4.  On 16 September 1982 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The life sentence was mandatory. 5.  On 26 April 1996 the applicant was released on licence by virtue of section 23 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. 6.  On 7 March 1997 the applicant’s licence was revoked by order of the Secretary of State following his arrest for alleged sexual offences, which included acts of indecent assault and gross indecency with two of his nieces, who were aged nine and thirteen at the time. 7.  The applicant was subsequently charged with the offences but the charges were withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 13 January 1998 because it was not considered to be in his nieces’ best interests to give evidence. 8.  After considering representations made on behalf of the applicant, the Secretary of State decided that his life licence should not be reinstated and that his case should be considered by the Life Sentence Review Board. The role of the Board, which consisted largely of senior officials from the Northern Ireland Office, was to advise the Secretary of State on when he should release on licence under section 23 of the 1953 Act prisoners serving terms of imprisonment for life. In considering these cases the Board took into account the nature of the prisoner’s offence, his age and background, his response in prison, and all other relevant factors, including the comments made by the trial judge when passing sentence. 9.  The applicant’s case was reviewed by the Board on 12 November 1998, 3 November 1999, 7 December 1999, 26 April 2000 and 30 October 2000. On each occasion the Board declined to direct his release as it believed that he had committed the conduct alleged against him and that there was a risk he would commit further acts of a similar nature if released. 10.  The applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decisions of 7 December 1999 and 30 October 2000 on the grounds, inter alia, that the decisions were contrary to Articles 5 § 4 and 6 of the Convention because the proceedings before the Board had not been “fair” and its function was “administrative rather than quasi-judicial”. 11.  Permission was granted but the application was dismissed on 29 June 2001. Insofar as the applicant had sought to rely on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the court, having regard to Wynne v. the United Kingdom, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 294‑A, found that at the relevant time it did not apply to a mandatory life sentence in Northern Ireland. 12.  The applicant did not seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. 13.  Following a review in anticipation of the coming into force, in October 2000, of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Life Sentence Review Commissioners (“the LSRC”) replaced the Life Sentence Review Board. Unlike the Board, the LSRC was independent of the Executive and could give legally binding decisions in relation to the release of prisoners. 14.  On 29 November 2001 the applicant’s case was referred to a panel of the LSRC. The panel’s role was first, to establish whether, at the date of recall, there had been a significant risk of the applicant committing serious harm; and secondly, to consider whether the risk currently posed by the applicant was capable of being managed safely in the community, and, if not, whether there were steps that might be taken with a view to reducing the current risk to a level that could, in the future, be safely managed in the community. 15.  An initial hearing took place on 17 June 2002. At the hearing the applicant’s solicitor indicated that he had no more factual evidence to adduce concerning the allegations of sexual abuse and asked the panel to conduct a paper review of the credibility of those allegations. The panel agreed and, based on the written material, concluded that on the balance of probabilities the applicant had committed the alleged sexual assaults. It therefore set that issue aside and the remainder of the hearing only addressed the question of risk at that point in time. 16.  In the course of the hearing the applicant dismissed his solicitor. The hearing was then adjourned as the applicant had no legal representative. He instructed new solicitors in late September 2002 but they only obtained a legal aid certificate in April 2003, despite the Chairman of the panel intervening to expedite the process. 17.  The panel requested submission of evidence and representations by 31 July 2003. An extension was granted at the applicant’s request and the representations were filed on 17 September 2003. In those representations, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that in a recall case the panel was required to conduct a merits review of the recall decision. He therefore argued that the decision arrived at on paper on 17 June 2002 – that on the balance of probabilities he had committed the alleged sexual assaults – had been unlawfully and unfairly arrived at and the question should be revisited by a fresh panel. 18.  At a hearing on 9 January 2004 the Chairman indicated that he would allow the applicant to reopen the issue of whether or not he had committed the alleged assaults. As a consequence, the panel members recused themselves on 12 January 2004 and a new panel, chaired by Mr Peter Smith QC, was appointed (“the Smith panel”). 19.  A preliminary hearing date was fixed for 16 March 2004. At the hearing the Secretary of State indicated that he would not be calling the two complainants as witnesses, although he did intend to tender the transcripts of video-recorded interviews with them. The applicant’s representatives asked the Chairman to direct the Secretary of State to call them as witnesses. The Chairman refused this application but made it clear that the applicant could subpoena the complainants and cross-examine them as though they were witnesses for the Secretary of State. He assured the applicant that no adverse inferences would follow if he did not summons the witnesses. 20.  The substantive hearing was fixed for 18 and 19 May 2004. On 12 May 2004 the Prison Service on behalf of the Secretary of State submitted twenty-one witness statements taken by police during the course of the original investigation and sought leave to call one of the complainants as a witness. On 14 May 2004 the Smith panel issued a direction permitting the supplementary material to be appended to the hearing materials and granting the Secretary of State permission to call the complainant. 21.  On 17 May 2004 the applicant’s solicitors wrote to the Smith panel to complain about the late submission of the witness statements and the decision to permit the complainant to be called as a witness. 22.  As a consequence, a further preliminary hearing was held on the morning of 18 May 2004 instead of the substantive hearing originally planned. At the hearing the applicant was told that the complainant would not be attending and it was decided that the Secretary of State should seek to encourage her to attend voluntarily. In the meantime the hearing was adjourned. 23.  On 23 August 2004 the applicant wrote directly to the Smith panel to complain about the delays in his case. 24.  On 21 September 2004 the Smith panel replied to the applicant’s letter, indicating that the Secretary of State was still trying to secure the complainant’s attendance. 25.  On 8 October 2004 the Secretary of State was “forced to conclude that despite our best efforts [the complainant] is reluctant to give evidence voluntarily to the [panel]”. 26.  On 4 November 2004 the Smith panel indicated that it would not direct the Secretary of State to issue a witness summons to secure the complainant’s attendance. 27.  The hearing began on 21 March 2005. Evidence was heard over 21 and 22 March, 23, 24 and 31 May and 1 June 2005, including video recordings of social services’ interviews with the applicant’s nieces. In addition, both parties submitted written representations. In his representations the applicant argued that the evidence of sexual abuse should not have been admitted as he had been unable to cross-examine the complainants. 28.  Having considered the evidence the Smith panel concluded that the Secretary of State had proved on the balance of probabilities that the applicant had committed the alleged sexual assaults against children and that it was not safe to release him on licence at that point. 29.  The Smith panel dealt with the applicant’s submissions on the unfairness of the proceedings by noting that:
“... [counsel for the applicant’s] approach to the issue of [the complainant] being subpoenaed was a perfectly legitimate tactical manoeuvre by which he sought, on the one hand, to characterise the failure to subpoena [the complainant] as unfair, while on the other hand, he sought to avoid being instrumental in securing her attendance at the hearing and giving evidence with the consequent danger of the case against [the applicant] being strengthened. The panel remains of the opinion... that it would have been unreasonable to have directed [the complainant] to be subpoenaed.” 30.  On 3 November 2005 the applicant applied for permission to seek judicial review of the Smith panel’s decision of 3 August 2005 not to direct his release from prison. He contended first, that the procedure before the LSRC had been unfair and in breach of Articles 5 § 4 and 6 of the Convention, as the Smith panel had based a finding against him on the statements of witnesses who had not been available to be challenged by cross-examination. Secondly, he submitted that the Smith panel had misdirected itself on the applicable standard of proof. Thirdly, he argued that there had not been a sufficient “causal connection” between the deprivation of his liberty following his recall and the crime for which he was originally convicted. Finally, the applicant submitted that there had been undue delay by the LSRC in progressing the hearing of the referral and there had accordingly been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 31.  Permission for judicial review was granted on 9 November 2005. On 23 May 2006 the High Court dismissed the application. With regard to the question of causal connection, it found that the offences of murder and serious sexual assault were both crimes of violence and the applicant had been recalled to prison on the ground that his actions pointed to an actual or potential threat of harm to members of the public. In relation to the issue of procedural fairness, the court found that no unfairness was caused to the applicant by the decision not to call his nieces as witnesses as he had had the option of subpoenaing them himself. Moreover, the court accepted that the panel had applied the correct standard of proof. Finally, in respect of the question of delay, the court found that the Smith panel had not been in breach of its Article 5 § 4 obligations as the applicant’s side “was very largely responsible for the long periods in progressing the matter to the point of a hearing”. Even if the Smith panel had been responsible, the applicant’s detention had not been shown to be unlawful and he had not, therefore, suffered any loss of liberty in consequence of any breach of Article 5 § 4. 32.  On 4 July 2006 the applicant filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of the High Court in which he argued that the Smith panel had misdirected itself as to the standard of proof required to establish the allegations against him; that the procedure before the Smith panel had been unfair and in breach of Articles 5 § 4 and 6 of the Convention, most notably because the applicant’s nieces should have been required to give evidence; and finally, that there had not been a “speedy determination” of the lawfulness of his detention. The appeal was heard on 23 April 2007. 