M.N. in a residential area of Vilnius. M.N. was not injured, but the applicant suffered multiple spinal fractures and serious damage to his spinal cord. As a result of the accident, he lost the ability to walk and became disabled. 7.  On the day of the accident, 28 April 2006, the Vilnius City Police Department opened a pre-trial investigation concerning a possible violation of road traffic safety regulations resulting in an accident that caused non‑severe impairment to another person’s health (Article 281 § 1 of the Criminal Code). The pre-trial investigation was supervised by the Vilnius City District Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the district prosecutor”). 8.  On the same day M.N. was questioned as a witness. He stated that before the collision he had been driving at a speed of around 50 km/h and had decided to overtake the car in front of him. The road had two lanes. He checked that there were no cars in the left-hand lane, coming either from in front or from behind, indicated left and overtook the car. He then indicated right and began returning to the right-hand lane. At that moment he felt a blow to the back of his car but did not understand what had happened. He drove for another thirty metres and stopped the car. Then he noticed that a motorcycle and its rider were lying on the ground, and called the police and the ambulance service. He had not seen the motorcycle before the collision. 9.  On the same day the police investigator examined the scene of the accident. The investigator’s report indicated that the accident had occurred on a sunny day, on a straight paved road which had been dry. It described the location of the applicant’s motorcycle and M.N.’s car as they had been found after the accident, as well as the presence of skid marks and fragments of glass and plastic on the road. All those elements were also indicated in a sketch drawn by the investigator. The sketch included a column for drivers to sign if they agreed that the scene of the accident had been depicted accurately, but it was not signed by either the applicant or M.N. 10.  On the same day the investigator examined the applicant’s motorcycle and M.N.’s car. The investigator’s report described the damage to the front, back and both sides of the motorcycle, and to the back of the car. It also stated that before the accident both the motorcycle and the car had been in good technical condition and working properly. 11.  On the same day a court medical expert took blood samples from the applicant and M.N. in order to determine whether they had been sober. The examination detected no traces of alcohol in the blood of either of them. 12.  On 4 May 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the investigation and questioned about the details of the accident. He stated that before the collision he had been driving at about 60 km/h and had decided to overtake a bus and two cars. Seeing that the left-hand lane was free, he began overtaking the bus and the cars and accelerated to about 70 km/h. After overtaking them, while still in the left-hand lane, he slowed down to 50 km/h, but as that lane was free, he decided to also overtake three more cars and a truck. He began to accelerate again, but then one of the three cars, which at that moment was about fifteen metres in front of him, suddenly pulled out into the left-hand lane without indicating. The applicant applied the brakes but started losing control of the motorcycle, so he released the brakes before applying them again. The front wheel of the motorcycle hit the back of the car. The applicant fell off the motorcycle and landed on the road. He did not see what happened to the motorcycle after the collision. He lay on the ground until the ambulance arrived and took him to hospital. 13.  On 5 May 2006 a court medical expert concluded that the applicant’s injuries corresponded to severe health impairment. 14.  On an unspecified date the legal ground for the pre-trial investigation was changed to Article 281 § 3 of the Criminal Code – violation of road traffic safety regulations, which resulted in an accident causing severe impairment to another person’s health. 15.  From 3 to 16 May 2006 the police investigator questioned the applicant’s mother and five eyewitnesses to the accident. It appears that the eyewitnesses provided contradictory testimonies as to the location and speed of the two vehicles immediately before the collision, the distance between them and the exact account of the events leading up to the collision. 16.  On 15 May 2006 the investigator examined the scene of the accident together with M.N. The latter indicated the trajectory of his car before the collision and the exact location of the collision. 17.  On 20 June 2006 the applicant was informed that a forensic expert would be instructed to examine the circumstances of the accident and establish an account of the events. The applicant’s lawyer submitted additional questions to be forwarded to the expert. The relevant order adopted on 14 July 2006 by the Vilnius City Second District Court and forwarded to the expert on 1 September 2006 does not appear to have included the questions submitted by the applicant’s lawyer. 18.  