5.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lived in Moscow until his arrest. 6.  The background facts relating to the planning, conduct and dispersal of the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square are set out in more detail in Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, §§ 7-65, 5 January 2016), and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia (nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 7-33, 4 October 2016). The parties’ submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below. 7.  On 6 May 2012 a public demonstration entitled the “March of Millions” was held in central Moscow to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections. The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at Bolotnaya Square, which was supposed to end at 7.30 p.m. The march was peaceful and held without any disruptions, but when the marchers arrived at Bolotnaya Square it became apparent that barriers installed by the police had narrowed the entrance to the meeting venue, allegedly restricting the space allocated for the meeting. To control the crowd the police cordon forced the protestors to remain within the barriers; there were numerous clashes between the two sides. At 5.30 p.m. the police ordered the meeting to finish early and began to disperse the participants. It took them about two hours to clear the square. 8.  On the same day the Moscow city department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation opened criminal proceedings to investigate suspected acts of mass disorder and violence against the police (Articles 212 § 2 and 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code). On 18 May 2012 the file was transferred to the headquarters of the Investigative Committee for further investigation. On 28 May 2012 an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising acts of mass disorder (Article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code). The two criminal cases were joined on the same day. 9.  At the time of his arrest the applicant was a second-year student at the Moscow University of Social Studies and worked part-time as a courier for an insurance company. According to him, on 6 May 2012 he arrived at Kaluzhskaya Square to take part in the march and walked with other participants to Bolotnaya Square. Upon arrival there he discovered that the police cordon had blocked access to the square. When passage to the stage of the rally taking place along the embankment was opened, the applicant went in that direction. The police started to disperse the protesters, using excessive force and beating them with truncheons. In response, the protesters dragged metal barriers in place to protect themselves from the police. At one point the applicant observed a protester in a green T-shirt, who five or six police officers were holding and beating with truncheons. He grabbed the protester and pulled him back, trying to protect him from the blows. The applicant was later arrested by the police and taken to a police station before being released shortly after. After the events in question he continued to live at his usual address and pursue his studies. 10.  On 26 July 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having participated in acts of mass disorder on 6 May 2012. 11.  On 27 July 2012 the Basmannyy District Court ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention until 26 September 2012. It referred to the gravity of the charges and information about the applicant’s character, including a report by Moscow Police’s chief of department at the Centre for Counter-Extremism. According to that report, the applicant was an active member of organisations of a destructive character. If he were to stay at liberty, he planned to threaten witnesses, abscond and obstruct the investigation. The court concluded that those circumstances gave sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant was likely to flee to avoid the investigation and trial, destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the investigation of the criminal case, which was still at an initial stage. 12.  On 1 August 2012 charges were brought against the applicant under Article 212 § 2 (participation in acts of mass disorder accompanied by violence). He was accused, in particular, of resisting police officers by pushing them away when they were arresting other protestors and by trying to liberate the latter. 13.  On 27 August 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order of 27 July 2012. 14.  On 24 September 2012 the Basmannyy District Court examined an application from the investigator for an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The applicant asked for the preventive measure to be changed to house arrest, a written undertaking not to leave a specified place, bail or personal guarantees. On the same day the District Court granted the investigator’s application and extended the applicant’s detention until 6 November 2012. It considered that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed. 15.  On 1 October 2012 Police Officer T. identified the applicant during an identification parade as a participant in mass disorder who had used violence against him. In particular, when T. and other officers had been arresting a protester, the applicant had grabbed his hand and pulled it off the protestor, thereby causing the police officer pain. Another police officer, L., also identified the applicant as a participant in acts of mass disorder who had tried to prevent the police arresting another protestor. 16.  On 22 October 2012 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 24 September 2012. 17.  On 29 October 2012 the Basmannyy District Court granted an extension of the applicant’s detention until 6 March 2013, essentially on the same grounds as earlier, noting that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed. In particular, it dismissed an objection from the applicant to the use of the operational-search reports concerning his character and rejected his contesting of the alleged membership of any organisations of a destructive nature. 18.  On 15 November and 21 December 2012 the charges against the applicant were reformulated. It was stated that the applicant, who had been wearing a surgical mask to conceal his face, had used violence against the police while trying to liberate protestors who had been arrested and that he had pushed police officers away. In particular, he had grabbed Officer T.’s hand and pulled it off a protester, thereby preventing his arrest. He had also built a line of metal barriers to block the police and had tried to repel the police with them. The applicant’s alleged offences were classified additionally under Article 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code (use of violence against a public official). 19.  On 5 March 2013 the Basmannyy District Court granted a new extension of the applicant’s detention, until 6 July 2013, essentially on the same grounds as before. On 17 April 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order. 20.  On 24 May 2013 the applicant’s criminal case was transferred to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow for the determination of criminal charges. 21.  On 6 June 2013 that court granted another extension of the applicant’s detention, until 24 November 2013. The decision concerned eleven defendants. Along with the gravity of the charges, the court based its decision on the findings that “the reasons which initially warranted the detention have not changed” and that “no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings”. The applicant’s request for an alternative preventive measure was dismissed on the grounds that no other measure could secure the proper course of justice in the case. The Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on 2 July 2013. 22.  On 19 November 2013 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court granted another extension of detention in respect of nine defendants, including the applicant. It ordered their detention until 24 February 2014 on the grounds of the gravity of the charges and the nature of the offences imputable to them. On 17 December 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld that extension order. 23.  The applicant was held in IZ-77/2 for the whole period of his pre-trial detention from 4 September 2012. According to him, the conditions of his detention had been poor. The applicant referred to cases against Russia in which the Court had previously found a breach of Article 3 because of overcrowding in IZ-77/2 in 2004-2005 (see Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 42 and 58-63, 6 December 2007; Zentsov and Others v. Russia, no. 35297/05, §§ 25-29 and 40-44, 23 October 2012; and Vyatkin v. Russia, no. 18813/06, §§ 26‑27 and 38-43, 11 April 2013). The applicant submitted that his conditions of detention had been similar. 24.  The applicant’s description of the conditions of detention during his transfer from the remand prison to court and back and the Government’s submissions in that regard were identical to those in the case of Yaroslav Belousov (cited above, §§ 69-73). 25.  As regards the conditions of detention in the convoy room of the Moscow City Court, the applicant submitted that it was poorly lit and that access to the toilet was limited to once an hour. In addition, he had been required to strip naked and to perform sit-ups during the body search conducted in the convoy room. 26.  On 6 June 2013 court proceedings began in hearing room no. 338 at the Moscow City Court, moving at the end of July 2013 to hearing room no. 635. The defendants, including the applicant, were held in glass cabins in both hearing rooms. From mid-September 2013 to the end of 2013 the hearings continued at the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow in hearing room no. 303, while in January and February 2014 they took place at the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court in hearing room no. 410. Those hearing rooms were equipped with metal cages in which nine defendants (seven from 19 December 2013), including the applicant, sat during the hearings. 27.  For a detailed description of the conditions in those hearing rooms see Yaroslav Belousov (cited above, §§ 74-77). 28.  On 6 June 2013 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow began a preliminary hearing in a criminal case against ten participants in the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square, who were charged with participation in acts of mass disorder and committing acts of violence against police officers. On 18 June 2013 the same court began the trial on the merits. 29.  On 5 September 2013 Police Officer T., the alleged victim of the applicant’s assault, was examined as a witness. He testified that the applicant had impeded him and two other police officers from arresting a protester by grabbing T.’s hand and pushing the officers away. The applicant had caused him pain but had not inflicted any injuries. During the hearing the applicant and his lawyers applied to deprive T. of victim status because no harm had been caused to him, but the court refused that request as unsubstantiated. 30.  On 21 February 2014 the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged. It held, in particular, as follows:
“Between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. on 6 May 2012 ... at Bolotnaya Square ... unidentified persons ... called those present [at the venue] to move outside the agreed meeting venue, to defy the lawful orders of the police ..., to use violence ... which led to mass disorder accompanied by the use of violence against public officials in connection with the performance of their duties [and] the destruction of property.
On the same day at 5 p.m. at the latest [the defendants] acquired the criminal intent to participate in mass disorder and to use violence against ... police officers ...
Moreover ... the participants of the acts of mass disorder threw chunks of tarmac, stones, sticks and other objects at the police ... which hit them on various parts of their body, and [the defendants] ... [who] participated in the acts of mass disorder ... implemented their criminal intent to use violence against public officials ... applied physical force which was not a danger to the life or health of those [officials] ...