33.  On 6 September 2007 the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. The court dealt summarily with the issue of delay. Although it noted that the Smith panel was “beset with a number of problems, not the least of which was the obtaining of legal aid for the appellant”, having examined the chronology furnished by the LSRC it was satisfied that it had acted “with appropriate dispatch”. 34.  On the question of fairness the court observed that the applicant had suffered no disadvantage on account of the decision not to subpoena his nieces. He had had the opportunity to summons them as witnesses and cross‑examine them as though they were the Secretary of State’s witnesses. In any case, the court found it inconceivable that evidence of this nature should have been ignored when the safety of the public was at stake. It therefore concluded that there had been no unfairness to the applicant. 35.  However, the Court held that in determining the standard of proof the Smith panel had misdirected itself. The court accordingly quashed the Smith panel’s decision of 3 August 2005 and directed that a fresh decision be taken by a differently constituted panel. 36.  The applicant’s counsel subsequently filed a further written submission with the Court of Appeal, in which he sought a declaration that the applicant’s detention since 2 October 2000 had been in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. He also sought damages in respect of that violation and an order for bail. 37.  On 5 December 2007, after hearing oral submissions, the court decided not to consider the applicant’s submissions on Article 5 § 1. It noted that this issue had not been raised in the course of the appeal proceedings and, although it had been included in the initial Order 53 statement (a statement lodged with the judicial review application setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought and the grounds on which it was sought), it had not been directly in issue before the High Court and the judge had therefore made no findings on it. 38.  The LSRC was granted permission to appeal to the House of Lords on the issue of the standard of proof. The applicant cross-appealed on several grounds: that the procedure adopted before the Smith panel had been unfair; that he had been detained unlawfully in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; and that the delay had caused a breach of Article 5 § 4. 39.  Before the decision of the Court of Appeal the Secretary of State had made a second referral of the applicant’s case to the LSRC as two years had passed since the decision of 3 August 2005. A second panel had been convened to conduct the referral (“the Garrett panel”). However, following the decision of the Court of Appeal this review could no longer take place. Instead, the initial referral to the LSRC, which took place on 29 November 2001, was revived and a third panel was convened to consider afresh the applicant’s recall (“the first Rodgers panel”). 40.  The first Rodgers panel first convened for a hearing on 4 January 2008. It had to consider the same two main issues as the Smith panel: whether there had been a significant risk of the applicant committing serious harm at the date of recall; and whether the risk presently posed by the applicant was capable of being safely managed in the community. 41.  At a hearing on 4 January 2008 the Governor of the Life Management Unit and a senior psychologist at HMP Maghaberry gave evidence to the Rodgers panel on the question of present risk. Following the hearing the applicant’s solicitors wrote to the Northern Ireland Prison Service, asserting that on the basis of the evidence of these two witnesses the risk posed by the applicant could be managed safely in the community. They therefore asked the first Rodgers panel to conclude that there was no significant risk and argued that any further delay in the determination of the case would be in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 42.  At a further hearing on 12 March 2008 several witnesses indicated that they no longer believed the applicant would pose a significant risk to the public. Counsel for the applicant therefore contended that a licence should be issued immediately without waiting for a determination of the outstanding factual issue, namely whether or not the applicant had committed the alleged sexual assaults. 43.  However, on 20 March 2008 the first Rodgers panel indicated that it was required to hear all the evidence before taking a decision. 44.  On 1 May 2008 the applicant issued a claim for judicial review challenging this decision of 20 March 2008 by the first Rodger’s panel. He sought an order of mandamus requiring it to come to a decision on the question of his licence; a declaration that his detention since 12 March 2008 had been in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; and a declaration that the handling of the referral by the Rodgers panel on 12 March 2008 was unlawful and in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 45.  At an oral hearing on 9 May 2008 the High Court refused permission to apply for judicial review on the ground that the applicant had not demonstrated an arguable case. In particular, it found the application to be premature, as the first Rodgers panel had not been afforded the opportunity to hear all the relevant evidence in the matter and it would be “incomprehensible” for it to complete its statutory task without doing so. With regard to the issue of delay, the court noted that, while circumstances had prevented the case from proceeding with the expedition which normally attends upon such cases, the evidence as a whole demonstrated that the delays had been necessary and purposeful. 46.  The applicant filed a notice of appeal against this decision. 47.  In the interim further hearings before the first Rodgers panel took place on 21 and 27 May 2008. 48.  On 11 June 2008 the House of Lords allowed the LSRC’s appeal, finding that the Smith panel had not failed to adopt and apply the correct standard of proof, and restored its decision of 3 August 2005. At the same time the House of Lords dismissed the applicant’s cross-appeal (see paragraph 38 above). 49.  Their Lordships considered that the procedure adopted in respect of the subpoenaing of the complainant had not been unfair because it had not disadvantaged the applicant. Likewise, they agreed with the High Court that there had been a sufficient causal connection between the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty and his original conviction. Their Lordships therefore found that there had been no breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 50.  In respect of the Article 5 § 4 issue, although their Lordships expressed some “disquiet” at the “extraordinarily long period which elapsed between recall and final decision”, they found “no single gap in the chronology which points to avoidable delay on the part of the Commissioners”. They therefore considered that from 29 November 2001 – when the matter was first referred to the LSRC – until 3 August 2005 – the date of the Smith panel’s decision – the LSRC had taken reasonable steps to proceed to a hearing and that any delays had been mostly out of its control. In particular, Lord Carswell stated that
“[32]  It is necessary to bear in mind, first, that the remedy is being sought by the Respondent against the Commissioners, not against the Secretary of State, and that what has to be considered is whether the Commissioners failed to act with proper expedition, not whether the system required overhaul so as to speed up the process in some way. For this reason one must leave out of consideration the period up to November 2001 – over half of the overall lapse of time – when the matter was referred to the Commissioners for consideration. One may observe, however, that a good deal of activity took place between March 1997 and November 2001, involving two determinations by the Life Sentences Review Board and an application for judicial review.
...
[35].  I am of the view, on consideration of the foregoing summary [of events between November 2001 and August 2005], that the Commissioners took reasonable steps to proceed to a hearing, and that the delays were mostly outside their control. Some of them were attributable to the respondent’s change of legal representation and to requests from his solicitors to extend time over various steps. Some delays were unavoidable, bearing in mind that the panel consisted of part-time members and dates had to be found when they could all attend and the witnesses were available. I conclude accordingly that the Commissioners did not delay unduly at any stage, notwithstanding the very long time that the proceedings took to reach a determination. I therefore would not favour making any declaration of breach of article 5(4) of the Convention.” 51.  Following the judgment of the House of Lords, the decision of the Smith panel of 3 August 2005 was reinstated and the first Rodgers panel became functus officio. A new panel was appointed; however, in light of the previous involvement of the members of the first Rodgers panel in the applicant’s case those members were appointed to the new panel (the second Rodgers panel). It was not necessary for the second Rodgers panel to re‑determine the lawfulness of the applicant’s recall in 1997 as this issue had already been determined by the Smith panel. The sole issue was therefore that of current risk. 52.  A hearing was listed for 7 October 2008. Following the hearing of updated evidence, the second Rodgers panel directed that the applicant be released on licence subject to conditions. 53.  In the meantime, the Court of Appeal had allowed the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant permission to apply for judicial review of the first Rodgers panel’s decision of 20 March 2008 (see paragraph 46 above). The judicial review application was remitted to the High Court. 54.  On 23 January 2009 the High Court refused the applicant’s application for judicial review. Insofar as the applicant had relied on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the court found that the first Rodgers panel had been entitled to refuse to reach a conclusion on risk until they had heard the further evidence as to the basis of the recall. There had therefore remained a causal connection between the original conviction and the risk of harm to the community which justified the detention of the applicant in March 2008. In respect of his Article 5 § 4 arguments, the court found that there had been no absence of consideration or periodic review of the applicant’s detention. 55.  On 14 June 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision. On the Article 5 § 4 issue – namely, whether the evidence of risk before the first Rodgers panel in March 2008 must inevitably have led it to the conclusion that the applicant’s detention was no longer necessary for the protection of the public –, the court noted that the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the risk the applicant posed had not been uniform and the panel had therefore been entitled to reach the decision that it did. Consequently the applicant’s continued detention between March and October 2008 had not been arbitrary and was rationally connected to the reason for his recall and sentence. 56.  On the advice of counsel given on 20 June 2011 the applicant did not pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court.