The examination was carried out by an expert from the Forensic Science Centre of Lithuania (Lietuvos teismo ekspertizės centras), a governmental institution responsible for carrying out forensic examinations required by courts and other pre-trial investigation bodies. The expert was provided with the sketch of the accident (see paragraph 9 above) and photographs of the two vehicles, and asked to determine the location of the collision, to estimate the speed of the motorcycle before the collision, and to establish who had been responsible for the accident. The expert report, delivered on 31 January 2007 (hereinafter “the first expert report”), stated that the description of the skid marks and the fragments of glass and plastic on the road indicated that the collision had occurred in the right-hand lane. The expert estimated the speed of the motorcycle immediately before the collision as at least 70.3 km/h and, assuming that the speed limit on that road was 50 km/h, noted that the applicant had exceeded that limit. The expert concluded that the accident had been caused by the applicant because he had been exceeding the speed limit and had started applying his brakes too late to avoid the collision. 19.  On 22 February 2007 the district prosecutor instructed the police investigator to carry out a number of additional investigative actions, including:
−  interviewing the officer who had sketched the accident scene (see paragraph 9 above) in order to determine whether the sketch was accurate and why it had not been signed by the applicant and M.N.;
−  examining the scene of the accident together with the applicant in order to verify his account of the events leading to the collision;
−  finding out whether, at the time of the accident, there were any traffic signs on the road indicating the speed limit, or any restrictions on overtaking;
−  additionally questioning an eyewitness who had claimed that following the collision the applicant’s motorcycle had risen up in the air and landed in the right-hand lane, in order to clarify the details of that testimony; and
−  questioning another eyewitness identified by the applicant’s mother. 20.  On 26 February 2007 the applicant’s mother, R.K., whom the applicant had authorised to act on his behalf, complained to the district prosecutor that the pre-trial investigation was being carried out slowly and ineffectively. She claimed that the sketch of the accident was inaccurate, as proven by the absence of the drivers’ signatures. She also complained that the investigators had not questioned all the eyewitnesses to the accident and had not eliminated the contradictions between different testimonies. R.K. further complained that the questions of the applicant’s lawyer had not been forwarded to the expert examining the circumstances of the accident (see paragraph 17 above). Lastly, she complained that the prosecutor had sent that expert’s report to the wrong address, so she and the applicant had not received it. R.K. asked the court to change the investigator in charge of the pre-trial investigation and to ensure that essential investigative measures were carried out. 21.  On 16 March 2007 the district prosecutor upheld R.K.’s complaint. The pre-trial investigation was transferred to a different investigator within the Vilnius City Police Department and the investigator was instructed to carry out the investigative measures requested by R.K. As to the forensic expert’s report, the prosecutor informed R.K. that the questions to be submitted to the expert had been approved by a court decision, which the applicant had not challenged. 22.  On 27 March 2007 the district prosecutor notified the Vilnius City Police Department that the newly appointed investigator was conducting the pre-trial investigation “in a sluggish manner” (vangiai), contrary to the requirement to complete it in the shortest possible time. 23.  In March and April 2007 the police investigator carried out the additional investigative measures ordered by the district prosecutor (see paragraph 19 above). 24.  On 18 April 2007, in response to R.K.’s complaint, the district prosecutor informed her that the police officer who had drawn up the sketch of the accident had been questioned and confirmed its accuracy, so there were no grounds to suspect that the sketch had been falsified. The prosecutor also noted that an internal inquiry had been opened concerning the absence of the drivers’ signatures on the sketch of the accident. 25.  Subsequently, in his order to the Vilnius City Police Department the district prosecutor pointed out that the absence of the drivers’ signatures on the sketch had given R.K. legitimate doubts as to its accuracy, and asked the police to look into the officers’ actions when drawing up the sketch. On 29 May 2007 the inquiry found that the police investigator who had carried out the initial investigative measures and who had been responsible for ensuring that the drivers signed the sketch had not performed her duties properly. However, the investigator was not given a disciplinary penalty because more than one year had passed since the breach and she was no longer working in the interior affairs system. 26.  