6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently living in Armenia. 7.  The applicant left Iran in March 2011 and travelled to Turkey. He entered Cyprus unlawfully through the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”) on 21 March 2011. 8.  On 28 March 2011 the applicant was arrested at Larnaca airport as he attempted to take a flight to London on a forged Romanian passport. He was arrested for the offences of (i) circulating a forged document (sections 331, 333, 335 and 339 of the Criminal Code (Cap. 154) – see A.H. and J.K. v. Cyprus, nos. 41903/10 and 41911/10, § 114, 21 July 2015), (ii) impersonation (section 360 of Cap. 154; ibid.) and (iii) unlawful entry into the Republic (section 12(1), (2) and (5) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (Cap. 105, as amended) – see Seagal v. Cyprus, no. 50756/13, §§ 91 and 93, 26 April 2016). He was placed in detention at Nicosia central prisons. 9.  On 29 March 2011 the applicant appeared before the Larnaca District Court, which ordered his detention on remand for three days. 10.  On 31 March 2011 criminal charges were brought against him (case no. 5220/2011). The Larnaca District Court adjourned the case until 5 April 2011 and extended the applicant’s detention on remand until that date. 11.  On 31 March 2011, however, the Attorney General decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings and gave instructions for the applicant to be deported. 12.  In a letter dated 4 April 2011 sent by the District Aliens and Immigration Branch of the Larnaca Police to the Aliens and Immigration Service, the issuance of deportation and detention orders against the applicant was recommended in order to ensure that the applicant would not abscond following the expiration of the detention order issued by the Larnaca District Court. 13.  On 4 April 2011 detention and deportation orders were issued by the Permanent Secretary of the Minister of the Interior under section 14(6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (Cap. 105) on the grounds that the applicant was a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of sections 6(1)(k) and (l) of that law (see paragraph 97 below). A letter from the Ministry of the Interior dated 4 April 2011 was addressed to the applicant informing him (i) that he was an illegal immigrant under the above-mentioned provisions on the grounds of illegal entry and (ii) of the decision to detain and deport him. 14.  On that letter there is a note signed by a police officer stating that the letter was served on the applicant on 5 April 2011 at 12:05 p.m. but that he refused to sign for it. 15.  The police also ascertained at the time that the applicant did not have a valid passport. 16.  The applicant was transferred to the holding facility for immigration detainees at Famagusta police station. 17.  On 12 April 2011, while in detention, the applicant applied for asylum. 18.  In view of that development, on 14 April 2011, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior decided to suspend the deportation order pending the examination of the applicant’s asylum application. 19.  The application was dismissed by the Asylum Service on 30 April 2011. 20.  On 5 May 2011 the applicant was served with a letter informing him of the above decision, but he refused to sign for it. 21.  On 1 June 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Reviewing Authority for Refugees (“the Reviewing Authority”) against the Asylum Service’s decision. This was dismissed on 10 August 2011; the applicant was served with the relevant decision on 17 August 2011. 22.  On 21 September 2011 the applicant was transferred to the detention facility at Paphos police station. 23.  On 10 October 2011 the applicant brought a recourse (“judicial review proceedings”; recourse no. 1320/2011) before the Supreme Court (as the first-instance revisional jurisdiction) under Article 146 of the Constitution, challenging the decision of the Reviewing Authority. 24.  On 13 October 2011 the Director of the Aliens and Immigration Service re-examined the applicant’s case and recommended that the authorities proceed with the applicant’s deportation following the dismissal of his asylum application by the Reviewing Authority (see paragraph 21 above). Bearing in mind the circumstances of the case, the Director decided that the principle of non-refoulement was not an obstacle to his removal. 25.  On 9 November 2011 the applicant lodged a habeas corpus application (application no.133/2011) with the Supreme Court (as the first-instance court) challenging the lawfulness of his detention owing to the length of its duration. 26.  On 11 November 2011 the Permanent Secretary of the Minister of the Interior instructed the police to proceed with the applicant’s deportation. According to an internal note subsequently sent by the Civil Registry and Migration Department to the Attorney General, the applicant’s deportation had not been possible as the applicant had not had a valid passport and had not co-operated with the authorities in order to secure one. 27.  On 25 November 2011, while the habeas corpus proceedings were pending, Amending Law no. 153(I)/2011 to the Aliens and Immigration Law (transposing into national law Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Members States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals – “the EU Returns Directive” (see paragraph 100 below)) came into force. 28.  On 29 November 2011 the Minister of the Interior decided to extend the applicant’s detention for up to eighteen months on the basis of section 18 ΠΣΤ(8)(α) of the Aliens and Immigration Law, as amended by Law no. 153(I)/2011 (see paragraphs 100 and 101 below). 29.  On 22 December 2011 the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered his immediate release. With regard to the preliminary issues raised, the Supreme Court firstly held that it had the authority to examine the application, as it had been called upon to examine the lawfulness of the applicant’s protracted detention and its extension, and not the lawfulness of the deportation and detention orders. The Aliens and Immigration Law expressly provided that habeas corpus applications challenging the lawfulness of detention with a view to deportation could be lodged with the Supreme Court on length grounds. 30.  The Supreme Court then examined the substance of the application and held that the applicant’s detention after 4 October 2011 – that is to say following a period of six months – had been unlawful under the EU Returns Directive, which at the time had had direct effect in domestic law. In this connection it held that the six-month period provided in Article 15 § 5 of the above-mentioned Directive had started to run on 4 April 2011 and had ended on 4 October 2011. Although Article 15 § 6 of the Directive provided for the possibility of extending detention for a period not exceeding a further twelve months if there was a lack of cooperation on the part of a third-country national, it provided that this should be applied in accordance with the provisions of the national law; however, there had been no such national law in force when the six-month period had expired in this case. As Law no. 153(I)/2011, transposing the Directive into national law had come into force only after the expiration of the six-month period it could not have applied to the applicant. Furthermore, the extension of the applicant’s detention by the Minister of the Interior on the basis of Law no. 153(I)/2011 had been made after the expiration of the six-month period. It had therefore not fallen within the legal framework applicable at the time, and the Ministry of the Interior had not been entitled to retroactively validate the applicant’s detention. The authorities had not been entitled to cite the applicant’s refusal to cooperate as grounds for extending his detention after 4 October 2011. 31.  The Government did not lodge an appeal against this judgment. 32.  On 22 December 2011, following the judgment in his favour given by the Supreme Court on that date, the applicant (who was present at the court) was immediately released but was then rearrested a few minutes later upon his leaving the courtroom. 33.  The applicant was arrested on the basis of new detention and deportation orders issued against him on the same grounds as those cited in respect of the first detention and deportation orders – that is to say under sections 6(1)(k) and (l) and 14(6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (see paragraph 13 above). The Government submitted that the decision to rearrest the applicant had been based on the Ministry of the Interior’s decision of 29 November 2011 to extend the applicant’s detention period to eighteen months (see paragraph 28 above). Upon his arrest, the police officers informed the applicant of his rights, pursuant to the 2005 Law on the Rights of Persons Arrested and Detained (Law no. 163(I)/of 2005 – see Seagal, cited above, § 99). He was also served with a letter dated 22 December 2011 from the First Chief Administrative Officer of the Ministry of the Interior informing him that he was an illegal immigrant under sections 6(1)(k) and (l) of the Aliens and Immigration Law on the grounds (i) of his having illegally entered and stayed in the Republic of Cyprus and (ii) the decision to detain and deport him. 34.  On the letter there is a note signed by a police officer stating that it had been served on the applicant on 22 December 2011 at 12:10 p.m. and that the contents had been explained to him but that he had refused to sign it. 35.  