5.  The applicants, Dorina and Viorel-Aurel[2] Ioniță, were born in 1976 and 1972 respectively and live in Brăila. 6.  On 7 November 2005 the applicants’ son, aged four years and nine months at that time, underwent surgery for the removal of polyps, which was performed by Dr C.B. in the State-run Brăila Emergency Hospital. 7.  Dr C.B. decided to perform the operation under general anaesthetic with tracheal intubation. The general anaesthesia was performed by Dr P.A, assisted by P.V.I., a staff nurse. 8.  After surgery the child was immediately transferred to the intensive care unit. Ten minutes after his transfer P.V.I. informed Dr P.A that the child was cyanotic and had no pulse. 9.  The child suffered a haemorrhage, causing blood to flood his lungs. A team of doctors tried to resuscitate him and clear his respiratory channels, but without any success. The child was declared dead two hours after the operation. 10.  A criminal investigation into the cause of death was opened by the Brăila police on the same day. 11.  Dr C.B. and Dr P.A. were questioned and gave written statements. 12.  An autopsy report issued by the Brăila Forensic Service (Serviciul de medicină legală Brăila) on 8 November 2005 said that the applicants’ son had died of acute respiratory failure as a result of the blood that had blocked his airways and flooded his lungs. It also noted that the child had suffered from several congenital deficiencies which had probably played a role in the post‑operative complications: myocardia and hepatic dystrophy, and interatrial septum aneurisms. 13.  The report was sent for the approval of the commission for confirmation and supervision of the Iaşi Forensic Institute (Comisia de avizare și control din cadrul IMF Iaşi). On 5 May 2006 the commission confirmed that the child’s death had occurred after surgery and had been caused by the blood that had blocked his airways and lungs. It held that there had been a causal link between the post-operative treatment and the child’s death. It noted the deflation of the balloon of the catheter (balonaşul sondei de întubaţie), applied after post-operatively to prevent the ingress of blood into the lungs, as a possible cause of the presence of blood there and in his airways. 14.  On 12 October 2006 the superior commission of the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute examined all the documents and approved the conclusions of the commission for confirmation and supervision of the Iaşi Forensic Institute. 15.  On 8 November 2005 the child’s father lodged a disciplinary complaint against Dr C.B. and Dr P.A. 16.  The disciplinary committee of the Brăila College of Doctors opened an investigation into the patient’s death, collecting documents from the patient’s medical file and taking statements from Dr C.B. and Dr P.A., as well as from the doctors involved in the resuscitation procedure post‑operation. It gave its decision on 9 July 2007 by which it concluded that the child’s death could be included among cases of sudden death (with a frequency of 2-4 % owing to the child’s pre-existing medical conditions: myocardia and hepatic dystrophy, and inter-atrial septum aneurisms). Although the committee concluded that there had been no direct link between the child’s death and the doctors’ medical conduct, it reprimanded both doctors for their failure to perform the necessary pre-surgical medical tests and to seek the applicants’ informed consent before surgery. 17.  The applicants objected to the committee’s conclusions and their appeal was examined by the superior disciplinary committee of the National College of Doctors. 18.  An expert medical opinion was submitted to the committee and was used by it in reaching its final conclusions. The expert noted, among other things, that the child’s preparation for surgery had not been appropriate as his examination before anaesthesia had been “very superficial”; in this respect the committee noted the lack of a radioscopy of the lungs, of an EKG and an exploration of the necessary time for blood coagulation. In the expert’s view, the doctors had ignored the child’s severe congenital deficiencies as they had considered that surgery for the removal of polyps had been a “minor intervention” and therefore no special precautions had been necessary. 19.  By a decision of 6 June 2008 the superior disciplinary committee of the National College of Doctors quashed the decision of 9 July 2007 and fined each doctor 1,000 Romanian lei (the equivalent of approximately 220 euros (EUR)). It found that the child’s pre-surgical tests had been insufficient for avoiding post-operative complications. Therefore, it held that Dr C.B. and Dr P.A. had infringed Article 53 of the Medical Deontological Code, pursuant to which a doctor should perform diagnoses with maximum diligence in order to determine the adequate treatment and avoid predictable complications that might occur for a patient under his or her care. 20.  The committee further stated that the presence of blood in the child’s airways could not be explained on the basis of the documents and statements in the file. It noted that all the doctors and the nurses who had given evidence stated that the balloon of the intubation catheter had been leak‑proof (etanche); however, the fact that the cause of death had been the presence of blood in the child’s lungs could only lead to the conclusion that such statements had been inaccurate. 21.  Relying on Articles 58 and 60 of the Deontological Code and Article 6 of Law no. 46/2003, the committee also noted that the parents had not given their informed consent. 22.  On 7 November 2005 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the flawed surgical and post-surgical treatment received by their son had resulted in his death. They asked that those responsible be identified and held accountable for their son’s death. They joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties. 23.  Following a request of the Brăila Police Inspectorate, on 19 July 2006 Brăila Emergency Hospital stated that the medical staff members in charge of monitoring the child were Dr P.A. during the intervention and the child’s transfer to the intensive care unit and P.V.I. while in the intensive care unit. 24.  On 5 January 2007 the prosecutor’s office of the Brăila District Court decided to institute criminal proceedings against Dr P.A. 25.  P.V.I. was interviewed as a witness immediately after the child’s death, during the preliminary criminal investigation. During the criminal proceedings against Dr P.A., in spite of the fact that she had been repeatedly summoned, the investigating authorities were not able to question her as she had not been found. She had left her job at the Brăila Emergency Hospital in January 2006. 26.  The prosecuting authorities interviewed several doctors and nurses from the hospital’s medical staff who had been involved in the applicants’ son’s post-operative care. 27.  Dr P.A. lodged a request with the investigating body for a new forensic medical report. He pointed out that there were major contradictions between the autopsy report and the opinion issued by the commission for confirmation and supervision of the Iaşi Forensic Institute. 28.  On 4 April 2007 the Brăila Police Inspectorate asked the Iaşi Forensic Institute to carry out a forensic expert report that would identify the cause and circumstances of the child’s death. The Iaşi Forensic Institute replied that a new forensic report could not be produced as the evidence examined had been sent by Brăila Forensic Service to the Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute. 29.  On 20 February 2008 Dr P.A. submitted an extrajudicial expert report. It stated that the cause of death had not been the presence of blood in the child’s lungs owing to a lack of adequate post-operative monitoring, but the post-operative reaction of a child with pre-existing medical conditions (cardiac congenital malformation, hepatic dystrophy, renal stasis, mesenteric adenopathy and hemorrhagic enterocolitis) mentioned in the medical records kept by the child’s paediatrician. The report noted a generalised inflammatory reaction associated with diffused haemorrhages in his digestive tract, lungs, heart and spleen. 30.  The applicants gave evidence to the investigating authorities on 23 January 2008. They contended that they had not been properly informed about the risks of surgery and of the general anaesthetic and consequently they had not given their consent for such interventions. 31.  On 30 June 2008 the Brăila Police Inspectorate ordered that a new forensic report be produced by the Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute. The applicants, Dr P.A. and the investigating authorities submitted several questions for the forensic experts. They asked, among other things, whether the pre-existent medical condition of the child had influenced his unfavourable post-surgical evolution and whether administration of a general anaesthetic had been the right option, given the age and the diagnosis of the child. The child’s father also asked the Forensic Institute whether the post-operative monitoring of the child had been adequate. 32.  However, on 28 July 2008 the Forensic Institute replied that it could not deliver such a report because under the relevant domestic legislation a new forensic expert report could not be ordered unless there were new medical and factual elements. Accordingly, the Forensic Institute stated that it maintained its previous opinion. 33.  Copies of the documents from the disciplinary file were added to the criminal file. 34.  On 30 September 2008 the prosecutor’s office of the Brăila County Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against Dr P.A., finding, in the light of evidence gathered in the case, that there had been no element of criminal negligence in his conduct. That decision was upheld on 10 November 2008 by the chief prosecutor of the same prosecutor’s office. 35.  A complaint by the applicants against the prosecutors’ decisions was allowed by the Brăila District Court on 25 February 2009. The prosecutors’ decisions were quashed and the District Court kept the file for fresh consideration. It considered that although a new forensic report had not been produced, the decision of the superior committee of the National College of Doctors provided enough information concerning the cause of death, which had been the presence of blood in the child’s airways owing to the balloon of the tracheal catheter not being tight enough. It considered that it should be established whether the post-operative monitoring of the child by Dr P.A. had been appropriate and more precisely whether Dr P.A. should have noticed the non-functioning catheter. 36.  Dr C.B. and Dr P.A. gave statements before the District Court on 18 January 2010. Moreover, members of the medical staff that had attempted resuscitation gave evidence (on 1 March, 20 April and 8 June 2008). Some of them maintained that the blood in the lungs could be explained by the resuscitation attempts and that the balloon of the catheter had been kept tight all the time after surgery. 37.  P.V.I. did not give evidence before the court as, although summoned, she did not attend the hearings. According to several reports issued by bailiffs seeking to bring her before the court, she had left the country for Italy. Based on the material in the case file it does not appear that the court took special measures to identify her address there. 38.  The child’s father gave evidence before the Brăila District Court on 18 January 2010. He reiterated his claims for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damages. He again contended that the doctors had not informed his family about the risks of surgery and in particular of the general anaesthetic and accordingly they had not given their informed consent. 39.  On 1 October 2010, after several hearings, the Brăila District Court acquitted Dr P.A. and dismissed the applicants’ civil claim as unfounded. 40.  The District Court took into account the extrajudicial forensic report submitted by Dr P.A. It noted that the conclusions of the extrajudicial report were in total contradiction to the conclusions of the medical report of 8 November 2005 and the conclusions of the commission for confirmation and supervision of the Iaşi Forensic Institute. 41.  This judgment was upheld by a decision of the Brăila County Court delivered on 21 December 2010. 42.  The County Court did not take into account the conclusions of the extrajudicial forensic report as in its opinion it represented only extrajudicial evidence which could not set aside the conclusions of competent forensic institutes. 43.  The County Court concluded that the death of the child had been caused by the presence of blood in his airways and lungs. However, based on the evidence in the file, it was not possible to explain when the blood had entered the child’s airways because of the deflation of the catheter’s balloon. Moreover, the post-operative complications occurred ten minutes after the child had been transferred to the intensive care unit, while under the supervision of P.V.I. The County Court held therefore that Dr P.A. could not be held responsible for the deflation of the catheter’s balloon after surgery. 44.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision. They requested that the court extend the criminal investigation to P.V.I., who had had the child under her supervision in the intensive care unit. 45.  By a decision of 15 April 2011 the Galaţi Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed the decisions of the lower courts. Noting that the lower courts had not examined the allegation made by the child’s parents that they had not given their consent for surgery and the general anaesthesia, the appeal court sent the file back to the Brăila District Court. 46.  On 22 December 2011 the Brăila District Court acquitted Dr P.A. It held that no causal link existed between the death of the child and the presumed omission of the medical authorities to obtain the applicants’ informed consent for the administration of a general anaesthetic. 47.  It further held that it could not establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Dr P.A. had been negligent in ensuring the tightness of the catheter’s balloon after surgery. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicants’ civil claim as unfounded. 48.  The court also dismissed the applicants’ request to extend the criminal investigation to P.V.I. on the grounds that, under Article 337 § 1 of the CCP, only the prosecutor could ask for the extension of the investigation to other persons while the proceedings were pending before the courts. 49.  This judgment was upheld by a final decision delivered by the Galaţi Court of Appeal on 22 May 2012. 50.  On 28 October 2008 the applicants instituted separate civil proceedings against the Brăila Emergency Hospital and doctors C.B. and P.A. in the Brăila District Court for the pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damages they had sustained as a result of their son’s death. 51.  On 23 April 2009, referring to Article 19 of the CCP (see paragraph 57 below), the court stayed the civil proceedings pending a final decision in the criminal proceedings. It noted that the outcome of the civil proceedings would depend to a large extent on the verdict in the criminal proceedings. 52.  On 29 January 2013 the Brăila District Court lifted the stay of the civil proceedings. However, the applicants gave up their separate civil claim on 6 March 2013.