On 21 May 2007 R.K. complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office that the district prosecutor was not properly supervising the pre-trial investigation, which was slow and ineffective. She raised similar complaints to those she had raised before (see paragraph 20 above) and asked for the removal of the prosecutor who had been in charge of supervising the investigation. On 15 June 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office dismissed R.K.’s complaint, finding no serious breaches in the prosecutor’s actions. The Prosecutor General’s Office also held that although the prosecutor had sent some documents to an incorrect address, those same documents had also been sent to the applicant’s lawyer, so the applicant had in fact received them. 27.  On 10 December 2007 the Vilnius City Second District Court ordered an additional forensic examination of the circumstances of the accident. The examination was carried out by the same expert from the Forensic Science Centre as before (see paragraph 18 above). The expert report, delivered on 16 June 2008 (hereinafter “the second expert report”), did not make a fresh estimate of the speed of the applicant’s motorcycle but relied on the findings of the first expert report and considered that the applicant had been travelling at a speed of at least 70.3 km/h. It found that the speed limit at the location of the accident had been 60 km/h and not 50 km/h, as assumed in the first expert report, which nonetheless meant that the applicant had exceeded the speed limit. Having examined the sketch of the accident and the damage to both vehicles, the second report confirmed the conclusion of the first report that the collision had occurred in the right‑hand lane, while the motorcycle was moving into it from the left-hand lane. It found no data indicating that M.N. had been driving at speeds in excess of the speed limit or that he had done anything which might have caused the accident. The report concluded that the accident had been caused by the applicant: the main cause had not been the speed of the motorcycle but the difference between the speed of the two vehicles, and the fact that the applicant had not started to brake in time to avoid the collision. 28.  On 13 August 2008 the district prosecutor discontinued the pre-trial investigation on the grounds that M.N.’s actions had not amounted to a crime as provided for by Article 281 § 3 of the Criminal Code. R.K. appealed against that decision before a senior prosecutor, arguing that the investigation had been biased and incomplete. She stressed in particular that the sketch of the accident had been inaccurate, as proven by the absence of the drivers’ signatures (see paragraph 9 above). She also submitted that the prosecutor had disregarded the testimonies of some eyewitnesses that the collision had occurred in the left-hand lane and that it had caused the applicant’s motorcycle to rise up in the air and land in the other lane (see paragraph 19 above). Her appeal, however, was dismissed. The senior prosecutor pointed out that two expert reports had concluded that the accident had been caused not by M.N. but by the applicant himself, and that the testimonies of several eyewitnesses had confirmed that conclusion. 29.  R.K. appealed before the Vilnius City First District Court. She again argued that the sketch of the accident was inaccurate, as proven by the absence of the drivers’ signatures. She also submitted an opinion by a specialist in the field of road traffic accidents, issued at R.K.’s request on 17 October 2008 (hereinafter “the specialist’s opinion”), which had concluded that although both the applicant and M.N. had exceeded the speed limit, that fact had not been the cause of the accident. The specialist considered that the accident had occurred in the left-hand lane and that it had been caused by M.N. suddenly entering that lane – despite the applicant’s attempts to brake and slow down, it had not been objectively possible for him to avoid the collision. 30.  On 20 November 2008 the Vilnius City First District Court upheld R.K.’s appeal and reopened the pre-trial investigation. The court noted the contradictory findings of the expert reports on one hand and the specialist’s opinion on the other hand, and considered that it was necessary to conduct a fresh forensic examination by a different expert in order to eliminate those contradictions. 31.  On 23 February 2009 the police investigator ordered a fresh examination of the circumstances of the accident. The examination was carried out by a different expert from the Forensic Science Centre. In his report, delivered on 15 May 2009 (hereinafter “the third expert report”), the expert examined the sketch of the accident and photographs of the two vehicles, and estimated that immediately before the collision the applicant had been travelling at a speed of at least 70 km/h, and that it was not possible to determine the speed at which M.N. had been driving. The report also stated that the motorcycle had hit the right side of the car, so even if, as claimed by the applicant, the car had entered the left-hand lane suddenly and unexpectedly, that would not have caused the collision, which had occurred in the right-hand lane. The report concluded that the accident had been caused by the applicant, who had exceeded the speed limit and had not slowed down in time to avoid the collision. 32.  On 3 June 2009 the district prosecutor discontinued the pre-trial investigation on the grounds that M.N.’s actions had not amounted to the crime stipulated in Article 281 § 3 of the Criminal Code. On 7 July 2009 a senior prosecutor upheld that decision, noting that the third expert report had confirmed that the accident had been caused by the actions of the applicant and not of M.N. 33.  