The applicant was taken back to Paphos police station. 36.  On the same date the applicant’s lawyer sent a fax to the Minister of the Interior and the Chief of Police, stating that the new detention and deportation orders were in conflict with the Supreme Court’s judgment of 22 December 2011 and infringed the provisions of the EU Returns Directive. She pointed out that the orders had been issued on the same grounds as those cited in respect of the previous ones and that the applicant’s detention had been found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court. She also stressed that the applicant had been detained despite the fact that he was an asylum seeker. She requested the applicant’s release. She also requested, in the event that the authorities continued to detain him, that the applicant be transferred to another facility; she lodged that request because the applicant was being held at Paphos police station, along with criminal suspects, in inhuman and degrading conditions. The applicant submitted that no reply had been received from the authorities. 37.  On 28 December 2011 the applicant brought a recourse (no. 1724/2011) before the Supreme Court (as the first-instance revisional jurisdiction) challenging the lawfulness of the new detention and deportation orders on the basis of which he had been rearrested and detained. 38.  By a letter dated 15 March 2012 the applicant’s representative complained to the Minister of the Int+erior about the applicant’s detention and requested that the applicant’s detention order be reviewed, in accordance with section 18 ΠΣΤ(4) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (see paragraph 101 below). The applicant submitted that this letter had received no reply. 39.  By a letter dated 22 May 2012 the applicant’s lawyer complained again to the Minister of Justice and Public Order and to the Chief of Police about the applicant’s continuing detention, as well as the conditions of his detention at Paphos police station and the psychological and psychosomatic effects that those conditions had had on him. 40.  On 25 May 2012 the Minister of the Interior reviewed the applicant’s detention and decided on its continuation for another six months as the applicant did not have travel documents and continued to refuse to visit the Iranian Embassy in order to secure the issuance of a passport to him, thus hampering the deportation process. 41.  On 29 May 2012 the applicant was transferred to the detention facility at Larnaca police station. 42.  On 13 June 2012 the Minister of the Interior reviewed the applicant’s detention and decided to extend it for six months on the same grounds as those cited in respect of the previous decision (see paragraph 40 above). 43.  On 14 June 2012 the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior sent a letter to the applicant informing him of the above-mentioned decision taken by the Minister under section 18 ΠΣΤ(8)(α) of the Aliens and Immigration Law because of his refusal to cooperate with the authorities regarding his return to Iran (see paragraph 101 below). The Director of the Aliens and Immigration Service was also informed of this decision. 44.  On 13 July 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s recourse. It found that the applicant’s main claims – namely that (i) the Aliens and Immigration Law, where it concerned the issuance of the deportation and detention orders, was unconstitutional, (ii) the deportation and detention orders had not been issued under the correct provision of that law, and (iii) he had the right under the Refugee Law to remain in the country pending the determination of his appeal by the Supreme Court (no. 1320/2011 – see paragraph 23 above) – had not been raised or dealt with adequately in the legal points of the recourse. 45.  On 24 July 2012 the Minister of the Interior reviewed the applicant’s detention and decided to extend it on the same grounds as those cited in respect of his previous decisions (see paragraphs 40 and 42 above). 46.  On 30 July 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (as the appellate revisional jurisdiction – appeal no. 156/2012) against the first-instance judgment on his recourse (see paragraph 44 above). 47.  On 11 August 2012 the applicant was transferred to Aradippou police station. 48.  On 27 August 2012 and again on 25 September 2012 the Minister of the Interior reviewed the applicant’s detention and decided to extend it on the same grounds as those cited in respect of his previous decisions (see paragraphs 40, 42 and 45 above). 49.  In the meantime, on 12 September 2012 the applicant’s lawyer sent a fax to the Minister of the Interior complaining about the period of the applicant’s detention and about the failure of the Minister of the Interior to review the applicant’s detention order every two months, as provided by section 18 ΠΣΤ(4) of the Aliens and Immigration Law (see paragraph 101 below). The applicant submitted that no reply had been received from the authorities. 50.  On 15 October 2012 the applicant was transferred to the detention facility at Larnaca police station. 51.  Οn 18 October 2012 the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior decided to annul the deportation and detention orders of 22 December 2011, as the applicant’s deportation had not been effected within the above-mentioned eighteen-month time-limit. 52.  On 25 October 2012 the applicant was released under conditions to which he agreed. The applicant was informed that he would be issued with a special residence/employment permit under the Aliens and Immigration Law and the relevant regulations for a period of six months from the date of his release. However, prior to the issuance of this permit he was obliged to sign a contract of employment with an employer indicated to and approved by the Department of Labour. He was also asked to (i) report to the police once a week, (ii) report his residential address to his local branch of the Aliens and Immigration Police within fifteen days of his release, and (iii) contact the Iranian Embassy in Nicosia in order to make appropriate arrangements for the issuance of a passport. The applicant was informed that the residence permit would not be extended unless he obtained a valid Iranian passport. 53.  The last time the applicant presented himself at a police station, in line with the conditions of his release, was on 10 January 2013. 54.  The applicant was informed by a letter dated 4 January 2013 that the Reviewing Authority had decided to revoke its negative decision of 10 August 2011 and that it would re-examine his appeal and issue a new decision on his asylum application. Consequently, on 7 January 2013 the applicant withdrew recourse no. 1320/2011 (see paragraph 23 above). He provided the Reviewing Authority with a number of documents in support of his claims. 55.  The applicant subsequently left Cyprus without informing his lawyer. 56.  By a letter dated 14 October 2014 the Reviewing Authority requested him to attend an interview on 24 October 2014 and to provide original documents in support of his claims. The letter also stated that if he failed to contact the Authority he would be considered as non-co-operative and his application would be dismissed and his file closed, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Refugee Law (Law 6(I) of 2000, as amended). 57.  When his lawyer tried to contact the applicant she was informed by other Iranians in Cyprus that he had left the country. 58.  By a letter dated 20 October 2014 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Reviewing Authority that the applicant had left Cyprus and could not attend the interview. 59.  By a letter dated 30 October 2014 the Reviewing Authority informed the applicant’s lawyer that, following a second review, it had rejected his appeal under the above-mentioned provisions and that the first-instance decision of the Asylum Service had been upheld. 60.  In a letter dated 7 April 2015 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Registry that the applicant had left Cyprus through the “TRNC” and was living in Armenia but that his status there was undocumented. He informed her that he had left Cyprus because he feared he would be arrested and detained again and had no means of survival. 61.  On 27 February 2018 the Supreme Court gave its judgment on the applicant’s appeal in respect of the second deportation and detention orders (see paragraph 46 above). It upheld the first-instance judgment (see paragraph 44 above). In addition it noted that during the proceedings the applicant’s lawyer had informed the court that the applicant had in the meantime left Cyprus. As this had been of his own free will, without any coercion, pressure or reservations, the applicant no longer had any legitimate interest in challenging the lawfulness of the deportation and detention orders; such a legitimate interest had to continue to exist up to the conclusion of the appeal. 62.  The applicant submitted that during his detention in the various police stations he had felt disoriented in terms of space and time. Moreover, he had been suffering from memory loss since his detention. He had been detained immediately upon his arrival in Cyprus and had never lived in Cyprus before and had not known where each detention centre was. He had been completely disoriented when he had been transferred from one police station to another because he had not been given any information or explanations regarding his transferral.