[The applicant] ... who was wearing a surgical mask to hide his face, together with unidentified persons ... tried to liberate those arrested by the police for a breach of public order and pushed the police officers away ...
... [the applicant] used violence against Police Officer [T.] which did not endanger his life or health ...
[The applicant] ... from 5 p.m. to 9.40 p.m. ... when unidentified participants of acts of mass disorder tried to break the police cordon, acting intentionally and using force, grabbed [T.’s] hand and then pulled it off the person whom [T.] was arresting, thus impeding his apprehension, which caused [T.] pain.
In addition, [the applicant] together with unidentified persons ... built a line of metal barriers blocking the police’s movements, and ... tried to repel the line of police officers ... with the help of those barriers.
[The applicant] pleaded not guilty and testified that ... he had decided to attend the public gathering on 6 May 2012 ... for the purposes of personal security he wore a surgical mask ... [The applicant] was at the bridge when a blockage occurred. He did not see what was happening, but at one point ... he had been able to proceed with the flow of people towards the stage. There [the applicant] saw the mass beating of people by police officers and participants of the rally starting to bring forward metal barriers ... and to put them close to the police officers, trying to protect themselves from the latter. [The applicant] was standing close to the barriers, taking his hands off when the police officers used their truncheons to hit over the barriers. Then ... [the applicant] saw a group of five or six police officers who were trying to seize a young man in a green T-shirt. They hit the man with their truncheons, and [the applicant], considering that the man was in danger because the police actions were unlawful, tried to snatch him from the officers’ hands. He grasped the young man’s waistband, pulled it and turned his back to protect him from the truncheon blows. [The applicant] finds it conceivable that in this turmoil he might unintentionally have pushed someone and asks for attention to be paid to [T.’s] statements that the latter did not feel any pain. Then [the applicant] was arrested and taken to a police vehicle.
... the court considers the [defendants’] arguments that they were protecting somebody from police officers or happened to be victims of the police’s use of force as farfetched and aimed at the mitigation of their responsibility ...” 31.  The applicant was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment, calculated on the basis of a three-year prison term under Article  212 § 2 of the Criminal Code, partly concurrent with a term of one year and three months under Article 318 § 1. The applicant’s pre-trial detention counted towards the prison sentence. 32.  The applicant appealed. He complained that the same acts imputed to him had been classified under both Article 212 and Article 318 of the Criminal Code. He insisted that he had not used violence against T. because the latter had not suffered any pain or injuries. 33.  On 20 June 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the first-instance judgment.


5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kharkiv. 6.  At the time of the events she worked as a passport registration officer (паспортист) in one of the municipal housing and public utilities’ offices (КПЖРЕП) in Kharkiv. 7.  On 6 February 2004 a certain M. went to the passport registration office where the applicant worked to apply for a passport for her son, who had reached the age of sixteen. As M. subsequently mentioned to the police (see paragraphs 13 and 17 below), she had already applied to the applicant in the past. According to M., when she was waiting in the queue, she heard people saying that the applicant was known for taking bribes and that her “usual rate” was 100 United States dollars (USD). Given the considerable number of visitors, M. could not get an appointment that day. She waited for the applicant in the corridor after work and explained the situation to her. The applicant allegedly told M. that it might be time-consuming to settle the matter, in particular because of the fact that M.’s son had been born in Russia and his original birth certificate was not available. However, according to M., the applicant agreed to help her to speed up the procedure with the higher authority, where she would need to pay USD 100 to the official in charge. 8.  According to the applicant’s version of events, she did indeed have a late visitor in the corridor that day, whom she advised to come back during working hours, with no further exchange taking place. 9.  On 7 February 2004 M. made a written statement to the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Police that the applicant had asked for a bribe of USD 100 to speed up the passport issuance procedure. M. confirmed that she was aware of the criminal liability for knowingly making a false report about a crime. According to the police records, the above statement was made at 5 p.m. However, as subsequently established (see paragraph 59 below), that was an error and the actual time of the statement was about 10 a.m. 10.  M. provided the police with a banknote of USD 100, two banknotes of USD 20 and one of USD 10. A detective officer put a special luminescent fluid on the banknotes and returned them to M. That act took place in the presence of two attesting witnesses and was documented in a report. It is not known why it was decided to mark the additional banknotes, not only the USD 100 note. 11.  At about 1 p.m. on the same day M. entered the applicant’s office and emerged a few minutes later, indicating to the investigator and the attesting witnesses that she had given the USD 100 banknote to the applicant. As it was the end of the working day, the applicant locked her office and began to leave. However, the investigator stopped her and suggested she return to her office, which they did together in the presence of the two attesting witnesses. The investigator asked the applicant whether she had received any money from M. She stated that she had and took the banknote from her purse. The police officer then checked the applicant’s hands with a special device and found traces of the luminescent liquid. They were wiped off with cotton pads, which were then packed and sealed as material evidence. Such traces were also found on the banknote of USD 100 in the applicant’s purse and on the purse itself. Lastly, several passports and other papers with various banknotes inserted, varying from two Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (equivalent to about 0.28 euros (EUR) at the time) to UAH 50 (equal to about EUR 7), were found in the applicant’s bag and were seized. The investigator drew up an inspection and seizure report. The serial number of the USD 100 banknote seized from the applicant, as indicated in the report, differed by one letter (out of eleven characters) from the one noted in the report on marking the bill with the luminescent fluid drawn up earlier that day (see paragraph 10 above). 12.  The applicant wrote an explanation, stating that she had indeed taken USD 100 from M., which she had intended to pay to an unspecified official at the local passport registration authority with a view to speeding up the issuance of the passport for M.’s son. The applicant also stated that she had voluntarily complied with the police’s request to give them the banknote in question. She noted that she had studied the inspection and seizure report and that she agreed with its contents. Lastly, she stated that she had no complaints against the police and that she regretted her actions. 13.  Also on 7 February 2004, following the police operation, the investigator collected “explanations” from M. and the attesting witnesses. M. supplemented her initial statement to the police with further factual details (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above). Both attesting witnesses described the police operation which they had observed, as summarised in paragraphs 10 and 11 above. 14.  On 10 February 2004, during her questioning by the investigator, the applicant changed her account of the events as follows. On 7 February 2004, when she had been about to leave work at 1 p.m., M. had entered the office. She had brought some documents in order to get a passport for her son. The applicant had informed her that certain documents were missing. The applicant had also clarified that she would be working in a different office from Monday, 9 February 2004. While collecting her papers and belongings before leaving, the applicant had noticed that M. had thrown something on the table and had run out of the office. The applicant had seen that it was a USD 100 banknote. She had taken it and had tried to get an explanation from M. However, she had already left. When the applicant had looked out into the corridor, she had only seen a man waiting there. It was T., one of the attesting witnesses. Given that different people would be working in the office on the following working day and because she knew her manager was away, the applicant had decided to keep the banknote in order to return it to M. later. 15.  Furthermore, the applicant explained that her initial statement (see paragraph 12 above) had been made in a state of shock and had not been truthful. Allegedly, the investigator had dictated the statement to her. 16.  On 11 February 2004 a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of incitement to bribery. 17.  On the same date M. gave written explanations to the Kyiv District Prosecutor’s Office with her account of the events, which was the same as before (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above). 18.  On 16 February 2004 the applicant expressed a wish to be represented by the lawyer Zh. and the latter was admitted to the proceedings. When questioned in her lawyer’s presence on the same day, the applicant admitted that on 7 February 2004 she had hinted to M. that the examination of her application was likely to take time and that the applicant would be prepared to speed up the procedure before the higher authority, which she had not intended to do in reality. However, she had seen M. putting a USD 100 banknote on the table and had decided to take advantage of the situation given her own financial difficulties. She explained the difference between her latest account and her earlier submissions by shock and stress, and expressed remorse for what had happened. 19.  On the same date, 16 February 2004, M. was also questioned. As indicated in the report of the questioning, she was registered as living in Kharkiv. 20.  On 26 February 2004 an expert report established that the traces of luminescent liquid on the USD 100 banknote and on the applicant’s hands were the same. 21.  On 28 February 2004 fraud was added to the charges against the applicant, given that she had promised to M. to act as an intermediary in bribing a higher-level official, whereas in reality she had meant to keep the money for herself. 22.  On 28 February 2004 formal charges were brought against the applicant and her status changed from being a suspect to an accused. 23.  On the same day the applicant changed her lawyer. When questioned that day in the presence of her new lawyer (K.), she returned to the account of events she had given on 10 February 2004 (see paragraphs 14 and 15 above). She submitted that she had stated differently in the presence of her previous lawyer (see paragraph 18 above) because she had “considered it useless to prove [her] case and feared that nobody would believe [her]”. 24.  On the same day the investigator returned the USD 100 banknote to M., who wrote a receipt in confirmation. She also undertook to keep the banknote until the end of the proceedings. 25.  On 29 February 2004 the Kyivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office approved the bill of indictment against the applicant. It contained the following list of persons to be summoned to court: the applicant, the victim (M.) and the two attesting witnesses (G. and T.). 26.  On 10 November 2004 the Kyivskyy Court dropped the charge of incitement to bribery. It also ruled to relieve the applicant of criminal liability in respect of the fraud charge and terminated proceedings on that point on the grounds that she was not a danger to society (see paragraph 60 below). 27.  The applicant appealed, seeking the termination of the criminal proceedings against her owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in her actions. She denied asking for or receiving any money from M. and maintained that the latter had simply thrown the banknote on her table. Overall, the applicant considered “everything that had happened to [her] as a provocation on the part of the law-enforcement authorities”. She also complained that she had not been able to cross-examine M. 28.  