R.K. lodged an appeal with the Vilnius City Second District Court, submitting that the third expert report was inaccurate, in particular because it concluded that the collision had occurred in the right-hand lane, which was contrary to the material in the case file. She also submitted that the third expert report had not refuted the conclusions of the specialist’s opinion. R.K. further argued that the testimonies of some eyewitnesses had clearly demonstrated that the accident had been caused by M.N. (see paragraph 28 above), but they had not been properly considered by the prosecutor. 34.  On 5 August 2009 the Vilnius City Second District Court upheld the appeal and reopened the pre-trial investigation. The court held that it was necessary to address the arguments presented in R.K.’s appeal and that the third expert report had to be assessed together with the other available evidence, such as reports concerning the location of the accident and eyewitness testimonies. 35.  On 23 November 2009 the Vilnius City Second District Court ordered a fresh expert examination of the circumstances of the accident. The order was forwarded to the Forensic Science Centre on 4 March 2010, together with the specialist’s opinion. The examination was carried out by a different expert from the Forensic Science Centre. The expert report, delivered on 11 June 2010 (hereinafter “the fourth expert report”), examined the sketch of the accident and photographs of the two vehicles, and estimated that immediately before the collision the applicant had been travelling at a speed of at least 70.3 km/h. It found that although it was not possible to estimate the speed at which M.N. had been driving, the fact that the motorcycle had hit the back of the car meant that the car had been going slower than the motorcycle. The expert considered that it was not possible to determine the trajectory of the two vehicles before the collision. However, even if the applicant’s version was to be believed and M.N.’s car had suddenly entered the left-hand lane at a distance of fifteen metres from the applicant’s motorcycle (see paragraph 12 above), the applicant could have slowed down and avoided the collision. The fourth expert report concluded that the accident had occurred in the right-hand lane and that it had been caused by the applicant who had exceeded the speed limit and had not slowed down in time to avoid the collision. 36.  In January and February 2010 the police investigator again questioned the applicant, M.N. and some of the eyewitnesses questioned previously. 37.  R.K. was informed about the findings of the fourth expert report on 2 August 2010. She complained to the district prosecutor that she had not been given the opportunity to submit additional questions to the expert, in particular, whether having collided with the car, the motorcycle could have risen up in the air and landed in a different lane, as claimed by some eyewitnesses (see paragraph 28 above). R.K. also complained that the expert had relied on low-quality photographs of the motorcycle but had not examined the motorcycle itself, and that the report’s findings had been incorrect. On 8 September 2010 the district prosecutor upheld R.K.’s complaint and ordered the police investigator to examine the applicant’s motorcycle and to forward R.K.’s questions to the expert who had conducted the fourth examination. On 18 October 2010 the expert responded that the description of the location of the accident showed that during the collision the motorcycle had not risen up into the air. 38.  On 2 November 2010 the district prosecutor again discontinued the pre-trial investigation on the grounds that M.N.’s actions had not amounted to the crime stipulated in Article 281 § 3 of the Criminal Code. On 22 December 2010 a senior prosecutor upheld that decision, considering that the fourth expert report had assessed all the material collected during the pre-trial investigation, including the specialist’s opinion, and that R.K. had been given sufficient opportunity to present her questions to the expert. 39.  On 17 February 2011 the Vilnius City Second District Court dismissed an appeal lodged by R.K. and upheld the prosecutor’s decision. The court considered that expert reports and eyewitness testimonies demonstrated that M.N. had entered the left-hand lane within a safe distance from the applicant’s motorcycle, and thus had not violated road traffic safety regulations. Although there had been contradictory eyewitness testimonies as to the exact distance between M.N.’s car and the applicant’s motorcycle, the court considered that any doubts had to be interpreted in M.N.’s favour. The court also held that the conclusions of the specialist’s opinion that the collision had occurred in the left-hand lane had been contrary to the description of the location of the accident as provided in the sketch (see paragraph 9 above). 40.  