(a)  Famagusta police station (5 April 2011 - 21 September 2011)
(i)  The applicant’s description of the conditions 63.  The applicant stated that Famagusta police station, during the period of his detention there, must have contained about twenty detainees. He had shared a cell, which he estimated had measured approximately 20 or 25 sq. m, with another eight detainees. 64.  The sanitary facilities had been poor: the detention facility had only had a few toilets and showers, which had not been properly cleaned or disinfected. The detainees had lacked basic hygiene products, such as toilet paper, soap and shampoo; these had been provided by the officers only after persistent requests lodged by detainees. 65.  The applicant had had to remain in his cell all the time: there had been no exercise yard and therefore no possibility for any outdoor activity. 66.  The food had been very bad, and the quantities thereof had been insufficient and had not met the dietary needs of Muslim detainees during the Ramadan period. 67.  Furthermore, detainees had been handcuffed during visits. 68.  Lastly there had been violent incidents at the police station. He had informed a local non-governmental organisation, KISA, about one of these incidents; KISA had then reported it to the Commissioner for Administration of the Republic of Cyprus (“the Ombudsman”), resulting in a visit to the station by her office (see paragraph 120 below).
(ii)  The Government’s description 69.  The Government submitted that this detention facility had stopped operating and had been subsequently demolished in 2015 following the issuance of a report by the Ombudsman dated 3 October 2011 (see paragraphs 120-122 below). 70.  The applicant’s personal file concerning his detention in the said facility had been destroyed, pursuant to the applicable police rules. As a result, the Government did not have any records concerning the dimensions of the cells in which the applicant had been kept or the number of inmates kept with the applicant in the same cell. The Government therefore accepted the Ombudsman’s findings in her report of 3 October 2011 in this connection (see paragraph 121 below). 71.  According to a report submitted by the Government dated 18 October 2011 prepared by the police officer in charge of the detention facilities at the time, all cells had had access to natural light and ventilation. The cells had had windows measuring 1.5 by 2 metres which had been capable of being opened. The cells had also had sufficient artificial light. They had been equipped with a bed and a table with chairs. 72.  The cells had been open during the day and detainees had been able to move freely in the common areas of the facility. The common area had been equipped with chairs, tables, a satellite television and books in various languages. Detainees had also been able to exercise in the common area. 73.  The facilities had had an air cooling and heating system (referred to by the Government as “split units”). The detainees had been able to regulate the temperature as they wished. The sanitary facilities had been for common use. Detainees had been provided each day with toilet paper, soap and shampoo upon request. Detainees had been able go outside for three and a half hours per day, accompanied by a police officer, in a yard measuring 5 by 5 metres. 74.  Detainees had been served three meals a day of adequate quantity, in line with their religious needs. They had also been able to order takeaway meals and receive food or other items from friends or relatives. 75.  Detainees had been allowed to have their telephones in their possession and they had been able to receive visitors at any time during the day. They had been able to meet with their visitors in the offices of police officers outside the facility. They had been handcuffed only during their transfer from the facility to the police offices and back. 76.  Detainees had been kept together according to their ethnic origin.
(b)  Paphos police station (21 September 2011- 29 May 2012)
(i)  The applicant’s description of the conditions 77.  In this station the applicant had been in a cell on his own. The cell had measured between approximately 8 and 10 sq. m. There had been a toilet and a shower in the cell; these had not, however, been separated from the rest of the cell and had been visible to the staff. The cells had not had proper windows – just small glass windows that it not been possible to open. Thus, there had been no natural ventilation, and the cell had lacked adequate natural light. Furthermore, the police officers had often switched off the ventilation system as a form of punishment when detainees had protested about various issues in the facility. His lawyer stated that on one of her visits, the ventilation system had been turned off and the atmosphere – including in the visitors’ area – had become unbearable. The applicant had been brought to the visitation area handcuffed. 78.  The applicant had been responsible for cleaning his cell himself but no cleaning products had been given to the detainees. Apart from toilet paper, no other hygiene products had been provided. 79.  There had been an indoor exercise area. There had been no specific schedule for exercise and on some days detainees had not exercised at all and had remained in their cells. As a result of this the applicant had felt completely disoriented and had lost all sense of time. 80.  The food had been bad and the quantities inadequate: detainees had been provided with only two small meals per day. 81.  Furthermore, immigration detainees and criminal suspects had been held together. 82.  The applicant submitted that the conditions at this station had been very harsh and had caused him great psychological distress, as well as prompting suicidal tendencies. For this reason his lawyer had sent letters to the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Justice and Public Order and the Chief of Police requesting his transfer to other facilities.
(ii)  The Government’s description of the conditions 83.  The applicant had been kept alone in single-occupancy cells –specifically, cells nos. 32 and 29. Cell no. 32 had measured 11.7 sq. m (4.50 by 2.60 metres), and cell no. 29 had measured 15.95 sq. m. (5.50 by 2.90 metres). All cells had had properly insulated windows measuring 120 cm by 76 cm and made of glass bricks that had allowed natural light to enter. Ventilation in the cells had been artificial. There had been two lamps in each cell, providing adequate artificial light. 84.  All cells had been equipped with a plinth, a fixed stool, a table and an in-cell toilet, sink and shower. The toilet, sink and shower had together accounted for about 2.1 sq. m. Detainees using the sanitary facilities in their cells had not been visible from the outside. There had been a central-heating and ventilation system which had operated twenty-four hours per day. During the summer, room temperature had been between 20˚C and 23˚C, and during the winter between 24˚C and 25˚C. 85.  Upon being placed in the cells, detainees had been provided with toilet paper, soap and shampoo, as well as with clean sheets and blankets. Each detainee had had the right to have additional hygiene products but this had had to be at their own expense or provided by their visitors. Each detainee had been offered sufficient cleaning materials with which to clean his or her own cell if they wished to do so. Common areas had been cleaned by the police station’s cleaners. The Government provided invoices for December 2011, April and May 2012 in respect of the purchase of, inter alia, cleaning materials and hygiene products (namely toilet paper and liquid hand soap) by the headquarters of the Paphos Divisional Police (which, the Government submitted, also covered the detention facility). 86.  During his detention, the applicant had been served with three meals a day (breakfast, lunch and dinner). The Government provided the contract with the company providing the meals for the relevant period and the weekly three-meals-a-day plan that it had followed. The applicant had not been served with food unacceptable to Muslims. In addition, he had had the right to obtain additional food at his own expense or from friends or relatives. 87.  The station’s detention facility had had an open courtyard where the applicant had been allowed to move around and exercise freely during the day, given his status as a long-term immigration detainee. During the day the applicant’s cell had been open and he had been able to move freely in the facility’s corridors and common areas. 88.  According to the entries in the station’s record ledger in respect of the period of the applicant’s detention at Paphos police station (which the Government submitted), the applicant had had a psychiatric condition for which he had been provided with prescribed medication and had received psychiatric care at Paphos General Hospital. It could also be seen from this ledger that the applicant had attempted to self-harm and to commit suicide and had also threatened to commit suicide if he was not transferred to another detention facility.