5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Narva, Estonia. 6.  On 29 April 2009, some time before 6 p.m., the police emergency call centre received a call about two young men who were at the junction of Kreenholmi and Kerese streets in Narva, Estonia. The caller reported that one of the men was carrying a knife and that the other was obviously drunk and had difficulty walking. He considered the men to be dangerous to passers-by. At 5.55 p.m. Officers S.B. and E.V., who were on patrol duty, were given instructions to respond to the call. At around 6 p.m. they found the men – the applicant and M.Z. – at a public playground. 7.  The applicant’s version of events relating to his encounter with the police, as it appears from his application and the documents submitted to the Court, is the following. At around 6 p.m. on 29 April 2009, he and M.Z. were waiting for an acquaintance, Y.B., at a playground. Both the applicant and M.Z. were drunk. Two policemen approached him. He did not behave aggressively or swear at them. The applicant spoke with the officers. He did not remember exactly what they talked about, except that it concerned a knife and that the applicant said that he did not have one. He also recalled that the name of one of the policemen was Andrei (this later turned out to be S.B.). He was then punched on the jaw by S.B. and fell to the ground, his face landing in a hole in the pavement. He momentarily lost consciousness, and when he attempted to get up he received another blow on the back, close to the bottom of his neck. One of the police officers put his knee on his neck and pushed him to the ground. He was handcuffed and then the officers started punching and kicking him all over his body and head. He lost consciousness after the beating and only regained it at the police station. 8.  According to the Government, the criminal investigation carried out by the domestic authorities showed that the applicant’s arrest had taken place in the following manner. The police officers who found the applicant and M.Z. at the playground had been given information about two men, one of whom was possibly carrying a knife, while the other one was reportedly drunk and walking with difficulty. At the playground, the applicant behaved aggressively and used obscene language. Officer E.V. tried to talk to the applicant, but the applicant acted in an erratic manner, and started waving his hands around and shouting at the officers. Officer E.V. decided to force him to the ground and keep him there until a police patrol vehicle arrived. He handcuffed the applicant with the help of two police officers, S.J. and N.S., who had arrived by car. While he was being kept on the ground, the applicant attempted to get up, kicked out and continued to utter obscenities at the officers. The police officers did not use excessive force against him and did not beat him. The applicant continued to resist the police while he was being put into a police van, which was last to arrive and was carrying Officers S.T. and J.S. Some force therefore had to be used to get the applicant in the van. In the course of that process, the applicant hit his left temple against the door of the van. The applicant also remained aggressive during his transportation. The officers on the front seats of the van heard what sounded like something being pounded against another object from the back compartment. 9.  The applicant’s account of the events during his detention, as it appears from his application and the documents submitted to the Court, is the following. When he woke up in a room next to the detention cells in the police station, he saw the two police officers who had been present at the playground in front of him. He was lying on the floor with his hands cuffed. When he attempted to stand up, S.B. kneed him in the area of his left ear. When the applicant tried to sit on a chair, he was knocked off his feet and ordered to sit on the floor. After E.V. left the room, S.B., who had on black leather gloves, started systematically punching and kicking the applicant. The applicant stood up and fell over several times. At one point, he was taken to the toilet, the sink tap was turned on and his head was put under the water. He was then taken back to the detention room. While passing the detention cells, he asked those inside whether they would confirm anything they had seen or heard. In the detention room, the applicant sat on the chair and S.B. punched him again several times. When E.V. returned, the applicant was knocked off the chair and beaten again on every part of his body. S.B. continued beating him after E.V. left the room. The applicant lost consciousness for a while and when he came around he had blood on his face and was eventually put on the chair. His handcuffs were removed and he was allowed to go to the toilet, where he washed himself. He returned to the detention room and was then placed in a cell to sober up. After a while, an ambulance came and he was taken to a hospital in the company of different policemen. He had blood on his clothes, but he threw away the T-shirt, while his mother washed his trousers. 10.  According to the Government, the facts as they were established in the subsequent criminal investigation showed the following. The applicant, who was still handcuffed, continued to behave aggressively at the police station. He ran up to detainees in other cells, shouting that he was being beaten by the police. As he did not obey orders to calm down and stay still, physical force had to be used to make him sit or to place him on the floor. When he began to calm down, he was placed on a chair with his hands cuffed. He suddenly lost his balance and fell off the chair face down. The police officers lifted him up and put him back on the chair. Shortly after, the applicant again fell on the floor. In the interests of the applicant’s safety, the officers left him sitting on the floor. The police removed the applicant’s handcuffs as soon as he calmed down. He was then taken to a cell to sober up. A test showed that the applicant was in a moderate state of alcoholic intoxication. 11.  At 7.45 p.m. Officers S.B. and J.S. drafted a report that the applicant had been taken from 10 Kreenholmi Street to recover from alcoholic intoxication. The report stated that the applicant had been in a state of alcoholic intoxication, had walked with difficulty, had fallen over and had been aggressive. It also stated that the applicant’s face had been dirty and that he had had abrasions on his head. 12.  At 1.42 a.m. on 30 April 2009 Officer P.S. called an ambulance to the police station at the request of the applicant. According to ambulance registration card no. 1419, the applicant complained of pain in the left part of his head and the right wrist, as well as nausea, vomiting and loss of hearing in the left ear. The findings on examination were that he had haematomas on the left part of the cranium and a swollen right wrist and was in a state of alcoholic intoxication. He was diagnosed with an intracranial injury and a fracture of the right hand and wrist. The applicant was taken to hospital. 13.  Later at the hospital, according to patient registration card no. 4460, dated 30 April 2009, the applicant complained about losing consciousness and vomiting. The findings on examination were that he had haematomas and an oedema in the area of the left ear and eye. He was diagnosed with concussion and being in a state of alcoholic intoxication. 14.  At 2.15 a.m. on 30 April 2009 other police officers, not those who had allegedly beaten the applicant at the police station, took a statement from him at the hospital. At 2.40 a.m. those officers drafted a misdemeanour report where they stated that the applicant had been drunk in a public place, Kreenholmi Street, and had been brawling, shouting and using obscene language, actions which amounted to a breach of the peace and a disturbance to others. 15.  At 6.26 a.m. on 30 April 2009 a computer tomography scan was performed on the applicant. The results showed “temporal extracranial swelling on the left side, no haemorrhage, no intracranial pathology or haemorrhage, ventricular system symmetric, no midline shift, cranial bones intact and paranasal sinuses, middle ear spaces aerated”. He was then released from hospital. 16.  On 1 May 2009 the applicant, when close to home, called an ambulance. Ambulance registration card no. 1454 shows that he complained of severe headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting and pain in the neck. The findings on examination were that he had a haematoma around the left ear, an oedema in the area of the left eye, and was in a state of alcoholic intoxication. He was diagnosed with concussion and taken to hospital. He was examined at the hospital by a traumatology doctor who found paraorbital haematoma and swelling around the left eye, bruises on the neck and upper limbs, a smell of alcohol from the mouth, dysarthria, and that he staggered. He was diagnosed with concussion and being in a state of alcoholic intoxication. The applicant did not wish to stay in hospital. 17.  On 30 April 2009 the applicant complained to the police of his ill-treatment. He alleged that police officers had beaten him while arresting him, and that this had also happened later, while he was in detention at the police station. The police officer on duty refused to deal with the complaint and said it had to be submitted to a prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor also refused to deal with the complaint and said it had to be submitted to the police. When the applicant returned to the police station, a police investigator allowed him to file his complaint. 18.  On 5 May 2009 the applicant sent a letter to the prosecutor’s office related to the same circumstances. On the same day the police decided to open a criminal investigation based on his complaint. According to the Government, the next day, on 6 May, the police investigator asked the hospital for the applicant’s medical records. 19.  On 13 May 2009 the applicant made a statement to the police investigator and gave his account of events (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above). 20.  On the same day, the investigator took a statement from A.P., who had been held in the police station’s sobering-up cell until 9 p.m. on 29 April 2009. He explained that he had looked through the eyehole of his cell door and had seen that a young man, with his hands cuffed behind his back, had been taken to the room in front of the sobering-up cells. Officer S.B., whose name he saw on his nametag, knocked the young man off his feet. He attempted to stand up, but the officer stopped him and ordered him to stay on the floor. Each time the young man attempted to stand up he was again knocked off his feet. Both men used foul language. He also heard someone being slapped on his body and saw how the police officer swung his hands towards the detainee. He understood from these gestures that the young man was being hit. The young man was then taken to a neighbouring room. After that, A.P. heard the man shouting and begging for his beating to stop. According to A.P. there was certainly some kind of fight between the young man and the officers. Subsequently, the man was put in a cell, where he continued to shout and requested a doctor, but he went quiet after a while. 