On 22 March 2011 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the lower court’s decision and reopened the pre-trial investigation. It held that the decision to discontinue the investigation had not been based on a comprehensive assessment of all the collected material but had relied exclusively on evidence favourable to M.N., disregarding the applicant’s statements, eyewitness testimonies, and the specialist’s opinion. The court disagreed with the conclusion that M.N. had started overtaking within a safe distance from the applicant’s motorcycle, and noted that M.N. had also had an obligation to make sure that none of the drivers behind him had started overtaking, so it was possible that he had committed the crime stipulated in Article 281 § 3 of the Criminal Code. The court observed that the question of M.N.’s criminal responsibility would be best determined by a court examining the case on the merits. 41.  On 30 May 2011, at R.K.’s request, another expert from the Forensic Science Centre submitted an opinion that, judging from the damage to both vehicles, there were no grounds to believe that the motorcycle had risen up in the air when it had collided with M.N.’s car. 42.  On 31 May 2011 the district prosecutor discontinued the pre-trial investigation as time-barred, while also observing that the investigation had not identified any grounds to believe that a crime may have been committed (the prosecutor did not refer to the Vilnius Regional Court’s decision of 22 March 2011 – see paragraph 40 above). The prosecutor’s decision does not appear to have been appealed against. 43.  On 18 August 2011 the applicant submitted a civil claim for damages against M.N. He stated that the accident and the resulting injuries and disability had caused him significant distress, inconvenience and emotional trauma. The applicant claimed 600,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL − approximately 173,772 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages and LTL 76,739.37 (EUR 22,225) in pecuniary damages for medical expenses and rehabilitation. 44.  On 26 September 2012 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It relied on the expert reports delivered during the pre‑trial investigation and noted that all of them had established that the accident had been caused not by M.N. but by the applicant himself. Although the specialist’s opinion, delivered at the request of the applicant’s mother, had reached a different conclusion, the court considered that the fourth expert report had taken its findings into consideration, and that it was thus unnecessary for the court to discuss the specialist’s findings separately. It also observed that the judgment of the Vilnius Regional Court of 22 March 2011 (see paragraph 39 above) could not be interpreted as affirming M.N.’s responsibility for the accident. As a result, the court concluded that it had not been established that M.N. had breached any legal requirements, which was a pre-condition for his civil liability to arise. The court also noted that the applicant had bought the motorcycle only two days before the accident, that he had not had any prior experience in driving that kind of vehicle, and that the motorcycle had not undergone a technical examination before the accident. Accordingly, the court found that the applicant himself may have breached road traffic safety regulations. The civil claim was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay LTL 1,521 (EUR 440.5) in legal expenses to M.N. and the State. 45.  On 2 December 2013 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the lower court in its entirety.


5.  The applicant was born in 1962. He is serving a prison sentence in the Orenburg region. 6.  The applicant was head of the security service of the Yukos oil company. 7.  On 14 April 2005 the applicant, who had been found guilty of several counts of attempted murder and murder on 24 March 2005, was charged with the murder of Kr. and Fd. and the attempted murder of R., I. and Fl. On 4 July 2005 the applicant was charged with the murder of P. and the attempted murder of Kk. The charge sheet stated, in particular, that the applicant had entered into a criminal conspiracy with N. and other unidentified managers of the Menatep bank to murder Kr., R. and P. with whom the Yukos oil company had been in conflict for various reasons. The applicant had asked G. to find and hire hitmen to commit those murders. G. had hired Sh., Ts., Re., Go. and O. who had killed Kr. and P. and had committed several unsuccessful attempts to kill R. Fd., I., Fl. and Kk. had been collateral victims of their actions. 8.  According to the applicant, the investigation was completed on 5 July 2005. 9.  On 5 July 2005 a Deputy Prosecutor General K., gave an interview to two major Russian channels, the NTV and the First Channel. The interview was broadcasted in their news programmes of the same date. K. said, in particular:
“N., a member of the Committee of Directors of the Yukos oil company and the first deputy president of that oil company, [the applicant], the head of the 4th division of the internal and financial security service of that oil company, and other still unidentified persons among the employees of that oil company founded a criminal gang for committing criminal offences in their personal and other interests. In 1998 [the applicant], upon instructions from N. and other employees of the Yukos oil company ..., organised the murder of the head of the Nefteyugansk Town Council P[.] ... For that purposes [the applicant] involved G., Go., Sh., Re. and Ts. ...”