(c)  Aradippou police station (11 August 2012 - 15 October 2012)
(i)  The applicant’s description of the conditions 89.  The applicant had been detained in a cell which he estimated had measured approximately between 7 and 8 sq. m and which he had shared with another detainee. The sanitary facilities had been outside the cell and common to all detainees. There had been a television which detainees had been sometimes able to watch. There had been no natural light or ventilation and the hygiene conditions had been poor. The food had been bad and insufficient.
(ii)  The Government’s description of the conditions 90.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s personal custody file concerning his detention at this station had been destroyed, in line with the applicable police rules. 91.  Cells in this facility had measured 7.08 sq. m (2.92 by 2.42 metres). As the applicant alleged that he had shared a cell with another detainee this meant that he would have had about 3.5 sq. m of personal space in his cell. All cells had had insulated windows measuring 1 by 0.8 metres, which it had been possible to open. The cells had had sufficient natural and artificial light. The station had had a central air-cooling and heating system. Room temperature during the summer had been between twenty and twenty-three degrees Celsius and during the winter between 24˚C and 25˚C. 92.  During the applicant’s detention the cells had been open during the day and the applicant had been allowed to move freely in the station’s common areas and interior yard. There had been benches and a television in the yard. Fresh drinking water (cold and hot) had also been available. 93.  Sanitary facilities had been for common use. There had been two toilets and two showers for every eight detainees. 94.  The detainees had been provided with toilet paper, soap and shampoo once a day 95.  Detainees had been offered three meals per day: breakfast and two cooked meals (lunch and dinner), prepared in line with their religious needs. In addition, detainees had been able to order takeaway food and to receive food from friends or relatives.


6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Toronto, Canada. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  The applicant was the director of a company (D.) registered in Ukraine. In 1996, in the name of D., he concluded a contract with a collective farm (N.), situated in the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT” – for further details about the “MRT”, see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004‑VII, and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). Under the contract, N. undertook to send D. 15 tonnes of paprika and 5 tonnes of butter, while D. undertook to send N. 275 tonnes of diesel fuel as payment. 9.  Subsequently, N. sent the paprika, but according to the applicant some of it was of poor quality and D. suffered financial losses as a result. Consequently, D. refused to send the diesel fuel. 10.  On 22 December 1996 the applicant was summoned to the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime in Crivoi Rog, Ukraine, and asked to give an explanation for his refusal to send the diesel fuel. On 24 January 1997 he was summoned again. After the second interview he was taken, allegedly against his will and without his passport, to the “MRT”. 11.  The applicant was accused of fraud by the “MRT” authorities. On 30 December 1999 he was convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment by the Ribnita People’s Court, which was under the jurisdiction of the “MRT”. He did not appeal against that judgment, which then became final. 12.  On 2 March 2002 the applicant was released from prison on the basis of an amnesty act. 13.  While in detention pending trial and after his conviction, the applicant was initially held in solitary confinement for more than two years. The cell was a concrete box with no windows or ventilation, and no natural light, toilet or tap water. 14.  According to the applicant, after his transfer to an ordinary cell and until his release, he was detained in cells with persons who were ill with tuberculosis. During his detention several detainees died from tuberculosis. He was given food once a day – some 250 grams of soup (containing no protein or vitamins), 100 grams of porridge of the same quality, and 250 grams of bread. As a result of the lack of food the applicant developed constant hunger pains, which he viewed as tantamount to torture. The cell was infested with blood-sucking parasites. Their bites caused him discomfort and itching, which in turn created wounds that bled after being scratched. As a result, he caught the skin disease streptodermia. The lack of medical treatment left him suffering and he was only able to cure himself by taking medication borrowed from another detainee. The lack of medication caused him to constantly fear that he might fall ill with no possibility of being treated. 15.  On an unknown date in 1997 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office of the unlawful detention of his client ordered by the “MRT” authorities. In a letter dated 21 January 1998 the Office replied that the complaint had been accepted and that an action had been brought in the Supreme Court of Justice for the annulment of any “MRT” court sentence that might be imposed in respect of the applicant. 16.  On 14 November 2000, in reply to a complaint by the applicant’s lawyer, the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office informed him that it had initiated a criminal investigation into his client’s abduction. It noted that the investigation was aimed at establishing whether the applicant had indeed been abducted, and if so by whom and precisely from where. 17.  On 19 February 2001, the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant’s lawyer that on 17 January 2001 a previously adopted decision to discontinue the investigation had been annulled; the documents relevant to the investigation of the complaint of kidnapping from Ukrainian territory had been sent to Ukrainian prosecutors. 18.  In reply to a complaint concerning his client lodged on an unknown date with the Russian President, on 25 September 2002 the applicant’s lawyer was informed that the complaint had been forwarded to the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice.


4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Forráskút. At the time of lodging the application, he was detained at Márianosztra Prison. 5.  On 29 January 2014 the applicant was convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, on 14 October 2014 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. 6.  The applicant began serving his sentence at Szeged Prison on 15 January 2015 and was transferred to Márianosztra Prison on 26 January 2015. He was released on parole on 8 September 2015. 7.  While the applicant was held at Szeged Prison, the per capita space available to him was about 3.2 sq. m; the gross ground surface of the cell was 16 sq. m for five occupants but included the in-cell sanitary facility. He was allowed to spend one hour per day in the open air and could take part in various sports and other activities, thus reducing the time spent in the cell. He was provided with basic standard meals and was able to take a shower twice a week. 8.  At Márianosztra Prison, the per capita cell space available to the applicant was about 2.67 sq. m; the gross ground surface of the cell was 8 sq. m for three occupants but included the in-cell sanitary facility. Only between 26 and 29 January and 11 and 15 May 2015 he was held in a cell where a wall separated the toilet from the rest of the space. He could take a shower twice a week and pursue certain free-time activities. At his request, he was provided with vegetarian meals but very often consisting only of soya beans. 9.  The applicant submitted that he suffered from epilepsy and a personality disorder. In his own submissions he stated that prior to his conviction he had cultivated and consumed cannabis partly because it alleviated his symptoms. 10.  As regards the medical care in prison, the Government submitted that, during the first examination at Szeged Prison, the applicant had stated that he suffered from epilepsy without presenting any relevant documentation. The doctor referred him for a psychiatric examination, which took place on 22 January 2015; but the applicant refused the treatment prescribed by the specialist. 11.  During his first medical examination at Márianosztra Prison, the doctor noted that the applicant’s aptitude for work could be assessed only after external medical records concerning his illness had been obtained. 12.  The applicant suffered an epileptic seizure on 24 April 2015, whilst in his cell. Following medication, his condition improved but he refused the neurological examination recommended by the doctor and any further treatment. He suffered further fits on 4 May and 8 July 2015, following which a neurologist prescribed him anti-epileptic drugs, but he agreed to take them only after suffering yet another seizure.