21.  On 15 May 2009 the applicant’s legal representative sent a letter to the police requesting, among other measures, that the two police officers who had arrested the applicant, taken him to the police department and used force against him at the police station be shown to the applicant for identification. He also wanted the applicant to be taken to the police station so that his statements could be compared with the actual layout of the premises and so he could relate on the spot what happened. He further requested that the applicant’s mother to be questioned about the applicant’s state of health when he had left home on 29 April and when he had returned on 30 April; that the ambulance doctor and nurse be questioned as witnesses; and that a forensic medical examination of the applicant’s injuries be ordered. 22.  On 15 May 2009 the police investigator took a statement from M.S., who had been held at the police station’s sobering-up cell on 29 April 2009. He said that while he had heard that somebody in the neighbouring room had at one point shouted for help and that the police officers had shouted back at him, he had not seen police officers beating anybody when he had from time to time looked through the eyehole. 23.  On 15 May 2009 the police investigator also took statements from Police Officer S.J., who had arrived in a police car with Officer N.S. at the scene of the applicant’s arrest. While still in the police car, they had seen Officer E.V. talking to the applicant and that there had then been a scuffle between the applicant and the officer. S.J. and N.S. ran out of the car, but by the time they reached the scene the applicant had already been placed on the ground. He was aggressive and uttered obscenities at E.V. Officer S.J. kept him on the ground by using his knee to restrict the applicant’s movement. Together with N.S., he helped E.V. to cuff the applicant’s hands behind his back as the applicant was still putting up physical resistance. The applicant attempted to get up, continued to use indecent language and did not obey orders. The officers therefore kept the applicant on the ground until the police van arrived to transport him to the police station. No other force was used against him. S.J. added that at some point an elderly man had approached them and attempted to give them some money which allegedly belonged to the applicant. He was told that it was not necessary at that time to hand over the money. S.J. further stated that at the time of the events in question Officer S.B. had been in the vicinity talking to another young man who had a knife. 24.  On 18 May 2009 the police investigator took a statement from R.L., who had been detained in the police station’s sobering-up cell on 29 April 2009. He told the investigator that he had heard through the door how officers had dragged somebody into the room facing the cells. He had heard how the officers provoked that person into using rude language, shouted at him, themselves using foul language, and then started to beat him. R.L. did not remember exactly in what way the officers had hit the person, but thought that it involved punches and kicks. The person had attempted to stand up, but had not been allowed to do so as he had been knocked off his feet. He had then been taken to another room. 25.  On 18 May 2009 the police investigator took a statement from M.Z. As to the arrest, he explained that before the events that happened at around 6 p.m. on 29 April 2009, he had had several beers with the applicant. They had just sat down at the playground behind some buildings when three police officers arrived in a police car. One of the officers came to talk to him and two went to the applicant and pushed him over. One of the policemen put his leg on the applicant’s neck, while the other attempted to stand on the applicant’s legs. M.Z. was taken to where the applicant had been beaten. The applicant was lying on the asphalt with his face down in some sand as there was a hole in the asphalt. After a while a police van arrived with two police officers. The applicant’s hands were put behind his back and he was handcuffed, lifted onto his feet and moved towards the van. In the course of that process, one of the police officers slapped the applicant on the head. He was put in the van and taken to the police station. 26.  Regarding the events at the police station, M.Z. explained that the applicant had been taken to a room where the cells were located. M.Z. himself had been left in the corridor which was situated immediately after the detention section. He could see through the open doors how the applicant was put on the floor right in front of the doors and two policemen started to beat him. They hit the applicant with their elbows and kicked him on the back of the head and elsewhere. No other police officers entered the room. The doors were open, as was the door to the duty room, but no one came out of that room. After some time, one of the police officers who had been beating the applicant came to M.Z. and took him to an office to make a statement. He gave a statement against the applicant because he was afraid as he had seen how the police officer had beaten his friend. 27.  On 18 May 2009 the police investigator also took a statement from P.S., a police officer on duty at the police station at the time of the applicant’s detention. He explained that when he had arrived at work at 8 p.m. on 29 April 2009 Officer E.V. had told him that the person who had been put in a temporary detention cell, that is, the applicant, might request that an ambulance be called and that he should be checked from time to time. During the night, the applicant went by himself to the toilet, complained of pain but declined an offer for an ambulance to be called. When during the night he was about to be released he requested an ambulance and P.S. called it for him. P.S. overheard the applicant telling the doctor and nurse that he had been beaten by police officers. When P.S. asked who had beaten the applicant, he replied that it had been the police officers who had taken him to the police station. When P.S. asked where the applicant had been beaten, he replied that it had happened on the street during his arrest. The ambulance then took him to the hospital. 28.  On 27 May 2009 the police investigator took a statement from K.I., who had been on duty at the police station’s command centre at the time of the events in question. He said that when he had passed the detention room on his way out, he had seen the applicant sitting on the floor of the detention room with his hands cuffed. He was using offensive language, behaving aggressively and was intoxicated. K.I. said that the applicant had not been beaten in his presence. The applicant had not complained of being beaten or requested an ambulance. 29.  On 2 June 2009 the police investigator took a statement from one of the suspects, Police Officer S.B. According to him, when he arrived with Officer E.V. on foot at the playground between the buildings at 10 Kreenholmi Street and 18 Kerese Street, the applicant was very drunk and was having an argument over some money with another man. As he had gone further on to talk to M.Z., he had not seen what had happened between the applicant and Officer E.V. or how E.V. had forced the applicant to the ground. M.Z. did not have a knife on him, but was wearing a large sheath on his belt. S.B. had no contact with the applicant. However, he saw that the applicant continued to be aggressive after E.V. had put him on the ground, while Officers S.J. and N.S had helped E.V. to handcuff him and kept him on the ground. He also saw what happened when Officers S.T. and J.S. helped to place the applicant in the police van. The applicant was not kicked or punched. On the way to the police station thumps and bangs could be heard from the back compartment of the police van. 30.  S.B. also stated that at the police station officers had put the applicant in the room facing the detention cells. The door of the room had stayed open. He was alone in the room with the applicant for about 40 minutes, but did not beat him. The applicant did not obey orders to calm down and stay on the floor. S.B. could not therefore remove his handcuffs and had to use force against the applicant to make him stay on the floor and to calm him down. At one point E.V. had helped him. When the applicant calmed down a little, he was taken to another room to take his statement and was put on a chair with his hands still handcuffed behind his back. While sitting on the chair in the detention room, the applicant suddenly fell face down off the chair. Together with E.V., who had entered the interrogation room at that moment, S.B. put the applicant back on the chair, but he fell off again and was again helped back up onto the chair. When the paperwork had been done, the applicant was taken to a cell to sober up. He did not have any bodily injuries, except for some old scratches on the head, and did not request medical assistance. 31.  On 3 June 2009 the police investigator took statements from four children who had seen the applicant’s arrest (A.N., D.K., D.B. and E.G.). Three of the children (A.N., D.K., and D.B.) had seen the applicant when he was drunk and having an argument with an elderly man over some money. According to the statements of A.N. and D.K., two police officers arrived and first went to speak with the applicant and the older man. A.N., D.K., and D.B. said one of the officers had then gone further away to deal with the applicant’s companion, who was carrying a knife sheath. According to A.N. the applicant started to shout obscenities at the police officer who had stayed with him. A.N., D.K. and D.B. stated that following an exchange with the applicant the police officer forced him to the ground. A.N. and D.K. said that the officer pushed the applicant over. D.K. added that the applicant was put on the ground with his right cheek facing down. Two other officers, who had arrived by car, helped the first police officer to cuff the applicant’s hands behind his back. All of the children, including E.G., who had arrived after the applicant was put on the ground, confirmed that the officers kept the applicant on the ground by force. According to A.N. and E.G. that was done by standing on his legs, while D.K. and D.B said one officer knelt on the applicant’s neck to keep his head down, while the other stood on his legs, close to his heels. All the children said the officers had neither punched nor kicked the applicant. The applicant had attempted to get up off the ground, had continued to swear and said that the officers were hurting him. All of the children confirmed that the applicant resisted being walked over to the police van. The police used force to put the applicant in the van and he had hit his head (the left side of his head, according to D.B. and E.G.) against the door of the van. 32.  