On 14 April 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the above decision. It held that the first-instance court had not been entitled to terminate the proceedings in the way it had done without the applicant’s consent. The appellate court also noted that the applicant’s argument about her inability to cross-examine M. had not been examined. The case was remitted to the same first-instance court for fresh examination by a different panel. 29.  The Kyivskyy Court adjourned hearings in the case several times owing to the absence of M. and the two attesting witnesses. On 18 July 2005 it decided that it was impossible to complete its judicial investigation in their absence and ordered the police to ensure their attendance. 30.  The police found out that M. had sold her house in Kharkiv on an unspecified date in 2004 and had moved to Russia, with her new address being unknown. G. had moved to a different city in Ukraine, but eventually attended one of the hearings. The other attesting witness, T., was always away from home when visited by the police and his neighbours had not seen him for some time. Eventually, the police located him and on 14 October 2005 he made a written statement that he would appear at a hearing scheduled for 17 October 2005 (with no further details available). 31.  As stated in a note issued by a clerk of the Kyivskyy Court on 17 October 2005, the hearing scheduled for that day was postponed to 6 December 2005 given the judges’ involvement in a different case. It is not known whether there was a hearing on 6 December 2005. It is an established fact, however, that T. did not attend any of the hearings. 32.  In January 2006 the applicant enquired with the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Military Enlistment Office as to whether M.’s son was registered there. On 24 January 2006 she received a reply that he had appeared before that office in April and May 2005, and that the army conscription commission had found him unfit for military service in peacetime by a decision of 6 May 2005. The son had not changed the place of his military registration. The applicant brought the above information to the knowledge of the trial court dealing with her case. 33.  On 26 January 2006 the Kyivskyy Court once again ordered the police to ensure the presence of M. and the two attesting witnesses at the trial. 34.  On 8 February 2006 it decided to continue the examination of the case in the absence of M. as it appeared impossible to establish her whereabouts. In reaching that conclusion, the court referred to the fact that she was no longer registered as being resident in the Kharkiv region and that the police had information that she had emigrated to Russia. By the same ruling, the Kyivskyy Court ordered the prosecution authorities to ensure the mandatory presence of T. 35.  On 16 February 2006 the Kyivskyy Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and incitement to bribery and sentenced her to a fine of UAH 5,000 (then equivalent to EUR 830). Although the applicant pleaded innocent, the court considered her guilt to be proved by the totality of the evidence. It relied on the statements of M., the aggrieved party, made during the pre‑trial investigation, and those of the attesting witnesses, made by G. before the court and by T. during the pre-trial investigation. The court stated that it had “no grounds for questioning the credibility of the aggrieved party and the witnesses whose statements [were] corroborated by other objective [...] evidence”. The trial court also relied on the inspection and seizure report of 7 February 2004 (see paragraph 11 above) and the forensic expert examination report of 26 February 2004 (see paragraph 20 above). The verdict noted that the applicant had initially confessed to the offences, but had later retracted her confession for no apparent reason other than an attempt to escape liability. Her initial statement was considered, however, more plausible. 36.  On 3 March 2006 the applicant appealed and on 25 April 2006 she submitted further “written explanations to [her] appeal”. She complained, in particular, that her conviction had been based mainly on the statements of M., who had never appeared before the court and whom the applicant had never been able to cross-examine. She argued that the first-instance court had not shown due diligence in finding and summoning M. The applicant also complained that the Kyivskyy Court had wrongly relied on her initial confession, which had been dictated to her by the police before the institution of criminal proceedings against her. 37.  The applicant did not refer in her appeal or in its supplement to her inability to examine T. or to have him examined. At the same time, on 7 April 2006, she lodged a written application to the appellate court to summon T. given that he “was an attesting witness” and that he “had made statements against [the applicant]”. 38.  On 25 April 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 16 February 2006. It considered that the applicant had initially made a confession of her own free will and that she had failed to give any convincing explanation about her subsequent change in position. Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the whereabouts of M. and T. could not be established. There were no reasons to question the veracity of the statements they had made during the pre-trial investigation. Nor were there any reasons to suspect any intention by them to falsely accuse the applicant. In sum, the appellate court did not discern any procedural flaws which warranted quashing the verdict. 39.  The applicant appealed on points of law. She argued that the covert operation of 7 February 2004 had been unlawful because it had not been duly authorised and had taken place in the absence of any criminal proceedings against her, even prior to the formal registration of M.’s statement. The applicant also complained that her rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention had been breached on account of her inability to cross-examine M. and T. 40.  On 18 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the lower courts’ decisions. Its general conclusion was that no violations of the law of criminal procedure had been established. 41.  On 27 March 2009 the Kyivskyy Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal case against the applicant for a failure to comply with the judgment of 16 February 2006 (see paragraph 35 above and paragraph 61 below). 42.  On 10 November 2009 the applicant was placed under an undertaking not to leave her town of residence as a preventive measure pending trial. 43.  In the absence of any formal charges against her, the preventive measure ceased to apply ten days later, on 20 November 2009 (see paragraph 62 below), a fact of which the applicant was not aware. It is not known if there was any formal decision lifting the measure in question. 44.  On 7 December 2009 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of the constituent elements of a crime in the applicant’s actions. On 11 December 2009 that decision was quashed and the case was returned for additional investigation. The case file does not contain any documents regarding the preventive measure then applicable to the applicant, if any. 45.  On 12, 15 and 18 June 2012 the applicant, who considered herself still bound by the undertaking not to leave her town of residence of 10 November 2009, requested leave to travel outside the Kharkiv region from the investigator. On 22 June 2012 the investigator sent her a letter stating that her request could not be granted because she had not provided any address or other details about the planned trip. 46.  On 5 July 2012 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued again. However, two days later the investigation was resumed. 47.  On 12 October 2012 the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant for lack of the constituent elements of a crime in her actions. It was concluded that she had not evaded paying the fine, but that it had been impossible for her to do so given her low income. By the same ruling, the preventive measure in respect of the applicant was lifted, without further details. 48.  On 20 November 2012 a new Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) entered into force. Instead of opening a criminal case, it provided for the initiation of an investigation by way of making an entry in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations. 49.  On 22 March 2013 a criminal investigation into the applicant’s failure to comply with the judgment of 16 February 2006 was launched again and was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations. On an unspecified date the proceedings were discontinued. On 8 April 2013 they were, however, resumed. 50.  On 5 June 2013 those proceedings were discontinued once again on the grounds that there were no constituent elements of a crime in the applicant’s actions. The case file contains no information about any further developments. 51.  On 26 February 2013 the applicant lodged a claim against the State Treasury, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of her allegedly unlawful criminal prosecution from 27 March 2009 to 12 October 2012. She enclosed copies of the two rulings of those dates, by which the investigator had opened and had discontinued the criminal proceedings against her. The applicant also mentioned, in general terms, that she had been unlawfully placed under an undertaking not to leave her town, without further details. 52.  The prosecutor submitted objections. He stated that on 20 November 2009 the investigator dealing with the applicant’s case had revoked the impugned preventive measure, given that no charges had been brought against her within ten days of 10 November 2009 (see paragraphs 43 above and 62 below). The prosecutor also noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been reopened on 8 April 2013 (see paragraph 49 above) and remained pending. 53.  On 17 May 2013 the Kyivskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. As regards her undertaking not to leave the town, the court concluded that it had only been applicable from 10 to 20 November 2009. 54.  The applicant appealed. She submitted, in particular, that “the [first‑instance] court had not given any legal assessment to the fact that the criminal proceedings against [her] had been instituted on 27 March 2009 and discontinued on 12 October 2012, and that all that time [she] had been under an undertaking not to abscond, which had been lifted by the ruling on the termination of the criminal proceedings of 12 October 2012, that being confirmed by [the investigator’s] letter of 22 June 2012” (see paragraph 45 above). The applicant indicated in brackets the page number of the letter concerned in the case file. She further argued, in general terms, that the court had incorrectly interpreted Article 1176 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 63 below) and that it had not calculated, as prescribed under the Compensation Act (see paragraph 64 below), an amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage to which she was entitled. The applicant did not enclose any documents with her appeal. 55.  On 18 June 2013 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Kyivskyy Court. It noted that the sole fact that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued did not imply that she had suffered non-pecuniary damage and she had failed to prove otherwise. The appellate court further observed that the applicant “[had] not proved when exactly she had been placed under the undertaking not to leave the town as a preventive measure. Therefore, her submission that she had been restrained in her liberty of movement for more than three years [could] not be taken into consideration”. 56.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, in which she indicated, in particular, that the applicability of the undertaking not to leave the town from 10 November 2009 to 12 October 2012 had been established by documents. She reiterated her earlier argument that no assessment had been given to the investigator’s refusals of her requests for leave to travel outside the Kharkiv region in June 2012. This time the applicant enclosed a copy of the letter referred to. 57.  On 22 July 2013 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal on points of law. 58.  On 17 April 2006 the applicant sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers involved in the undercover operation of 7 February 2004. Her main argument was that M.’s complaint had been registered only at about 5 p.m. that day, which had been after the completion of the police operation and thus had undermined its lawfulness. 59.  The prosecution authorities refused to open a criminal case against the police on several occasions. It was established that M.’s complaint had indeed been registered, by mistake, at 5 p.m. instead of 10 a.m. on 7 February 2004, for which the respective officer had been reprimanded. However, there was no indication of a criminal offence.