4.  The applicants, who were born in 1984, 1987 and 1988 respectively, live in İstanbul. 5.  On 23 August 2007 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation. 6.  On the same day, the judge at the İstanbul Assize Court decided to restrict access to the investigation file, under Article 153 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCP”), Law no. 5271. The judge also decided to delay the second and third applicants’ right of access to their lawyer for twenty-four hours pursuant to section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), which was in force at the material time. 7.  On 26 August 2007 the applicants were questioned by police officers from the Anti-Terror Branch of the İstanbul Security Directorate, in the presence of their lawyer. They used their right to remain silent. 8.  On the same day, the applicants were also interrogated by the public prosecutor, in the presence of their lawyer. They were mainly questioned about certain records of telephone conversations and the incident of the arson of vehicles during an illegal demonstration. The prosecutor read out the transcripts of the intercepted conversations to the applicants. The applicants did not remember that they had had these conversations but claimed that these conversations did not prove that they had committed the offences with which they were charged with, or that they attended the illegal demonstration on behalf of a terrorist organisation. 9.  On 26 August 2007, after having taken the applicants’ statements, the judge at the 10th Chamber of the İstanbul Assize Court ordered their pre‑trial detention. 10.  On 31 August 2008 the applicants’ lawyer filed an objection against the decision of 26 August 2007 ordering the applicants’ detention, and requested their release. On the same day, the 10th Chamber of the İstanbul Assize Court, relying on the public prosecutor’s written opinion, which had not been communicated to the applicants or their representative, dismissed the objection without holding a hearing. 11.  On 3 December 2007 the İstanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of a terrorist organisation, illegal possession of explosives and causing damage to public property. 12.  On 17 December 2007 the İstanbul Assize Court accepted the indictment. 13.  On 27 December 2007 the İstanbul Assize Court held a preparatory hearing and dismissed the applicants’ requests for release. 14.  On 18 April 2008 and 22 July 2008 the court held further hearings, in which the applicants and their lawyer were present. At the end of those hearings, the court ordered the continuation of the applicants’ detention. 15.  At the end of the third hearing, held on 20 November 2008, the court prolonged the applicants’ detentions. The applicants were present at this hearing. Subsequently, they filed an objection against this decision. On 28 November 2008 the 11th Chamber of the İstanbul Assize Court dismissed the objection, without holding an oral hearing and based on the written opinions of the public prosecutor, which had not been communicated to the applicants or their representative. 16.  On 19 December 2008 the court ex officio examined the applicants’ detention on remand on the basis of the case-file and decided to extend it. 17.  At the hearings held on 19 March 2009 and 16 July 2009, in which the applicants were present, the trial court ordered the continuation of the applicants’ detention on remand. 18.  On 24 November 2009, 30 March 2010 and 24 May 2012, respectively, the applicants were released from detention on remand. 19.  On 1 October 2013 the İstanbul Assize Court acquitted the second applicant of the charges against him. The court convicted the first and the third applicants and sentenced them to imprisonment. The judgment in concerning the acquittal of the second applicant became final, as there was no appeal against it. 20.  On 1 July 2016 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court in so far as it concerned the convictions of the first and third applicants. Accordingly, the case file was remitted to the first instance court. 21.  According to the latest information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the first and third applicants are still pending before the İstanbul Assize Court.


4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Százhalombatta. 5.  On 11 April 2009, quoting the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on charges of terrorist acts and other related offences involving abuse of firearms and explosives on the grounds that he might abscond for fear of a severe punishment, might frustrate the on-going investigation by colluding with accomplices still at large, or might execute the planned offences or re-offend. 6.  The detention measure was extended on 8 May and again on 7 August 2009. The court reiterated its earlier reasons, adding that the risk of collusion was serious, since certain other suspects had not yet been apprehended. 7.  A further extension was ordered on 9 November 2009. The court stated that the applicant was being prosecuted for terrorist acts committed as an associate of an organised criminal group whose plans entailed a real risk of loss of life. It was of note that the group had existed for quite some time and had been committed to carrying out terrorist acts. Moreover, the volume of evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion, as weighed individually against the applicant, was increasing. 8.  On 9 February 2010 the applicant’s detention was again extended, the court noting that, in view of the grounds for his detention, not even his clean criminal record, family ties and settled background could provide adequate justification for a less strict measure. 9.  On 7 April 2010 the measure was renewed, with special reference to the fact that the case was concerned with a series of crimes committed over a long period of time by a criminal organisation. 10.  On 9 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held under house arrest, holding that the danger of his re-offending was not of a degree that justified his continued detention, noting also that the investigation was about to be wrapped up and that, in any case, some accomplices in the case had already been released pending trial.
The applicant was released from detention the next day. During the ensuing period he complied with the rules of house arrest. 11.  On 7 July 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal again ordered the applicant’s detention. It held that the charges of several very serious offences committed over a long time in an organised group were of such gravity that they could not be addressed merely by house arrest. 12.  The measure was extended on 4 August 2010. In addition to the previously cited reasons, the court considered that there was no reason to assume that the applicant’s political motivation behind the incriminated acts had subsided, which meant that the risk of re-offending was real. 13.  On 24 November 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal ordered the applicant’s house arrest, observing that the applicant had abided by the previous house arrest (see paragraph 10 above) and holding that the risk of re-offending was slight. 14.  On 20 September 2012 the applicant’s house arrest was replaced by a restraining order, which was eventually lifted on 6 July 2014. 15.  On 22 April 2015 the applicant was again detained on remand for the purposes of prosecution for a new offence allegedly committed during the on-going proceedings. He was accused of having threatened and harassed a relative of one of the witnesses in the main case. For want of evidence, this new investigation was discontinued on 30 October 2015. 16.  On 18 December 2015 the applicant was released from detention and put under house arrest, which lasted until 27 July 2016. 17.  On 30 August 2016 the applicant and his accomplices were convicted. He was sentenced to 12 years in a strict-regime prison. 18.  Both the defendants and the prosecution appealed. The outcome of the ensuing proceedings is unknown.