On 4 June 2009 the police investigator took statements from the ambulance nurse, L.G., and the ambulance doctor, V.K. They had received a call about a man with a head trauma at the police station. The applicant, who was drunk, said that police officers had beaten him at the police station. He did not have any blood on his clothes, and he did not vomit. However, given the nature of his injuries, the doctor decided to take him to the hospital for a further examination. 33.  On 8 June 2009 the other suspect, Police Officer E.V., gave a statement. He explained that he had received an order to respond to a call that a man in a state of heavy alcoholic intoxication, possibly carrying a knife, was walking along Kreenholmi Street. He had then immediately gone with his partner, Officer S.B., to where the man was presumed to be. On reaching the building at 10 Kreenholmi Street he saw the applicant was not behaving appropriately as he was waving his hands and staggering. When he approached the men, M.Z. led the applicant by the hand behind the building at 10 Kreenholmi Street. The police officers followed them and found the applicant sitting on a kerbstone with M.Z. and an elderly man, who was standing next to him. When E.V. and S.B. approached, the applicant stood up and staggered towards them. M.Z. went in a different direction. When the applicant reached the officers, E.V. asked him politely to stop. As the applicant did not react and walked past him, E.V. stopped him by taking his elbow and spoke to him again. The applicant reacted quite violently, and started arguing and waving his hands around. E.V. therefore used the radio to call for assistance to have the applicant removed so he could sober up. Meanwhile, the elderly man had approached and told the applicant to calm down because he was dealing with police officers. The applicant replied that he did not care and started throwing money on the ground, telling the man to keep it. The man picked the money up, said he did not need it and put it back in the applicant’s pockets. By that time, S.B. had gone after M.Z. E.V. attempted to calm the applicant down, but he continued to walk back and forth, waving his hands around and uttering obscenities. E.V. decided to handcuff the applicant because there were a lot of children around. The applicant was also clearly being aggressive and might have hurt other people, particularly given the possible presence of a knife. As the applicant did not let E.V. handcuff him, he forced the applicant to the ground, but did not hit him. Officers N.S. and S.J. arrived and helped in handcuffing the applicant and then took him to the police car, which was 10 metres away. The applicant did not have a knife. E.V. had no further contact with the applicant at the playground. While in the police van on the way back to the station the applicant continued his aggressive behaviour and E.V. heard what sounded like the applicant hitting himself against something. 34.  E.V. further stated that at the police station the applicant shouted that the police were beating him, while S.B. tried to calm him down and conduct a search. E.V. left the room to interview M.Z. as a witness to the applicant’s breach of the peace. When E.V. returned he saw that the applicant had fallen face down off his chair and he helped S.B. to lift him back onto the chair. The applicant fell to the ground for a second time and was then left on the floor. According to E.V., the applicant intentionally tried to injure himself in order to later accuse the police. When he started to behave calmly, the handcuffs were removed. The applicant walked unaided to the sobering-up cell. He did not have any injuries that required immediate medical attention. He had haematomas in the area of his face, but he could have received those during his transportation or when he fell off the chair. The applicant’s clothes were dirty but did not have any bloodstains. E.V. informed the applicant that an ambulance would be called for him if he had any complaints about his health. 35.  On the same day, 8 June 2009, the investigator took a statement from Officer N.S., who had arrived by police car with Officer S.J. at the scene of the applicant’s arrest. When N.S. arrived, Officer E.V. was already holding the applicant down on the ground. When he and S.J. reached them they saw the applicant behaving aggressively and using foul language. N.S. helped E.V. to cuff the applicant’s hands behind his back. The applicant was then lifted onto his feet and taken to the police car, but he refused to obey orders to keep still and calm down and started to kick the police car. The officers therefore removed him from the car and put him on the ground. N.S. held his feet and hands, while another officer knelt on the applicant to keep his head down. The applicant constantly resisted the officers, used bad language and behaved aggressively. He was kept down to prevent him from hurting himself and others. The officers did not beat him. The applicant continued to resist the police officers while he was being put in the police van and continued to be aggressive in the van. N.S. added that at some point an elderly man came to them offering to hand over some money which had allegedly belonged to the applicant. He was, however, informed that it was not necessary to hand over the money at that moment. 36.  On the same day, 8 June 2009, the police investigator took statements from Officers S.T. and J.S., who had arrived in the police van at the scene of the applicant’s arrest. When J.S. got out of the van, he saw that Officers S.J. and N.S. were holding the applicant down on the ground. The applicant was aggressive, was shouting and swearing and attempting to break free. N.S. and S.J. took the applicant to the police van. J.S. opened the door for them. He did not see the applicant banging into anything, but while he was being transported sounds could be heard from the back compartment which sounded like something being hit. S.T. stated that he did not get out of the van. He did not hear the applicant banging against anything while he was being put in the van. At the police station he and J.S. carried the applicant to the detention room and left him in front of the cells. He did not see any blood on the applicant or his clothes. Nor did he notice any visible injuries on the applicant. 37.  That day, 8 June 2009, the police investigator ordered a forensic medical assessment of the injuries on the basis of the available documentary evidence (the ambulance cards, patient registration card and the statements of the applicant, the suspects in the case and two other police officers as witnesses). 38.  On 9 June 2009 the police investigator took a statement from D.R., a police officer who had been on duty at the police station on 29 April 2009. He stated that he had arrived at work at 8 p.m. At around 2 a.m. he started to work on the applicant’s documents. The applicant told D.R. that he had a bad headache and that his hands were hurting because of the handcuffs. He requested an ambulance. He also said that his head injury had been caused by other police officers. He had no blood on his clothes and did not vomit. When the applicant was taken to hospital, D.R. accompanied him. 39.  On 15 June 2009 the applicant’s legal representative lodged a complaint against the police with the prosecutor’s office. He stated that the police had not taken the investigative measures he had requested on 15 May 2009 (including the presentation of the police officers for identification; a formal confrontation between the applicant and M.Z., who had allegedly witnessed him committing a breach of the peace; a comparison of the applicant’s statements with the circumstances at the scene of the alleged offence; a forensic medical examination of the applicant’s injuries; and interviews with the children that the applicant’s representative had identified and about whom he had informed the police investigator on 27 May 2009). He requested that the prosecutor take measures to secure the collection of evidence. The prosecutor rejected the complaint on 1 July 2009, stating that the applicant had not challenged any acts or orders of an investigative authority. 40.  On 17 June 2009 the police investigator showed the applicant photos to identify the possible suspects. According to the record of the meeting, the applicant was shown four lists with an unspecified number of photos of police officers who were similar in appearance. The applicant identified S.B. as the police officer who had beaten him at the police station. He did not remember whether that police officer had also beaten him during his arrest. The applicant was unsure in his idenfication of E.V. from the photos. Nevertheless, he added that he would be able to identify the other officer on the basis of his features and height if he saw him in person. 41.  On 6 July 2009 the police investigator took a statement from V.Z., who was the person who had called the police on 29 April 2009 about the applicant’s alleged breach of the peace. He explained that from his car on the crossroads of Kreenholmi and Kerese Street he had seen two young men crossing the street. One of them was carrying a knife. Another young man who was very drunk was walking in front of him, but was having trouble walking. He had called the police after seeing the young men and the knife as he considered them to be clearly dangerous and was worried about the safety of passers-by. 42.  On 13 August 2009 the forensic medical expert delivered his opinion about the applicant’s injuries. He concluded that the injuries found on the applicant on 30 April and 1 May had been caused by blows with a blunt object or objects. The exact cause of those injuries could not be established as their description in the documents was not sufficiently detailed. Nevertheless, the expert concluded that they had been inflicted shortly before the applicant had seen a doctor, possibly on 29 April 2009. He also noted that as there were no detailed descriptions of the injuries to the upper limbs, it was not possible to conclude whether those injuries had been received in self-defence. None of the documents disclosed any information about the ethanol content in the applicant’s blood, but stated simply that the applicant had been in a state of alcoholic intoxication. 43.  On 2 September 2009 the forensic expert gave an oral statement to the police investigator about his written opinion. In reply to a question about whether the applicant had had a haematoma in the area of the left eye on both 30 April and 1 May, the expert replied that there was no information about that in the documents of 30 April. He explained that it could not be excluded that the haematoma had been inflicted on 29 April, but it could also have been inflicted on 30 April or 1 May. He also stated in relation to a question about the cause of the injuries that since the documents had not contained detailed descriptions of the injuries, it was not possible to establish the exact nature of the object which had caused the traumas. 44.  On 14 September 2009 the police investigator presented photos of officers to M.Z. for him to identify. According to the report of the meeting, M.Z. was shown four lists with an unspecified number of photos of police officers who were similar in appearance. M.Z. identified one of the police officers (E.V.) as the officer who, together with the other officer (S.B.), had beaten the applicant at the police station and had used force against the applicant at the playground. He was not certain in his recognition of S.B. on the photos, but pointed out another officer who, in his words, was very similar to S.B. He also stated that there had been no beating at the playground, but that the applicant’s hands had simply been twisted behind his back and that he had been forced to the ground. 