6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is detained in Tekirdağ. 7.  On 13 February 1999, the applicant was arrested during an operation carried out against an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), at which time he was found to be in possession of a fake identity card. 8.  On 15 February 1999 the applicant was interrogated by police officers at the Istanbul Security Headquarters in the absence of a lawyer pursuant to Law No. 3842, which at the time of the applicant’s arrest provided for a systemic restriction in respect of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts. 9.  The applicant admitted in his statement that he was a member of the organisation in question and gave information about a number of activities in which he had participated, including armed activities. 10.  On 18 February 1999 statements were taken from the applicant by the Istanbul public prosecutor in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant stated that he was a member of the illegal organisation in question, that he had joined them in a rural area, and that he had afterwards tried to collect money for the organisation in Istanbul. However, he withdrew the statements he had made to the police, maintaining that he had not participated in any other activity for the illegal organisation. He alleged that he had given those statements to the police under duress. 11.  On the same day the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge, once again in the absence of a lawyer. He confirmed the statement he had made to the public prosecutor, but withdrew the one he had made to the police. The investigating judge ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 12.  On 19 March 1999 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court, charging the applicant under Article 125 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation and involvement in separatist activities against the Republic of Turkey. 13.  On 5 June 1999 Diyarbakır State Security Court declared that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and transferred the file to the Istanbul State Security Court. 14.  At a hearing held on 18 February 2000, the applicant stated that he had not been able to see his lawyer to prepare his defence and requested time to do so. The applicant was granted time to prepare his defence. 15.  At a hearing held on 1 September 2000, the applicant gave evidence in person and denied all the charges. He stated that he had given his previous statements under duress. 16.  At a hearing held on 14 November 2001 the applicant stated that he was a member of the illegal organisation, but had carried out only political activities for the organisation and not armed activities. 17.  On 1 July 2003 another set of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, which had been pending since 1994 and concerning charges related to membership of the PKK and taking part in activities for that illegal organisation, was merged with the one that had been initiated in 1999. 18.  The State Security Courts were later abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004 and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. 19.  On 16 September 2004 Istanbul Assize Court held that the applicant had committed an offence under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court based its decision, inter alia, on the applicant’s statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, and other witness statements taken by the police and the public prosecutor. 20.  On 3 May 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of 16 September 2004 on the grounds that the details of a number of PKK activities for which the applicant had been held responsible had not been discussed in the decision in depth and that the case file lacked the necessary official reports. 21.  The applicant was tried afresh before the Istanbul Assize Court. A number of hearings took place during the trial. The applicant claimed during the trial that his statements during the preliminary investigation had been made under duress and he asked to be allowed to confront and examine a certain witness, namely S.K., whose statements had been relied on by the prosecutor in the indictment. His request to examine that witness was rejected. 22.  On 1 February 2007 Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty of committing an offence under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code and again sentenced him to life imprisonment. 23.  On 9 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of 1 February 2007.


5.  On 12 April 2002 the local police sent to the local investigations committee audio recordings of telephone conversations between the applicant and several persons, and video recordings of their meetings in a flat in Novgorod. The accompanying letter, which the Government presented to the Court, stated that the audio and video recordings had been obtained in the course of covert “operational-search” measures (“оперативно-розыскные мероприятия”) authorised by the President of the Novgorod Regional Court on 19 July and 31 August 2000 and 17 and 27 February 2001. 6.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant was arrested and charged with several counts of drug trafficking committed by an organised criminal group. Four more persons were arrested on the same charge. 7.  On 18 April 2002 the Novgorod Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered the applicant’s placement in custody pending trial. He remained in custody throughout the criminal proceedings. 8.  The applicant learned about the audio and video recordings on an unspecified date while studying the criminal case file. 9.  On 26 June 2002 the investigation was completed and the case was sent for trial to the Novgorod Town Court. 10.  On 18 July 2002 counsel of one of the defendants asked that the trial be adjourned until September 2002 because he would be on annual leave until 6 September. 11.  On 20 August 2002 the Novgorod Town Court scheduled the first hearing for 16 September 2002. The hearing of 16 September 2002 was adjourned until 23 September 2002 because the applicant’s counsel was in hospital and because the prosecution witnesses did not appear. The trial eventually started on 20 November 2002. 12.  At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty. He claimed, in particular, that the audio and video recordings were inadmissible as evidence as they had been obtained without prior judicial authorisation. 13.  His co-defendants pleaded guilty. They testified that the applicant was the leader of an organised group dealing in drugs. The applicant and another defendant, Mr K., had rented a flat where the members of the group had met to receive instructions from the applicant and to distribute the profits. They had also packaged and stored drugs in the flat. The owner of the flat testified that he had rented his flat to Mr K. and that on several occasions the rent had been paid by the applicant. 14.  On 24 November 2004 the Novgorod Town Court found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of drug trafficking. It found it established that the applicant was the leader of an organised criminal group dealing in drugs. It relied on witness testimony, expert reports, audio recordings of telephone conversations between the defendants and video recordings of their meetings in the rented flat. It found that the recordings were admissible as evidence because they “had been obtained in the course of authorised covert operational-search measures aiming at uncovering criminal acts committed by Zubkov and the criminal group organised by him”. The applicant was sentenced to nine years and six months’ imprisonment. 15.  In his appeal submissions the applicant complained, in particular, that the audio and video recordings had been obtained without prior judicial authorisation. 16.  On 8 February 2005 the Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It repeated verbatim the Town Court’s finding that the audio and video recordings were admissible as evidence because they “had been obtained in the course of authorised covert operational-search measures aiming at uncovering criminal acts committed by Zubkov and the criminal group organised by him”. 17.  The applicant worked as an investigator at the Prosecutor General’s Office. 18.  On 6 April 2004 he was arrested and charged with aiding and abetting bribery. 19.  On 29 October 2004, while studying the criminal case file, the applicant discovered that it contained audio recordings of his telephone conversations during the period from November 2003 to March 2004. 20.  The criminal case file also contained a letter of 21 October 2004 from the Federal Security Service to the local prosecutor stating that the audio recordings had been obtained in the course of covert operational‑search measures authorised by the Tver Regional Court in its decisions nos. 55-21, 55-30, 55-76, 55-93 and 55-103. Given that they were classified documents, the decisions could not be shown to the prosecutor and would be shown to the trial court only at its request. 21.  During the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty. He argued, in particular, that the audio and video recordings were inadmissible as evidence because the case file did not contain a copy of the judicial authorisation. The prosecutor stated in reply that the interception of his telephone communications had been authorised by the Tver Regional Court. A copy of the authorisation had not been included in the case file because it was confidential. 22.  On 14 May 2005 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting bribery and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The court relied, among other things, on the audio recordings of his telephone conversations. The court rejected the applicant’s argument that the audio recordings were inadmissible as evidence, finding that “the examination of the material in the case file [had] permitted [the court] to establish that the evidence [had been] obtained in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Operational-Search Activities Act”. 23.  The applicant appealed. He submitted that the Regional Court had not given reasons for its finding that the audio recordings were admissible as evidence. In particular, it had not examined whether the interception of his telephone conversations had been duly authorised by a court and carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 24.  On 7 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal. The court did not specifically address the applicant’s argument that the audio recordings were inadmissible as evidence. It held that the finding of guilt had been based on evidence which had been properly analysed and assessed by the Regional Court. The applicant received the decision on 7 March 2006. 25.  On 5 July 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir ordered the applicant’s detention on charges of fraud. The applicant was absent from the hearing but his counsel attended. On 14 July 2006 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal. The applicant was absent also from the appeal hearing, which was again attended by his counsel. 26.  On 3 November 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 January 2007. On 7 November 2006 the applicant appealed. On 5 December 2006 the Vladimir Regional Court found that there were no reasons to vary the preventive measure and upheld the decision of 3 November 2006. 