5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Štip. 6.  On 21 September 2012 a vacancy notice was published in respect of five posts on the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”) to be filled by sitting judges elected from among their peers. Ethnicity was not among the stated requirements for the posts (see paragraph 20 below). 7.  On 28 September 2012 the applicant lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice for his ethnicity entry in the electoral roll to be changed from that of Bulgarian to Macedonian. 8.  On 15 October 2012 the electoral roll was made available to the Štip Court of Appeal for inspection. Since the applicant’s ethnic designation had not been changed, on the same date he lodged a fresh request for it to be rectified (from Bulgarian to Macedonian), relying on section 17 of the State Judicial Act (“the Act”) (see paragraph 23 below). 9.  By a decision of 18 October 2012, the Ministry of Justice refused the applicant’s request. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“... [the applicant’s] requests for a change to the details [recorded] in the electoral roll regarding ‘ethnicity’ were submitted after the announcement had been published of an election of [new] members to [the SJC]. The requested change cannot be made because it [was intended to secure] the attainment of a(n) [electoral] right concerning the election of members of [the SJC]. A change of ethnicity entry [sought exclusively for the attainment of another right] after the announcement for the election of members of the SJC [would put other judges] ... , in a disadvantageous position ...” 10.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Administrative Court challenging that decision and arguing that the Ministry’s decision had not been based on any statutory grounds. In particular there had been no provision preventing him from changing his ethnicity entry in the electoral roll while the election of members to the SJC had been ongoing. He furthermore submitted that it had been his personal right to determine his own ethnicity and that the Ministry had had no grounds for disregarding his chosen affiliation in this regard. The conclusion that his request would have put other judges in a disadvantageous position had been unreasonable and unsubstantiated. 11.  On 25 October 2012 the Ministry submitted its observations in reply, to which it appended, inter alia, extracts from the electoral rolls of 2006, 2008 and 2010. 12.  On 26 October 2012 the Administrative Court upheld the Ministry’s decision and the reasons that the Ministry had given. It furthermore added that:
“... the request (lodged after the publication of the [election] announcement) for a change to the ethnicity entry was aimed exclusively at the attainment of another [electoral] right that would have put other judges (who had attained their right related to the election of [new] members to [the SJC]), in a disadvantageous position. [The applicant’s] request for the rectification post-dated the announcement of the election of [new] members to [the SJC]. The requested change cannot be regarded as a ‘rectification’ since it does not concern a change to numbers, names or other obvious errors, but rather concerns a detail [concerning his ethnicity] that [the applicant] provided. He enjoyed rights as [an individual] of Bulgarian ethnicity concerning the election of members to [the SJC]. That was established on the basis of extracts from the electoral rolls of October 2006, December 2008 and July 2010 submitted together with the observations in reply to [the applicant’s] claim. In these three electoral rolls [the applicant was] declared [to be] Bulgarian. This means that there has been no violation of his right to declare his own ethnicity.” 13.  The applicant appealed against this decision, contesting as unreasonable the finding that his request had aimed at enabling him to attain rights related to the election of new members to the SJC and that the requested change would have put other judges involved in that election in a disadvantageous position. It was unclear how and by what means those judges would have been put in such a position, or indeed which judges would have been affected. Such findings had no legal basis. Furthermore, he contested as irrelevant the findings that his requests had been lodged after the publication of the announcement. He also reiterated his arguments that declaring his own ethnic identity was his personal right. In that connection it was irrelevant which ethnicity had been ascribed to him in 2006, 2008 and 2010 and what electoral rights he had attempted to attain in the past as a Bulgarian. Lastly, he had not been given the opportunity to comment on the electoral rolls of 2006, 2008 and 2010, which the Ministry of Justice had submitted in evidence and to which the Administrative Court had referred in its decision establishing his ethnic identity as Bulgarian. 14.  On 2 November 2012 the Ministry’s observations in reply were communicated to the applicant. 15.  On 5 November 2012 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The judgment, in which the court cited the wording of provisions of the Act and the General Administrative Procedure Act (see paragraphs 19, 23 and 24 below), stated, inter alia, that:
“... [the applicant requested] the modification of his ethnicity entry in the electoral roll after the [publication of] the announcement of the election of [new] members to the SJC, in which he ... participates. Such a modification of the national ethnicity after the publication of the announcement related to another right would leave other judges who attain the right related to election of members to the SJC in a disadvantageous position. [The applicant], as a Bulgarian, enjoyed rights related to the election of members to the SJC [given the fact that] he had declared himself in the electoral rolls of [2006, 2008 and 2010] as Bulgarian ...
... [The Ministry’s] decision is based on the State Judicial Council Act and the General Administrative Procedure Act ...
... [T]he court examined and rejected as ill-founded [the applicant’s] allegations that the impugned decision had restricted his right to assert his own ethnic identity. In the present case, [the applicant] requested a rectification – that is to say the modification of his ethnicity entry in the electoral roll. [The Ministry’s] refusal [to do so] cannot be regarded as a restriction on his right to assert his ethnic identity, given that the modification in question was sought after the announcement of the election of [new] members to the SJC had been published.” 16.  On 5 October 2012 the applicant submitted himself for election as a member of the SJC. On an unspecified date, he submitted a written statement affirming that he was of Macedonian ethnicity and that his application for election to the SJC had been made with regard to the general list of judges of the courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Štip Court of Appeal (see paragraph 21 below). 17.  By a letter of 3 December 2012, the SJC informed the applicant that it had struck his name out of the general list of candidates for election to the SJC to be selected from judges of the courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Štip Court of Appeal. It had decided to do so in the light of the fact that his declared ethnicity (Macedonian) had not corresponded with the official records, according to which since 1995 he had been registered as being of Bulgarian ethnicity. It also acknowledged the outcome of the “rectification proceedings” described above. The SJC furthermore stated that it was not required under the Act to take any decision related to entries in the electoral roll. Section 17 of the Act specified the procedural rules and the relevant body in respect of their rectification.


4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Yerevan. 5.  The applicant was employed by the State Revenue Service (“the Service”), division no. 2. On 23 February 2009 the head of the Service decided to terminate the applicant’s employment. 6.  On 2 April 2009 the applicant initiated proceedings in the Administrative Court against the Service seeking to 1) have the decision of 23 February 2009 annulled; 2) be reinstated in her previous position; and 3) recover her average salary starting from the moment of her dismissal until her reinstatement to the previous position. 7.  On 17 September 2009 the Administrative Court granted the applicant’s three claims. In particular, it annulled the decision of 23 February 2009, ordered the Service to reinstate her to her previous position and to pay her her average monthly salary starting from 23 February 2009 until her reinstatement. It reasoned its decision, inter alia, by stating that while the Service had been under an obligation to offer the applicant another position within the Service before deciding to dismiss her, it had failed to do so, even though such a position had existed in the Service at the material time. 8.  This judgment was upheld in the final instance by the Court of Cassation and it became final on 4 November 2009. 9.  On 29 November 2009 the Service paid the applicant 1,197,748 Armenian drams (AMD) (approximately 2,131 euros (EUR) at the material time) as compensation for her unemployment during the period from 23 February to 29 November 2009. 10.  On 11 December 2009 the Administrative Court issued a writ of execution. 11.  On 25 February 2010 the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (“the DEJA”) initiated enforcement proceedings. On the same day the DEJA gave a decision obliging the Service to comply with the writ of execution of 11 December 2009 within two weeks. 12.  It appears that no further actions were taken by the DEJA and the Service in relation to the enforcement of the judgment of 17 September 2009 between the period of 25 February 2010 and 18 July 2011. 13.  On 18 July 2011 the bailiff decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings on the basis of section 41(1)(8) of the Enforcement of Judicial Acts Act. The bailiff reasoned that the Service had already paid the applicant AMD 1,197,748 while the reinstatement of the applicant in her previous position in the Service was impossible because that position was no longer vacant. 14.  On 29 May 2012 the applicant asked the DEJA to resume the enforcement proceedings. 15.  On 1 June 2012 the bailiff granted the applicant’s request and decided to resume the enforcement proceedings. On the same day the bailiff gave a decision on obliging the Service to take certain actions. In particular, the bailiff obliged the Service to 1) annul the decision of the head of the Service of 23 February 2009; 2) reinstate the applicant to her previous position; and 3) pay her her average monthly salary for the period between her dismissal and her reinstatement to the previous position. 16.  On 2 July 2012 the bailiff decided once again to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the basis of section 41(1)(8) of the Enforcement of Judicial Acts Act. In particular, the bailiff reasoned that the Service had already paid the applicant AMD 1,197,748 as ordered by the judgment of 17 September 2009 while the reinstatement of the applicant in her previous position in the Service was impossible because Division no. 2, where the applicant had previously worked, no longer existed.