“[The applicant], upon instructions from N. and other unidentified persons from among the managers of the Menatep bank, organised the murder of the director of the Fenix company Kr[.] who had acted contrary to their interests ...”. 10.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. He complained that the prosecutor’s statements had encouraged the public to believe him guilty and prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent court. They therefore had breached his presumption of innocence. The applicant also stated that he had wished to ask for a trial by jury but had had to renounce his wish for fear that the jurors might be influenced by the prosecutor’s statements to the press. 11.  On 10 July 2007 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, finding that the applicant had been charged with many counts of murder and attempted murder. In his statements to the press K. had related the facts as established by the investigation and confirmed by the materials in the criminal case file. He had acted lawfully and had not breached the applicant’s rights. 12.  On 16 October 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 10 July 2007 on appeal. 13.  On 11 September 2005 the TVC Channel broadcasted an interview with B., a lead investigator of the Prosecutor General’s office in charge of the applicant’s case. B. said, in particular:
“B.: At present we have already completed the investigation into several more episodes of the criminal activities of the Yukos oil company. [The applicant], the former head of the internal financial security service, has been charged with six [counts of murder]... The crimes were organised by, among others, N. ... In fact, N. organised and financed all these crimes.
The presenter: Does it mean that P. was killed by the same gang that had committed other murders? B.: This gang was founded by [the applicant] on the instructions from N.. Yes, this was proved. It was financed by N.” 14.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow. He complained that B.’s statements had breached his presumption of innocence. 15.  On 11 January 2006 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. It found that B. had orally expressed his personal opinion about the applicant’s guilt in his interview to the press. His statements were not contained in an official document issued in the framework of the criminal proceedings. There was no reason to believe that B.’s opinion had breached the applicant’s constitutional rights or had undermined the fairness of his forthcoming trial. 16.  On 6 March 2006 the City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 17.  On 20 March 2006 the City Court held a preliminary hearing of the applicant’s case. 18.  On 17 August 2006 the City Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants Sh., Ts., Re. and O. of the murder of Kr., P. and Fd. and the attempted murder of R., I. and Fl. It acquitted the applicant of the attempted murder of Kk. The applicant was sentenced to twenty-one years’ imprisonment. 19.  On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction in respect of the applicant’s co-defendants. It quashed the applicant’s conviction and remitted the case for a retrial before another judge of the City Court. 20.  The second trial started on 17 April 2007. During the hearing the court examined a handwritten note containing R.’s address in Vienna. That note had been found among the personal belongings of the late G. who, according to witness statements, had been an intermediary between the applicant, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Ts. and Re. who had committed the two attempts on R.’s life. 21.  The Court also examined the expert reports of 24 December 2003 and 7 October 2004, ordered by the investigator. In the report of 24 December 2003 the experts found that it could not be excluded that the note had been written by the applicant. It was however not possible to make any firm conclusions about the author of the note for the lack of comparative material. In the report of 7 October 2004 the experts found, after having examined additional samples of the applicant’s handwriting, that the note in question had been written by him. When questioned in court, the experts confirmed their findings. 22.  The applicant submitted to the court a “specialist” opinion of 4 July 2004 by V. According to V., the samples of the applicant’s handwriting submitted for comparative analysis were insufficient to make any firm conclusions as to whether he was the author of the note. V. confirmed her findings when questioned in court. 23.  Referring to the “specialist” opinion of 4 July 2004, the applicant asked for a new handwriting expert opinion and submitted a list of questions to be put to the experts. The court refused the request, finding that the case file already contained two expert opinions and a “specialist” opinion and that there was no need for an additional expert examination of the note. The court refused to admit the “specialist” opinion as evidence noting that it contained only “a value judgment” in respect of the experts’ findings. 24.  On 6 August 2007 the City Court found the applicant guilty of the murder of Kr., P. and Fd. and the attempted murder of R., I. and Fl. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 25.  As regards the attempted murder of R., the court relied, inter alia, on the expert opinion of 7 October 2004, finding that the applicant had been the author of the handwritten note containing R.’s address. It declared the specialist opinion of 4 July 2004 inadmissible as evidence because V. had not been appointed as a forensic expert and did not therefore have any procedural status. 26.  On 31 January 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.