45.  On 8 January 2010 the applicant complained to the prosecutor that he had still not been informed of a decision to carry out a forensic medical examination, despite repeated requests. He added that he had still not been examined by an expert, even though he had complained about headaches and a loss of vision after the beating. He requested that he be sent a copy of any expert reports if one had been carried out without his knowledge. He also complained that he had not had a formal confrontation with M.Z. and the suspects in order to eliminate any contradictions in their statements. The prosecutor rejected the complaint on 14 January 2010, stating again that the applicant had not challenged any acts or orders of an investigative authority. 46.  On 20 January 2010 the police investigator decided to discontinue the investigation, concluding that there was no evidence that the police officers had committed the criminal offence of abuse of authority. Their use of force had not violated the Police Act, it had been lawful, justified and not excessive. The decision of the police investigator was approved by the prosecutor on 15 February 2010. 47.  Regarding the applicant’s arrest, the police investigator was of the view that the applicant’s allegations about his beating were completely groundless. She concluded in substance that the use of force against the applicant during his arrest had been justified by the applicant’s breach of the peace while being in a state of alcoholic intoxication; his refusal to obey the officers’ lawful orders; and his attempt to leave the scene without the officers’ consent. The physical force used to put the applicant on the ground, put on handcuffs and keep him on the ground had not been excessive. 48.  In the decision, it was considered as established that the applicant’s arrest had taken place in the following manner. While at the playground in the vicinity of 18 Kerese Street, the applicant had not behaved appropriately, had waved his hands around, used foul language and had been staggering a lot. He had not reacted to the orders given by the police officers. Police Officer E.V. had decided to put handcuffs on the applicant given that children were standing around, that the applicant was clearly of an aggressive state of mind, that he might have injured others and that there was a certain context to the call (the suspicion of carrying a knife). At that moment Officers N.S. and S.J. had arrived and helped to put the handcuffs on. The applicant had not complied with the officers’ orders to stay still and calm down, but had started kicking the police vehicle. N.S. and S.J. had kept the applicant on the ground to restrain him. The applicant had continued to resist, use foul language and behave aggressively. Because of his aggressive behaviour, E.V. had been forced to call for a police van to transport the applicant to the police station. The applicant had resisted being put in the police van and had continued to behave aggressively and use foul language while being transported. Sounds from the transportation compartment made it seem like the applicant had hit himself against something. 49.  In arriving at the conclusion that the applicant had not been beaten and that only lawful force had been used, the police investigator relied concretely on the statements of the children, Police Officers N.S., S.J., J.S., S.T., the suspected police officers, S.B. and E.V., and on the statements of M.Z., who had said during the presentation of the identification photos that there had been no beating at the playground, that the applicant’s hands had simply been forced behind his back and that he had been forced to the ground. 50.  Regarding the events at the police department, the police investigator rejected the statements of M.Z. as unreliable as he could not have seen what was happening to the applicant in the detention room. Though the door of that room had been open, M.Z. had been standing further away. As to the people detained at the police station, the investigator concluded that their statements had not directly confirmed that the applicant had been beaten. The statements of the detainees A.P. and R.L., who had stated that the applicant had been beaten, were dismissed as they contradicted the statements of the third detainee – M.S. – and other evidence. Four other police officers involved in the arrest and the transportation of the applicant, as well as one police officer who had been present at the police station during the applicant’s detention, had also stated that the applicant had not been beaten. 51.  As to the applicant’s injuries, the police investigator cited observations in the report from when the applicant was taken to sober up, and from the ambulance and patient registration cards. Regarding the haematoma around the left eye, first documented at the hospital on 1 May 2009, the investigator referred to the forensic expert’s opinion that it could have been caused on 29 April, 30 April or 1 May 2009 and that on the basis of the documents it was impossible to establish its cause. On the basis of that information the investigator concluded that the applicant’s allegation that the haematoma around the left eye had been caused during his beating at the police department was unfounded and untrue. Turning to the applicant’s allegations that he had vomited and that there had been blood on his clothing, the investigator viewed them as being disproven by the statements of the police officers as well as those of the ambulance doctor and the nurse who had not seen any blood on the applicant’s clothes or witnessed any vomiting. 52.  The police investigator found in conclusion that while at the police station the applicant had been aggressive, continued to use foul language and ignored orders to keep still. The force that S.B. and E.V. had used against him had been justified and lawful, and had not been excessive. 53.  On 15 March 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation. He submitted among other things that the investigation had not been objective, that the statements of witnesses had been selectively cited and distorted, that some of the witnesses (such as Y.B., who had seen the applicant’s arrest, and A.D., who had been detained in the police station at the same time as the applicant) had not been questioned, that he himself had not had a forensic medical examination; and that formal confrontations to eliminate any contradictions in statements in the case had not been arranged. 54.  On 23 March 2010 the State Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision to discontinue the investigation as having been lodged out of time. The decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings had stated that the applicant had to lodge an appeal to the State Prosecutor’s Office within ten days of the receipt of the relevant decision. The decision had been sent to the applicant’s address by ordinary mail on 26 February 2010. Estonian Post had indicated that a standard letter was sent to an addressee on the next working day of the post office. The letter should therefore have reached the applicant on 1 March 2010, so the final day for lodging an appeal had been 11 March 2010. The applicant had lodged his appeal on 15 March 2010. The applicant stated that he had only received the letter on 5 March 2010 after returning home from his job in another city. Though the applicant had not requested the restoration of the time-limit for his appeal, the State Prosecutor’s Office stated that in any event there had been no grounds for such a procedure. The State Prosecutor’s Office was of the view that the applicant had a duty of diligence regarding his mail because he knew that there were proceedings pending where decisions concerning his situation might be made. The applicant had had several options available to him to avoid exceeding the time-limit. 55.  On 30 April 2010 the Tartu Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the State Prosecutor’s Office. The court agreed with the applicant’s counsel that the time-limit for an appeal started to run from the date of actual receipt of the decision and not from the date it should have been received according to calculations based on mail delivery deadlines. It nevertheless considered that the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings had reached the applicant’s mailbox on 1 March 2010, without however explaining on the basis of what evidence this conclusion was reached. The court also stated that there was no need to express an opinion with regard to the restoration of the deadline for the appeal, because the applicant had not believed that he had breached the deadline and had not sought its restoration. 56.  On 25 May 2009 the East Police Prefecture found the applicant guilty of the misdemeanour of committing a breach of the peace at Kreenholmi Street and ordered him to pay a fine. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Viru County Court. 57.  On 17 November 2010 the Viru County Court, having held a public hearing on 4 November, acquitted the applicant of the charges. The court considered that there was no evidence to prove that his behaviour had constituted a misdemeanour. 58.  The court, pointing to the fact that it was unlawfully obtained evidence, set aside the applicant’s statements given on 30 April 2009 at 2.15 a.m. in the hospital, and which had been contained in the misdemeanour report drafted the same night at 2.40 a.m. It noted that the evidence had been gathered more than eight hours after the offence had allegedly been committed and after the person had in the meantime been taken to sober up, at 7.45 p.m. 59.  The court considered that the witness M.Z. had given reliable testimony at the court hearing on 4 November 2010 when he had said that the police had unduly influenced him to give evidence against the applicant by letting him hear the applicant being beaten. The court considered that statement to be corroborated by the fact that the applicant had been taken to the hospital and had been interrogated there. 60.  The court concluded that the evidence in the misdemeanour proceedings had been collected in an unlawful manner which infringed the applicant’s honour and dignity and endangered his health. That conclusion was based on the statements of the applicant, M.Z., information from the hospital and the place and time of the drafting of the misdemeanour report. 61.  The court further stated that there had been a material violation of the provisions governing misdemeanour proceedings because the applicant had been arrested at 5.40 p.m. and transported immediately to the police station, but had not been taken to sober up until 7.45 p.m.; also, his statement had only been taken at the hospital at 2.15 a.m. and the misdemeanour report not drafted at the hospital until 2.40 a.m. 62.  The East Police Prefecture did not appeal against that judgment.