5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who at the material time lived in the neighbouring regions of the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in these regions in 2000-04 after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants had no news of their missing relatives thereafter. 6.  In each of the cases the applicants complained in respect of the abduction to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In every case the investigations, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. It is apparent from the documents submitted that no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya, Ingushetia and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities generally reported that service personnel’s involvement in the abduction had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time. The applicants also lodged requests for information and assistance in the search of their missing relatives to various authorities but received only formal responses, if any. The perpetrators have never been established by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending. 7.  Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account of events is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or other witnesses to the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. Despite the Court’s request to this end, the Government did not submit the documents from the investigation files in each application. They did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but denied that the abductors had been State service personnel. 8.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev, who was born in 1986. 9.  The applicant’s husband and two sons, who were ten and eleven years old at the material time, died during shelling of Grozny in 1994. When military operations were launched in Chechnya in 1999, the applicant with two other children moved to Nazran, Ingushetia where they lived as refugees. 10.  On 28 May 2000 the applicant’s son, Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev, who was thirteen years old at the time, left Nazran and went to Grozny by bus. He was taken off the bus by service personnel at a checkpoint near the canning factory in Grozny because he did not have identity documents. Then he was forced into an APC and taken away. While being taken to the APC, Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev shouted out his name and the applicant’s name and asked the bus passengers to inform her of his arrest. 11.  The circumstances of the abduction were confirmed by bus passengers’ statements submitted to the Court. 12.  The whereabouts of Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev have remained unknown ever since. 13.  According to the applicant, she reported the abduction immediately to the local military command in Grozny, the Office of the Prosecutor of Chechnya and various NGOs. 14.  On 14 July 2000 the applicant complained in respect of the abduction again to the Leninskiy district police station and asked for assistance in the search for her son. 15.  On 21 July 2000 the Leninskiy district police station opened search file (розыскное дело) no. 30/48 into the abduction. Between May and September 2000 police officers took steps to establish Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev’s whereabouts but to no avail. 16.  On 18 December 2000 the Leninskiy district police station refused to open a criminal case into the abduction of Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev. 17.  On 19 August 2001 the applicant complained in respect of the abduction to the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Southern Federal District and asked him for assistance in the search for her son. 18.  On 29 July 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 40147 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 19.  On 14 September 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She stated that she had visited all checkpoints in Grozny trying to find her son but to no avail. Near the canning factory she had met women who had been trading at the local market. They had told her that a teenager who had looked like her son had been forced into an APC and taken away. 20.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the law‑enforcement authorities. According to the responses, it was established that Mr Amirkhadzhiyev had been arrested and taken away by service personnel of the federal forces. The responses contained statements that no information about Mr Amirkhadzhiyev was available. 21.  On 29 September 2005 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 19 January 2006 and suspended again on 20 February 2006. 22.  On 4 June 2010 the applicant requested that the investigators provide her with copies of documents from the investigation file. On 8 June 2010 the applicant’s request was granted. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 23.  According to the applicant, between 2000 and 2010 she contacted various authorities, including the investigators, seeking their assistance in the search for her son, but to no avail. 24.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev, who was born in 1979. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his sister. 25.  On 11 July 2002 service personnel under the command of General I.B. carried out a “sweep” operation in Chechen-Aul. As she was afraid for her son’s safety, the first applicant told Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev to go to her sister, who lived in Belgatoy village. 26.  On their way to Belgatoy Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev and Mr M.Z. were passing by the Argun river, when the service personnel saw them and opened fire. It is unclear whether it was Mr Vatsayev or Mr M.Z. who was injured and fell to the ground on the bank. The other man jumped into the river and was carried away by the strong current. The service personnel picked up the injured man and took him away to an unknown destination. 27.  The eyewitnesses did not see which of the two men had been injured and who had jumped into the water. According to the applicants, the injured man must have been Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev, as his passport was later found on the bank. 28.  The whereabouts of Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev have remained unknown ever since. 29.  On 23 July 2002 the first applicant reported the abduction to the Head of the Government of the Chechen Republic. 30.  On 9 September 2002 the first applicant complained of the abduction to the Grozny district police station. 31.  In October 2002 police officers interviewed several relatives of Mr M.Z. and the first applicant. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 32.  According to the applicants, on several occasions between 2002 and 2005 they complained of the police’s failure to take necessary investigative steps to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office. 33.  In December 2005 the Grozny district police station carried out additional preliminary enquiries into the applicants’ abduction complaint. 34.  On 21 December 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office examined the results of its preliminary enquiries and pointed out that contrary to the relevant procedural regulations, no operational search activities had been carried out by the Grozny district police station since 2002. 35.  Following the prosecutor’s office’s criticism, the head of the police station sent several requests for information to the law-enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements that no information about Mr Vatsayev was available. 36.  On 24 January 2006 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 54006 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 37.  On 30 January 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status. According to the applicant, on several occasions between 2006 and 2011 she contacted the authorities with requests for assistance in the search for her son. 38.  On 24 March 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 4 June 2011, then suspended on 16 June 2011 and resumed again on 21 July 2011. 39.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 40.  On 1 July 2011 the applicants challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 16 June 2011 and their failure to take basic steps before the Grozny District Court. On 22 July 2011 the court terminated the proceedings having found that the day before the investigation had been resumed. On 24 August 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 41.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev, who was born in 1964. The first applicant is his wife and other applicants are his children. 42.  Around 5 a.m. on 17 July 2002 several armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in Shali. Another group of service personnel also broke into the house of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev’s brother, which was situated nearby. The service personnel, who spoke unaccented Russian, asked for the identity documents of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev. After checking them, the service personnel handcuffed Mr Chapsurkayev. Then they pulled his shirt over his head, forced him into the one of three APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and drove off in the direction of Shali town centre. One of the service personnel filmed the events on a video camera. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicants and their neighbours. 43.  The whereabouts of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev have remained unknown ever since. 44.  On 24 October 2002 the first applicant lodged an official complaint in respect of her husband’s abduction with the authorities and requested assistance in the search for him. 45.  On 29 November 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59267 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 46.  On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the events as described above. 47.  On 29 January 2003 the investigation was suspended. The first applicant was informed thereof. 48.  On 3 July 2003 the first applicant complained of the abduction to the military prosecutor of Shali and requested assistance in the search for him. 49.  On 17 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20166 replied to the applicant’s complaint, stating that on 17 July 2002 their service personnel had neither carried out any special operation nor detained anyone. 50.  In 2005 the first applicant complained about the abduction to the State Council of the Chechen Republic. It is unclear whether her complaint was forwarded to the investigators and whether any reply was given to it. 51.  On 30 November 2006 the first applicant again complained to the Shali district prosecutor in respect of the abduction. It is unclear whether she received any reply. 52.  