27.  The applicant’s detention was further extended on several more occasions. 28.  In the period from 14 September 2006 to 12 January 2007 the applicant was detained in four remand prisons. According to the applicant, all four remand prisons were overcrowded. 29.  From 14 to 22 September 2006 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-67/1 in Smolensk. Cell 196 measuring 15 sq. m was equipped with eight sleeping places and accommodated up to sixteen inmates. 30.  From 25 to 28 September 2006 the applicant was held in remand prison 76/1 in Yaroslavl. Cell 133 measuring 9 sq. m was equipped with seven sleeping places and accommodated up to eight inmates. 31.  From 29 September to 1 October 2006 the applicant was held in remand prison 43/1 in Kirov. His cell measuring 50 sq. m was equipped with forty sleeping places and accommodated up to twenty inmates. The cell was equipped with wooden boards instead of individual beds. 32.  From 2 October 2006 to 12 January 2007 the applicant was held in remand prison 33/1 in Vladimir. Cell 63 measuring 14 sq. m was equipped with four sleeping places and accommodated up to five inmates. 33.  On 28 and 29 September 2006 the applicant was transported by rail between remand prison IZ-76/1 and remand prison IZ-43/1 from Yaroslavl to Kirov. The train compartment was equipped with seven sleeping places and accommodated up to ten inmates. 34.  On 1 and 2 October 2006 the applicant was transported by rail between remand prison IZ-43/1 and remand prison IZ-33/1 from Kirov to Vladimir. The train compartment was equipped with seven sleeping places and accommodated up to twelve inmates. 35.  On 25 December 2006 the applicant started to study the criminal case file and discovered that it contained audio recordings of his telephone conversations between 22 and 25 July 2004. 36.  On 2 February 2007 the applicant asked the investigator for a copy of the judicial decision authorising the interception. On the same day the investigator refused his request. Relying on the Interior Ministry’s Order no. 336 of 13 May 1998 (see paragraph 54 below), he replied that the police were not required to send the interception authorisation to the investigator; it was to be kept in the operational search file. The Vladimir Regional Court’s decisions of 28 May and 2 June 2004 authorising interception of the applicant’s telephone communications were stored by the local police. They were classified documents and neither the applicant nor his counsel, who had no security clearance, could be granted access to them. 37.  On 6 February 2007 the applicant complained to the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir that the interception of his telephone communications had been unlawful, in particular because the case file did not contain a judicial authorisation. He submitted that the refusal to give him a copy of the interception authorisation had frustrated him in the exercise of his defence rights and deprived him of an effective remedy against an interference with his rights guaranteed by Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, he had been unable to ascertain whether the interception authorisation had been issued by a competent court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, whether it had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons or whether the requirements for judicial authorisation, such as the authorised duration of interception, had been complied with at the implementation stage. 38.  On 19 February 2007 the Frunzenskiy District Court examined the complaint under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 63 below) and rejected it. Relying on section 12 of the Operational-Search Activities Act (see paragraph 49 below), the court held that the judicial decision authorising operational-search measures and the material that served as a basis for that decision were to be held in the exclusive possession of the State agency performing such measures. It had therefore not been included in the criminal case file and the defendant was not entitled to have access to it. The court further referred to the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 14 July 1998, holding that the person whose communications were to be intercepted was not entitled to participate in the authorisation proceedings or to be informed about the decision taken (see paragraph 50 below). The refusal to give the applicant a copy of the judicial authorisation had therefore been lawful. The court also rejected the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of the interception, without giving any reasons. 39.  On 3 April 2007 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision of 19 February 2007 on appeal, finding it lawful, well reasoned and justified.


4.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1961 and 1980 respectively and live in Svetlograd, Stavropol Region. The first and second applicants are husband and wife. The third applicant is their son. 5.  According to the first applicant, on 8 August 2003, at approximately 11.30 p.m., a police patrol car approached his car on a dark village road. A police officer, using a loudspeaker, ordered the first applicant to pull over. The first applicant replied that he would stop at the nearest road police post. The officer repeated his order, noting that he needed to borrow gasoline for the police car. The first applicant kept driving. Near Svetlograd the police officers blocked the road. When the first applicant stopped the car, one of the five policemen pulled him out of the car and hit him in the face. The police officers threw him against the hood of his car, kicked him in the shins and hit him with a butt of a machine gun. The first applicant fell down and fainted. After he regained consciousness and stood up, the police officers claimed that he was drunk and told him to take a breath test which showed that the first applicant was sober. The police officers checked his documents, searched his car and left. The first applicant got into his car and drove away in the same direction. Having driven approximately 500 metres, he saw that the police car had stopped and that the police officers had gathered around it. The first applicant approached the officers. The officer in charge identified himself as Ye. and apologised for the excessive force his subordinates had used towards the first applicant. 6.  The first applicant arrived home at approximately 2.30 a.m. on 9 August 2003. On the same day the first and third applicants filed a complaint about the incident with the local police station. 7.  At 9 a.m. on the same date the first applicant visited the second applicant who underwent a medical treatment in hospital. According to the second applicant, her husband told her about the altercation with the police. He also had visible bruising on his face. At 10.30 a.m. the first applicant underwent a medical examination at the same hospital. Having been diagnosed with multiple injuries, he was admitted for in-patient treatment. An extract from a medical record drawn up in the hospital indicated that the first applicant had injuries on the right cheek, the left shin and the lower back and the swelling of soft tissues. 8.  On 13 August 2003 the first applicant was admitted to the Stavropol Regional Hospital where he was diagnosed with “a multisystem trauma; closed craniocerebral injury; a light brain contusion; an injury of the soft tissues of the right temporal region; a closed uncomplicated stable vertebra medullispinal injury, a compression fracture of the Th. VII vertebra; an intramuscular haematoma of the right side of the lumbar region; a neurologic form of the lumbar plexitis.” Ten days later he was released from hospital on conditions of bed rest and subsequent supervision by a neurologist and orthopaedist. 9.  On 11 August 2003 investigator G. questioned the police officers who denied the first applicant’s allegations. They claimed that they had ordered the first applicant to pull over because they had suspected that he had been driving under the influence of alcohol. The first applicant had refused to comply and had verbally insulted them demonstrating obscene hand gestures. After having searched the first applicant and his car, they had let him go. 10.  On the same date the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the first applicant. Having examined the first applicant, the forensic expert documented multiple injuries on the right cheek and the lumbar region, multiple bruises all over the body and swelling of the soft tissues. The expert considered that those injuries could have resulted from the impact of solid blunt objects or from the fall. 11.  On 20 August 2003 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. It appears that his decision was quashed on a later date. 12.  On 9 September 2003 the first applicant underwent another forensic medical examination. The expert documented the first applicant’s injuries considering that they might have resulted from the impact of solid blunt objects. 13.  According to the first applicant, on 20 September 2003 an investigator of the district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. On 3 October 2003 the district prosecutor dismissed the first applicant’s complaint against the investigator’s decision. Ten days later, the Petrovskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region quashed the prosecutor’s decision and authorised a new round of inquiry. 14.  On 28 October 2003 the police issued a report on the inquiry conducted in response to the first applicant’s complaint. Having examined the forensic medical documents and the statements made by the police officers, the first applicant and the witnesses, the police investigator concluded that the first applicant might have sustained injuries as a result of the force used by the police officers in response to his unlawful actions. 15.  On 21 December 2003 investigator G. ordered a new forensic medical examination of the first applicant in order to reconcile inconsistencies in the experts’ findings. 16.  It appears that the first applicant’s complaint about the police brutality was dismissed by the authorities on another six occasions. Each time a superior prosecutor or a court quashed those decisions considering the investigator’s findings incomplete and unsubstantiated and ordering further inquiry into the first applicant’s allegations. 17.  On 22 July 2005 the district prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the first applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by unidentified police officers. 18.  On 22 December 2005 the investigator V. stayed the criminal proceedings, holding that it was impossible to establish the alleged perpetrators who had assaulted the first applicant. 19.  On 2 February 2006 the first deputy of the regional prosecutor quashed decision of 22 December 2005 noting that the investigation had not been completed and reopened the proceedings. 20.  On 6 March 2006 the investigator concluded that there was no evidence showing that the first applicant’s injuries had been caused by the police officers and that he was unable to establish the real perpetrator. The first applicant appealed. 21.  On 3 April 2006 the district prosecutor partly accepted the first applicant’s complaint and resumed the investigation. At the same time the prosecutor endorsed the investigator’s reasoning that there was no evidence showing that the offence had been committed by the police officers. A week later the proceedings were again stayed because the perpetrator of the offence remained unknown. 