6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Severodonetsk, Ukraine. 7.  According to the applicant, in 1996 he brought criminal proceedings for libel before the Severodonetskyy Town Court, complaining that it had been noted in his employment record that he had been dismissed because he had committed theft. The applicant alleged that, following his numerous complaints to a prosecutor’s office about the failure to investigate the above case, in 2000 the prosecutor’s office had requested his placement in a psychiatric facility. 8.  According to case-file materials, on 18 March 2000 the principal of the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association (Северодонецьке територіальне медичне об’єднання, hereinafter the “Severodonetsk Hospital”) received a letter from the Severodonetsk Town Prosecutor’s Office asking for an opinion on the state of the applicant’s mental health. The parties did not submit a copy of that letter to the Court. 9.  Psychiatrists Ma. and K. studied the applicant’s letters at the prosecutor’s office and decided that the applicant should be examined, since the letters contained evidence of a “high probability of socially dangerous behaviour”. The parties did not submit copies of those letters to the Court either. 10.  On 19 March 2000, Ma., assisted by a team of paramedics and two police officers, visited the applicant at home. The applicant stated that he had been visited by seven persons in total. 11.  The parties differed on the circumstances of this visit. According to the applicant’s testimonies given before the court in civil proceedings (see paragraph 29 below), he opened the door only after the police had threatened to break it. Once the applicant had opened the door, Ma. said that they should go to a hospital to examine the applicant there. A police officer, P., was shouting at the applicant and threatening him with criminal prosecution for resisting the police. The applicant replied that he would “submit to force”. He was subsequently taken by his arms and put in an ambulance. 12.  The Government submitted that there was no evidence that any pressure had been applied to the applicant. According to Ma.’s testimonies given in the same court proceedings, the applicant opened the door and let Ma. and the police officers in. Ma. introduced himself and had a conversation with the applicant. It was then proposed that the applicant accompany them to a hospital for further examination. The applicant agreed, collected his belongings, closed the door and got into the ambulance. Upon arrival in the Severodonetsk Hospital it was decided that the applicant needed hospitalisation. 13.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant was examined by a panel of four doctors, including Ma. and K., which confirmed the necessity of his urgent hospitalisation. On the next day the applicant was examined by an assistant of the psychiatric medicine department of the Lugansk State University Hospital in the presence of Ma., and was offered hospital treatment. Since he refused, he was further examined by three doctors of the Lugansk Regional Psychoneurological Hospital (Луганська обласна клінічна психоневрологічна лікарня, hereinafter the “Lugansk Hospital”), who concluded that he should be urgently admitted for treatment because he had written threatening letters to various authorities. 14.  Between 21 March and 7 September 2000 the applicant was a patient in the Lugansk Hospital. He was allegedly examined on 21 April, 22 May, 23 June and 22 August 2000 by a panel of three psychiatrists. Each time it was decided that his treatment had to be continued. On 26 July 2000 the applicant was examined by a regional medico-social expert commission, which established that he had a second-degree disability. 15.  On 7 September 2000 the applicant was transferred to the Svatove Regional Psychiatric Hospital (Сватівська обласна психіатрична лікарня, the “Svatove Hospital”) to continue his treatment there. He was discharged from the hospital on 4 December 2000. 16.  The applicant also stayed in a hospital between 31 May and 26 June 2001. 17.  In July and August 2001 the applicant requested that the medical establishments where he had stayed in 2000 allow him to study his medical file and inform him on what legal basis he had been subjected to psychiatric treatment. According to the applicant, he received an answer only from the Lugansk Hospital but the answer was not satisfactory. 18.  On 26 September 2001 the applicant brought proceedings before the Severodonetskyy Town Court against the Severodonetsk Hospital, complaining of its failure to reply to his request. The case file contains a copy of the applicant’s complaint dated 26 September 2001. There are two handwritten notes on it: “received on 28 September 2001” and “received on 2 October 2001”. The Severodonetskyy District Court issued a note on the progress of the applicant’s case stating that the applicant had instituted the proceedings on 2 October 2001. In October 2001 the applicant lodged a similar complaint against the Lugansk Hospital. 19.  On 15 November 2001 the court stayed the proceedings in the case pending examination of the issue of the applicant’s legal capacity. On 26 December 2001 the request to recognise the applicant as legally incapacitated was left without consideration, so the proceedings were resumed on 1 February 2002. 20.  On 29 April 2002 the court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated. On 21 November 2002 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 21.  On 6 February 2003 the applicant modified his claims. In addition to his initial claims, he complained, inter alia, that his committal to the psychoneurological department of the Severodonetsk Hospital on 19 March 2000 and his confinement there until 21 March 2000 had been unlawful. He also complained that he had been unlawfully transferred to the Lugansk Hospital and the Svatove Hospital, where he had been confined until 4 December 2000. The applicant also claimed damages. 22.  Between 23 February 2003 and 23 March 2004 ten court hearings took place and three hearings were postponed. In particular, on two occasions the defendants and/or their representatives failed to appear in court, and one hearing did not take place because the court recording equipment was not available. 23.  Following a request by one of the defendants, on 23 March 2004 the court ordered a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant. On 14 July 2004 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for examination on the merits. 24.  In their observations the Government provided a list of scheduled court hearings which had taken place in the applicant’s case. The case file also contains a note on the progress of the applicant’s case issued by the Severodonetskyy District Court. Those two descriptions of the progress of the proceedings in the applicant’s case contain some contradictory information. 25.  According to the Government’s submissions, between 3 September 2004 and 14 June 2005 eleven court hearings were scheduled but only five took place because either the defendants, the applicant or their representatives failed to appear. According to the domestic court record, seven hearings took place. 26.  On 14 June 2005 the term of office of the judge in the applicant’s case expired. The next hearing scheduled for September 2005 allegedly with a new judge did not take place because the court recording equipment was not available. 27.  Between 3 November 2005 and 13 August 2007 forty-eight court hearings were scheduled. According to the Government, all of them took place; according to the domestic court record, ten of them did not take place because the defendants, the applicant or their representatives failed to appear. The number of such failures to appear was almost equal for both parties. 28.  On 13 August 2007 the court partially allowed the applicant’s claims. It summarised his submissions as follows. On 19 March 2000 Ma., with the assistance of the police, had the applicant unlawfully committed to a psychoneurological department, where he stayed for two days. On 21 March 2000 the applicant was transferred to the Lugansk Hospital without his consent; he stayed there until 7 September 2000. He was then transferred to the Svatove Hospital, where he stayed until 4 December 2000. The applicant claimed that Ma. had acted unlawfully, had breached the applicant’s right to respect for his home, had examined the applicant against his will and had deprived him of his liberty. The applicant further complained that he had been unlawfully confined in all three hospitals, and that the principals of those institutions had failed to respond to his requests for information. The applicant claimed 100,000 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 29.  The court further noted that in a court hearing the applicant had submitted that he had not challenged his diagnosis but considered that the doctors’ actions had been unlawful. He gave his version of the events of 19 March 2000 (see paragraph 11 above). The applicant also submitted that force had been used against him in the Severodonetsk Hospital; he had been administered with injections and had been kept behind bars in a locked room. He had been transferred to the Lugansk and Svatove Hospitals without his consent. Information about his state of health had been provided to his employers and to the relevant prosecutor’s office. He had been discharged from the Svatove Hospital having been advised not to lodge any official complaints, otherwise he would be hospitalised again. He had not lodged any complaints since he had been “afraid for his future”. The applicant stated that he had sustained non-pecuniary damage caused by his involuntary hospitalisation, the administering of unknown medication by means of injection, poor nutrition, fear for his life, unsanitary conditions and a breach of his right to respect for his home. 30.  In court hearings Ma., and police officers Sh. and G. testified that no pressure had been brought to bear on the applicant at the time of the visit to his home. Witness Mb. testified that he did not remember the circumstances of that visit and witness Z. testified that she had seen “a doctor entering [the applicant’s house?] alone, followed several minutes later by a police officer”. She had then seen the applicant getting into an ambulance. Ma. also submitted that the applicant’s hospitalisation had been in compliance with temporary instructions nos. 16 and 17 “On procedure for the conduct of preliminary psychiatric examination of citizens” and “On procedure for urgent hospitalisation of mentally ill persons” (“Instructions nos. 16 and 17”) appended to Order no. 225 of the Ministry of Health of the USSR of 25 March 1988 “On actions for further improvement of psychiatric assistance” (“Order no. 225”), in particular, paragraphs 1, 2, and 10 to 13 of Instruction no. 16 and paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the Instruction no. 17 (see relevant domestic law below). 31.  The court found that the visit to the applicant’s home on 19 March 2000 when the applicant had been examined and later taken to the Severodonetsk Hospital had been performed in compliance with paragraphs 1, 2, and 10 to 13 of Instruction no. 16 and paragraphs 1, 2 (b), 5 and 6 of Instruction no. 17. Referring to the “testimonies of Ma., Mb. and G.”, the court held that the applicant had failed to prove that any force had been used against him. The decision of 19 March 2000 on the applicant’s admission to hospital had also been adopted in compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Instruction no. 17. The subsequent decision of 21 March 2000 to hospitalise the applicant had also been taken in compliance with paragraph 2 (b) of Instruction no. 17. However, the applicant’s transfer to the Svatove Hospital on 7 September 2000 had been in breach of section 16 of the Psychiatric Medical Assistance Act, which was in force as of 4 April 2000. The applicant’s requests for access to information had been rejected as a result of a decision to limit his access to his medical file, which he had not challenged. Such information could have been provided to the applicant’s relatives if he so wished. The court awarded the applicant UAH 2,000 to be paid by the Svatove Hospital (approximately 286 euros (EUR) at the material time) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 32.  The applicant appealed, stating, in particular, that by Order no. 81 of 18 April 1996 of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine (“Order no. 81”), Order no. 225 had been declared “not applicable on the territory of Ukraine”. 33.  On 29 November 2007 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 13 August 2007. The court held that the first-instance court had correctly applied the law in force at the material time. The court rejected the applicant’s arguments about the invalidity of Order no. 225 as unsubstantiated without giving any further details. It did not comment on the validity and/or legal effect of Order no. 81. 34.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, reiterating his arguments. 35.  On 12 February 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as unsubstantiated. 36.  On 23 November 2010 the applicant complained to the Severodonetskyy Town Court that he had not received a writ of enforcement. In reply, the court informed him that he could receive the writ of enforcement from the court’s secretariat upon a written request. 37.  It is unclear whether the applicant received the compensation awarded to him.