22.  On 6 June 2006 investigator D. again discontinued the criminal investigation. The investigator established that, when searching the first applicant and his car, one of the police officers had punched him on the right cheek and hit him in the back twice with a blunt solid object. The investigator also accepted that, as of the morning of 9 August 2003, the first applicant had bruises on the right cheek, the back and the left shin. He further noted that the forensic medical experts had not ruled out a possibility that the first applicant might have sustained those injuries as a result of the altercation with the police, as alleged by him. The investigator dismissed the first applicant’s allegations referring to his prior criminal record. He also noted that a number of the first applicant’s neighbours had not confirmed that the latter had had any injuries on him on 9 August 2003. As regards the statements made to the contrary by the other neighbours, the investigator found them to be unsubstantiated. Lastly, the investigator took into account that all the police officers denied the first applicant’s accusations. However, it was impossible for the investigator to establish the alleged perpetrator for lack of relevant evidence. 23.  It appears that the decision of 6 June 2006 was quashed and the case was re-opened. 24.  On 17 July 2006 investigator D. discontinued the criminal investigation reproducing verbatim his earlier decision of 6 June 2006. He also considered that the first applicant had willfully made false accusations against the police officers and should be held liable for his actions. The investigator forwarded the relevant material to the prosecutor’s office. 25.  On 14 January 2011 the deputy head of the supervision unit of the Investigative committee considered the decision of 17 July 2006 unlawful and unsubstantiated, quashed it and remitted the matter for further investigation. He noted, inter alia, that the investigator had failed (1) to establish what each of the police officers had done once they had pulled over the first applicant’s car; (2) to check whether any of the police officers had had a machine gun as claimed by the first applicant; and (3) to establish the reasons why the witnesses who had initially claimed that they had seen the police officers beating the first applicant had revoked their statements. 26.  On 1 March 2011 the senior investigator with the district investigative committee dismissed the first applicant’s accusations against the police officers duplicating the findings summed up in the earlier decisions on the matter. Nevertheless, he allowed that the first applicant’s injuries could have resulted from the beatings and that a criminal investigation should be opened on charges of battery. He transmitted the materials to the head of the district investigative committee. The parties did not inform about the outcome of the proceedings. 27.  On 30 September 2004, at approximately 11.00 p.m., the applicants, suspecting that their neighbour had committed a number of thefts and intended to steal their property, beat him up, broke into his car, took the documents for the car and refused to return them until the arrival of a police patrol car. 28.  On 15 June 2005 the Petrovskiy District Court found the applicants guilty of vigilantism and sentenced each of them to two and half years’ imprisonment. The sentence was suspended on eighteen months’ probation. On 4 August 2005 the Stavropol Regional Court upheld the applicants’ conviction on appeal.


11.  The applicant was born in 1944. He is currently detained in Istanbul. 12.  The applicant is a journalist who had been working since 2002 for the daily newspaper Zaman, which was viewed as the principal publication medium of the “Gülenist” network and was closed down following the adoption of Legislative Decree no. 668, issued on 27 July 2016 in connection with the state of emergency (see paragraphs 14-18 below). From 2001 onwards, he also lectured on comparative politics and Turkish political history at a private university in Istanbul. 13.  In the years leading up to the attempted military coup of 15 July 2016 the applicant had been known for his critical views on the serving government’s policies. 14.  During the night of 15 to 16 July 2016 a group of members of the Turkish armed forces calling themselves the “Peace at Home Council” attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected parliament, government and President of Turkey. 15.  During the attempted coup, soldiers under the instigators’ control bombarded several strategic State buildings, including the parliament building and the presidential compound, attacked the hotel where the President was staying, held the Chief of General Staff hostage, attacked television channels and fired shots at demonstrators. During the night of violence, more than 300 people were killed and more than 2,500 were injured. 16.  The day after the attempted military coup, the national authorities blamed the network linked to Fetullah Gülen, a Turkish citizen living in Pennsylvania (United States of America) and considered to be the leader of a terrorist organisation known as FETÖ/PDY (“Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Several criminal investigations were subsequently initiated by the appropriate prosecuting authorities in relation to suspected members of that organisation. 17.  On 20 July 2016 the government declared a state of emergency for a period of three months as from 21 July 2016; the state of emergency was subsequently extended for further periods of three months by the Council of Ministers, chaired by the President, most recently with effect from 19 January 2018. 18.  On 21 July 2016 the Turkish authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of a derogation from the Convention under Article 15. 19.  On 27 July 2016, in the course of one of the criminal investigations initiated in respect of suspected members of FETÖ/PDY, the applicant was arrested at his home in Istanbul and taken into police custody. 20.  On 30 July 2016 the applicant, assisted by his lawyer, was questioned at the Istanbul Security Directorate. During the questioning the applicant denied that he belonged to an illegal organisation. Later that day, the Istanbul public prosecutor sought a judicial order for the applicant’s pre-trial detention on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation. 21.  On the same day, several editors and columnists of the daily newspaper Zaman, including the applicant, were brought before the Istanbul 4th Magistrate’s Court. The magistrate questioned the applicant about his alleged acts and the accusations against him. The applicant stated that he had joined Zaman in order to be able to express his opinions; that he was in favour of a democratic system corresponding to European standards; that he was a secular person; that he had not been aware of the threat posed by Fetullah Gülen’s movement until after the attempted military coup of 15 July 2016; and that he was opposed to any attack on democracy. 22.  At the end of the hearing, the magistrate, taking into account the contents of the articles written by the applicant – and finding that they had promoted the terrorist organisation in question, even after 17 December 2013 – ordered his pre-trial detention. He noted in that connection that although criminal proceedings had been instituted against E.D. (the editor-in-chief of Zaman) before the attempted military coup, the applicant had continued to work for the newspaper and within the organisation’s media structure. In the reasons given for ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the magistrate took the following factors into consideration: the strong suspicions against him; the nature of the alleged offence and the fact that it was among the offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) – the so-called “catalogue offences”, for which a suspect’s pre-trial detention was deemed justified in the event of strong suspicion; the risk of absconding; the state of the evidence and the risk of its deterioration; and the risk that alternative measures to detention might be insufficient to ensure the applicant’s participation in the criminal proceedings. 23.  On 5 August 2016 the applicant lodged an objection against the order for his pre-trial detention. He argued that there was no justification for detaining him. He also contended that his state of health was incompatible with the conditions in the prison where he was being held. In a decision of 8 August 2016 the Istanbul 5th Magistrate’s Court dismissed the applicant’s objection. 24.  On 17 October 2016 the applicant lodged a fresh application for his release. In a decision of 19 October 2016 the Istanbul 10th Magistrate’s Court rejected the application. In his decision, the magistrate stated in particular that it was an established fact that in order to prepare the ground for a military coup, the instigators needed to create the perception that the leaders of the country concerned were dictators. In his view, the applicant’s articles accusing the President of Turkey of being a dictator and calling for him to leave office had contributed to propaganda of that kind. 25.  On 10 April 2017 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court in respect of several individuals, including the applicant, who were suspected of being part of the FETÖ/PDY media network, in particular accusing them, under Articles 309, 311 and 312 in conjunction with Article 220 § 6 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”), of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order, the Turkish Grand National Assembly and the government by force and violence, and of committing offences on behalf of a terrorist organisation without being members of it. The public prosecutor sought the imposition of three aggravated life sentences and a sentence of up to fifteen years’ imprisonment on the suspects, including the applicant. As evidence, he produced six articles written by the applicant in 2013 and 2014. 26.  The public prosecutor submitted that the articles by the applicants and other individuals being charged in the same criminal proceedings against leading members of FETÖ/PDY’s media wing could not be regarded as an expression of the authors’ opposition to or criticism of the government. In the applicant’s case, the public prosecutor contended that the expressions he had used had gone beyond the limits of freedom of the press in that they had undermined the rights of the official authorities and endangered social peace and public order. The public prosecutor found that the applicant had not hesitated to call for a possible military coup in his articles and, in short, had discharged functions serving the interests of the terrorist organisation in question. 27.  During the criminal proceedings, the applicant denied having committed any criminal offence. 28.  The criminal proceedings are currently pending before the Istanbul 13th Assize Court. 29.  On 8 September 2016 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court. He complained that he had been placed in pre-trial detention on account of his articles and alleged that this infringed his right to liberty and security and his right to freedom of expression and of the press. He also contended that his state of health was incompatible with the conditions of his continued detention since he was suffering from benign prostate hyperplasia, hyperlipidaemia, hyperuricemia, a multinodular goitre and sleep apnoea. On that account he asked the Constitutional Court to indicate an interim alternative measure to detention, thus allowing him to be released pending trial. 30.  In a decision of 26 October 2016 the Constitutional Court refused to apply an interim measure of that kind. In reaching that decision, it noted firstly that the applicant’s health had been regularly monitored from the start of his pre-trial detention, and that there was a State hospital inside the prison where he was being held. In that connection, it noted that on 4 October 2016, following a request he had made to that effect the previous day, the applicant had been examined in prison by a general practitioner and had then been transferred to the urology department of the State hospital, where he had undergone a medical examination on 20 October 2016, and that his next appointment had been scheduled for 22 March 2017. In those circumstances, the Constitutional Court found that keeping the applicant in pre-trial detention did not currently constitute a danger to his life or health. It added that should there be a change in his health or the conditions of his detention, he would be entitled to make a further application for an interim measure to secure his release. 31.  On 11 January 2018 the Constitutional Court gave a judgment (no. 2016/16092) in which it held, by eleven votes to six, that there had been a violation of the right to liberty and security and the right to freedom of expression and of the press. 32.  With regard to the applicant’s complaint concerning the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, the Constitutional Court noted firstly that the evidence forming the basis for his detention had included: (i) an article entitled “As if it were a religious war” (“Din Savaşıymış”), published on 21 December 2013; (ii) an article entitled “The President must not remain a spectator” (“Cumhurbaşkanı Seyirci Kalamaz”), published on 24 December 2013; (iii) an article entitled “Between Erdogan and the West” (“Erdoğan ile Batı Arasında”), published on 28 December 2013; (iv) an article entitled “Yes, both the crime and the punishment are individual” (“Evet Suç da Ceza da Şahsidir”), published on 8 February 2014; (v) an article entitled “This nation is not empty-headed” (“Bu Millet Bidon Kafalı Değildir”), published on 1 March 2014; and (vi) an article entitled “The solution is a government without Erdoğan” (“Çıkar Yol Erdoğan’sız Hükûmet”), published on 29 March 2014. After examining the substance of these articles, the Constitutional Court found that they mainly dealt with matters relating to the “17-25 December [2013]” criminal investigations. In them the applicant had set out his opinion that the government members implicated in the criminal investigation in question should be brought to justice and that it was the responsibility of the President and the ruling party’s leaders to take action to that end. He had contended that the government’s reaction to the investigation had been unjust. The Constitutional Court also observed that the applicant had written that if the investigation in question had been carried out on the orders of suspected members of FETÖ/PDY, they too should be the subject of a criminal investigation. However, he had maintained that it was unfair to accuse all members of the Gülenist movement. The Constitutional Court further noted that in the articles in question, the applicant had not argued that the government should be overthrown by force. On the contrary, he had asserted that the ruling party would lose in the next elections. The Constitutional Court also found that the article published one day before the attempted military coup suggested that the applicant was opposed to coups d’état. It held that he had been expressing opinions on a topical issue that were similar to those of the opposition leaders. In the Constitutional Court’s view, the investigating authorities had been unable to demonstrate any factual basis that might indicate that the applicant had been acting in accordance with the aims of FETÖ/PDY. It added that the fact that he had expressed his views in Zaman could not in itself be deemed sufficient to infer that the applicant was aware of that organisation’s goals. Accordingly, it concluded that “strong evidence that an offence had been committed” had not been sufficiently established in the applicant’s case. Next, the Constitutional Court examined whether there had been a violation of the right to liberty and security in the light of Article 15 of the Constitution (providing for the suspension of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms in the event of war, general mobilisation, a state of siege or a state of emergency). On this point, it noted firstly that in a state of emergency, the Constitution provided for the possibility of taking measures derogating from the guarantees set forth in Article 19, to the extent required by the situation. It observed, however, that if it were accepted that people could be placed in pre-trial detention without any strong evidence that they had committed an offence, the guarantees of the right to liberty and security would be meaningless. Accordingly, it held that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was disproportionate to the strict exigencies of the situation and that his right to liberty and security, as safeguarded by Article 19 § 3 of the Constitution, had been breached. 33.  Next, with regard to the complaint concerning freedom of expression and of the press, the Constitutional Court observed that the applicant’s initial and continued pre-trial detention on account of his articles amounted to interference with the exercise of that right. Taking into account his arguments regarding the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, the Constitutional Court held that such a measure, which had serious consequences since it resulted in deprivation of liberty, could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society. It further noted that it could not be clearly established from the reasons given for ordering and extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention whether the measure met a pressing social need or why it was necessary. Lastly, it found that it was clear that the applicant’s pre-trial detention could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and of the press, in so far as it had not been based on any concrete evidence other than his articles (see paragraph 140 of the Constitutional Court’s judgment). Regarding the application of Article 15 of the Constitution, it referred to its findings concerning the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention (as set out in paragraphs 108-10 of the Constitutional Court’s judgment – see paragraph 32 above) and held that there had also been a violation of freedom of expression and freedom of the press as enshrined in Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution. 34.  With regard to the applicant’s complaint that the conditions of his detention were incompatible with respect for human dignity, the Constitutional Court noted that he had access to the treatment required for his condition within the prison where he was being held, and declared this complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. 35.  The applicant did not submit a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court made no award under that head. The applicant claimed an unspecified sum in respect of the pecuniary damage he had allegedly sustained. The Constitutional Court found no causal link between the violation established and the damage alleged on that account and dismissed the claim. However, it held that the applicant was to be awarded 2,219.50 Turkish liras (TRY – approximately 500 euros (EUR)) in respect of costs and expenses. 36.  As the applicant was still in pre-trial detention on the date of delivery of its judgment, the Constitutional Court decided to transmit the judgment to the Istanbul 13th Assize Court so that it could take “the necessary action”. 37.  On 11 January 2018 the applicant’s lawyer applied to the Istanbul 13th Assize Court for his client’s release. 38.  On the same day, the Istanbul 13th Assize Court rejected the application, on the grounds that it had not yet received official notification of the Constitutional Court’s judgment. 39.  On 12 January 2018 the Istanbul 13th Assize Court, having observed that the Constitutional Court’s judgment had been published on its website, examined of its own motion the question of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Noting firstly that the examination of the merits of an individual application to the Constitutional Court against a judicial decision entailed determining whether there had been a violation of fundamental rights and what measures would be appropriate to put an end to the violation, and secondly that grounds of appeal on points of law could not be examined by the Constitutional Court in the context of an individual application, it found that the Constitutional Court did not have jurisdiction to assess the evidence in the case file. On that account, the Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 2016/16092 was not in compliance with the law and amounted to usurpation of power (görev gasbı). Regarding the effects of the Constitutional Court’s judgments, the Assize Court added that only judgments that were in accordance with the Constitution and the law should be deemed to be final and binding. It noted, moreover, that more extensive reasoning could be given to justify keeping the applicant in pre-trial detention and that the file contained sufficient evidence against him in that regard. However, this would create the risk of prejudging the case (ihsas-ı rey), seeing that a detailed explanation of the reasons justifying continued detention could be seen as an expression of the judges’ opinions before they had determined the merits of the case. Accordingly, the Assize Court held that it was impossible to accept the Constitutional Court’s judgment. Lastly, reiterating that the judgment in question amounted to usurpation of power, it held, by two votes to one, that there was no need for it to give a decision on the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 40.  The judge in the minority observed in his dissenting opinion that he agreed with the majority’s conclusion that the Constitutional Court’s judgment was not in compliance with the law. However, noting that the Constitutional Court’s judgments were final and binding on the Assize Court, he expressed the view that the applicant’s release should be ordered. 41.  On 12 January 2018 the applicant lodged an objection with a view to securing his release. 42.  In a decision of 15 January 2018 the Istanbul 14th Assize Court unanimously dismissed the applicant’s objection, essentially on the same grounds as the 13th Assize Court had done. 43.  On 1 February 2018 the applicant lodged a further individual application with the Constitutional Court. Relying on Articles 5, 6 and 18 of the Convention, he complained mainly that he had been kept in pre-trial detention despite the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 11 January 2018.


4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kazan. 5.  In 1969 the Shumelka river in Tveretinovka, Republic of Tatarstan, was dammed and an artificial lake was created. 6.  The original owner of the plot of land that contained the lake was a State fur farm. 7.  In 2003 the fur farm sold the plot of land and the lake to a private limited liability company through a public sale by tender. The new owner’s title to the plot of land was registered in the State land register. 8.  On 5 May 2008 the company sold the land to the applicant through a public sale by tender. The applicant’s title to the plot of land was registered in the State land register and on 28 June 2008 the applicant was issued with the relevant certificate. 9.  On 18 October 2011, following bankruptcy proceedings, the limited liability company was de-registered as a legal entity. 10.  On 29 March 2012 the regional agency for management of State property brought a civil action against the applicant, seeking to reclaim the plot of land and the lake. 11.  On 5 May 2012 the Pestrechinskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan granted the claims in full. The Court noted that, pursuant to the applicable legislation, the lake could not be owned by a private entity or a person and should be returned to the State. The court further noted that the public sale by tender in 2008 had been conducted in contravention of certain regulations (in particular, the announcement concerning the sale had not been published in the newspapers indicated in the State-approved list) and refused to apply the three-year statute of limitations to the agency’s claims. 12.  On 5 July 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan quashed the judgment of 5 May 2012 on appeal and rejected the claims in full. The court considered that the District Court had erred in the interpretation of the applicable legislation and that the plot of land with the lake could be owned by a private party. It further noted that, in any event, the agency’s claim should be dismissed for its failure to bring its action within the three-year time-limit. In this connection the court referred to the fact that (1) the State had been aware that the contested property had left its possession back in 2003 when the plot of land had been sold by the State farm to a private company and the new owner’s title to the property had been registered in the State land register and (2) the State had been aware that the applicant had owned the plot of land since 2008 when the applicant’s title to the property had been registered in the State land register. The agency appealed. 13.  On 14 September 2012 the Supreme Court referred the matter for a review of points of law. 14.  On 10 October 2012 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgement of 5 July 2012 and upheld the judgment of 5 May 2008, by way of a points-of-law review. It rejected the applicant’s request to apply the statute of limitations, considering that the agency had learnt about the infringement of the State’s rights in respect of the plot of land only in 2012 after receiving a letter from the Federal Water Resources Agency (Федеральное агентство водных ресурсов России). 15.  On 22 February 2013 the plot of land was registered as federal property in the State land register. 16.  On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the imposition of a fine on her in 2011 as the owner of the plot of land. She claimed that she had not been the owner of the plot of land. 17.  On 19 April 2013 the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan dismissed the applicant’s claims. It noted that the applicant had been the owner of the plot of land in 2011 and that the parties had not furnished any evidence to the contrary.


4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Baku. 5.  He was the chairman of the Azerbaijani National Statehood Party. 6.  In December 2010 the applicant sold his car to a certain E.R., who encountered a number of technical problems with it. 7.  On 7 January 2011 E.R. contacted the applicant and they agreed to meet on the same day. During the meeting E.R. expressed his dissatisfaction with the car and requested that the applicant return his money and take the car back. The applicant got angry, started to insult E.R. and then assaulted him together with a certain C. 8.  A passer-by intervened and stopped the altercation. E.R. reported the incident to the police on the same day. 9.  On 8 January 2011 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant by the Nasimi District Police Office under Article 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. The investigator’s decision stated that at around 8.30 p.m. on 7 January 2011 the applicant and a certain C. had insulted and assaulted E.R. on the street in Baku. 10.  On 8 January 2011 the police compiled a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect. 11.  On 10 January 2011 the applicant was charged under Articles 127.2.3 (deliberate infliction of less serious injury to health) and 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. 12.  On the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the charges brought against the applicant and an application from the prosecutor to apply the preventive measure of remanding the applicant in custody, ordered his detention pending trial for a period of two months. The court justified the application of the preventive custodial measure by the gravity of the offences imputed to him, the risk of his reoffending and the likelihood that he might abscond if released. 13.  On 12 January 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, stating that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that the court had failed to substantiate the necessity for his detention pending trial. He also submitted that the court had failed to take account of his personal situation and to consider the possibility of another preventive measure, such as house arrest or release on bail. 14.  On 17 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there were no grounds to quash the first-instance decision. 15.  On 2 March 2011 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case applied to the court for an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of one month. He submitted that more time was needed to complete the investigation. 16.  On 3 March 2011 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by one month, until 8 April 2011. The court justified its decision by the need for more time to carry out further investigative actions, the complexity of the criminal case and the likelihood that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation if released. 17.  On 4 March 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to substantiate its decision on his continued detention. 18.  On 9 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 3 March 2011. 19.  No further extension decisions are available in the case file. 20.  On 17 June 2011 the Nasimi District Court found the applicant guilty on all counts and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. 21.  The applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence by a presidential pardon issued on 17 March 2016.


4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Malyn, Zhytomyr Region. 5.  On 17 November 1993 M. gave birth to a baby girl, K. Given that the applicant had had relations with M. at the relevant time, on 2 December 1993 he accepted paternity of K. by submitting the relevant declaration to the authorities. 6.  On 23 March 2000 the applicant married M. They divorced in 2006. 7.  In July 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Malyn District Court against M., challenging the paternity of K. The applicant claimed that, even though he had been married to another woman at the relevant time, he had had relations with M. and he had been sure that he was the father of the child and so accepted the paternity. However, in 2005 he had reason to doubt his paternity. 8.  On 24 March 2008 the District Court found for the applicant, relying on a genetic expert’s opinion which excluded the possibility of the applicant being K.’s biological father. The court noted that the applicant had a right to challenge his paternity given that there was no evidence in the file to suggest that he had known that he was not the father of the child when accepting paternity of K. 9.  M. appealed, stating that from January 1993 she and the applicant had lived together without being married and that she had never had any doubts about the applicant’s paternity of K. She argued, inter alia, that the genetic expert’s opinion was not reliable. 10.  On 29 May 2008 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court’s decision and held that, under Article 56 of the Family and Marriage Code, the applicant had not had a right to challenge his paternity because at the time that he accepted paternity of K., he was aware that he was not K.’s father. In support of that finding the Court of Appeal noted that before K.’s birth, the applicant and M. had not been married, they had not lived together (noting, in particular, that between February and April 1993 the applicant lived in another town), and the applicant had been married to another woman at the relevant time. 11.  The applicant appealed on a point of law, contending that there were no grounds for the Court of Appeal to find that at the material time he was aware that he was not the biological father of the child. No such evidence was available in the file and the Regional Court of Appeal had exceeded its powers in drawing such a conclusion. 12.  On 9 September 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the appeal by the applicant as unfounded.