On 29 February 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the investigation and grant her access to the case file. No reply was given to this request. 53.  However, following the above request, on an unidentified date in June 2010 the investigation was resumed. 54.  On 13 July 2010 the investigators questioned the first applicant. 55.  On 22 and 26 July 2010 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Mr A.D., who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 56.  On 6 May 2012 the first applicant requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the investigation. On the same day she challenged the investigators’ decision of 29 January 2003 to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court. The outcome of the court proceedings is unknown. 57.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 58.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev (in the documents submitted also referred to as Lorsanukayev, Lorsunukayev, Lorsankayev), who was born in 1961. The second applicant is his wife. 59.  At the relevant time Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev lived as a refugee in Nazran, Ingushetia. On 10 May 2002 he went with his relative, Ms Ya.S., to Grozny to visit his brother Mr A.L. At around 2 p.m. on 12 May 2002 Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev, his brother and two neighbours, Mr V.B. and Mr S.E., were playing cards in Mr A.L.’s flat when a group of eight or nine armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke in. Without any explanation, they pulled Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev’s shirt over his head, took him barefoot outside and forced him into a UAZ minivan (таблетка) with tinted windows. The vehicle had no registration numbers. The service personnel spoke Russian and Chechen. 60.  Mr. V.B. attempted to inform the service personnel that he was a police officer from the Leninskiy district police station in Grozny. The service personnel disregarded this information, kicked him and then pushed him to the floor together with Mr. S.E. Then the service personnel took Mr A.L. outside and put him in a UAZ vehicle in which Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev was being held. Ms Ya.S. tried to stop the service personnel, but they hit her with their rifle butts and drove away. Five minutes later the service personnel pushed Mr A.L. out of the UAZ vehicle and proceeded to an unknown destination. 61.  The whereabouts of Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev have remained unknown ever since. 62.  About three weeks after the abduction a man visited Mr A.L. and passed him a written message from Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev. The message, written on an empty cigarette box, stated “I am here”. According to the man, that cigarette box had been thrown out of a vehicle parked near the building of the Federal Security Service in Grozny. 63.  On 20 June 2002 Mr A.L. complained to the Grozny prosecutor’s office of the abduction of his son and requested assistance in the search for him. 64.  On 24 July 2002 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 48116 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 65.  On 6 August 2002 Ms Ya.S. was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 66.  On the same day the investigators questioned Mr A.L. and his wife. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 67.  On 24 September 2002 the investigation was suspended. According to the applicants, between 2002 and 2008 they contacted the investigators and other authorities asking for information on the progress of the investigation. 68.  On 15 July 2008 the first applicant requested that the investigators inform her of the progress of the investigation, resume the investigation and allow her access to the case file. She stated, in particular, that they had passed the message from Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev to the investigators. 69.  On 23 July 2009 the investigation was resumed. 70.  On 20 August 2009 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 71.  On 22 August 2009 the investigation was suspended. 72.  On 29 June 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the case file. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 73.  On 20 April 2012 the second applicant asked the investigators to provide her with the copies of the investigation-file documents. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 74.  On 30 August 2012 the investigation was resumed. It appears that it is still pending. 75.  On 26 June 2012 the second applicants challenged the investigators’ decision of 22 August 2009 to suspend the investigation before the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny. On 8 August 2012 the complaint was transferred to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny. On 31 August 2012 that court terminated the proceedings, having found that a day earlier the investigation had been resumed. On 24 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld this decision on appeal. 76.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Arbi Isiyev, who was born in 1985. The second applicant is his sister. 77.  Around 1 p.m. on 29 September 2004 Mr Arbi Isiyev left his home in Argun to visit his aunt, who lived in the same town. When Mr Arbi Isiyev was walking down Gudermesskaya Street, several service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas forced him into a white GAZ-3110 car and took him to an unknown destination. Mr Arbi Isiyev managed to throw 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB) on the ground and asked a passer-by, Mr R.D., in Chechen (so that the service personnel could not understand him) to give that money to his relatives. The abduction took place in the presence of Ms S.Sh. and Mr R.D. 78.  Mr Arbi Isiyev has not been seen since. 79.  On 30 September 2004 the applicants’ relative, Mr I.K., complained of the abduction to authorities. 80.  On 23 October 2004 the Argun town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 48042 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 81.  On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 82.  Between October and December 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant and the witnesses Ms S.Sh. and Mr R.D. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 83.  On 23 December 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 18 February 2008 and suspended again on 18 March 2008. 84.  In 2009 the first applicant asked the head of the Chechen Parliamentary Committee on the Search for the Disappeared (Комитет Парламента Чеченской Республики по поиску лиц, без вести пропавших в период проведения контртеррористической операции) for assistance in the search for her son. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who on 18 May 2009 replied that that the investigation had been suspended and that operational search activities were being carried out to establish Mr Isiyev’s whereabouts. 85.  On 22 April 2010 and then again on 22 July 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the investigation file. 86.  On 1 August 2011 the applicants’ request was granted. 87.  On 26 October 2011 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 26 November 2011. 88.  On 4 September 2012 the applicants requested that the investigators inform them of the progress in the investigation. 89.  On 11 September 2012 the investigation was resumed. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 90.  On 17 October 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 18 March 2008 and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court. On 17 November 2011 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that on 26 October 2011 the investigation had been resumed. On 21 December 2011 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld that decision on appeal. 91.  On 7 September 2012 the applicants challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 26 November 2011 before the Shali Town Court. On 17 September 2012 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that on 11 September 2012 the investigation had been resumed. On 31 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld that decision on appeal.


5.  The applicants, whose names, dates of birth and places of residence are shown in the Appendix, were all individual small shareholders of Demirbank, a private bank in Turkey. On different dates they purchased different amounts of Turkish and German share certificates in Demirbank through the German stock market. 6.  By a decision dated 6 December 2000, the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board (Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu – hereinafter “the Board”) decided to transfer the management and control of Demirbank to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (Tasarruf Mevduatı Sigorta Fonu – hereinafter “the Fund”). In its decision the Board held that the assets of Demirbank were insufficient to cover its liabilities and that the continuation of its activities would threaten the security and stability of the financial system. Accordingly, Demirbank’s management and control, and the privileges of its shareholders except for dividends, were transferred to the Fund. The Fund also confiscated all properties belonging to Demirbank. 7.  On 6 December 2000 the Board of Directors of the Fund decided to take over the shares of Demirbank in exchange for paying Demirbank’s loss corresponding to its paid-up capital, namely 275,000,000 Turkish liras (TRY). 8.  On 31 January 2001 all equities of Demirbank were removed from its account at the Istanbul Stock Exchange and were transferred to the account of the Fund. 9.  On 2 February 2001, the main shareholder of Demirbank, namely Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş., brought administrative proceedings against the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu – hereinafter “the Agency”) before the Ankara Administrative Court, seeking a ruling setting aside the decision of 6 December 2000 to transfer Demirbank to the Fund. The Ankara Administrative Court found that it lacked jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the Supreme Administrative Court. On 5 November 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the Board’s decision of 6 December 2000, holding that the takeover had been illegal. An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the Agency were rejected on 14 April 2005 and 15 December 2005 respectively. 10.  On 20 September 2001 the Fund entered into an agreement with HSBC Bank, and sold Demirbank to the latter. Accordingly, Demirbank’s legal personality was extinguished and it was struck off the commercial register on 14 December 2001. 11.  On 20 September 2001 Ms S. Cıngıllıoğlu, the main shareholder of Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş., brought administrative proceedings against the Fund before the Ankara Administrative Court, seeking the annulment of the agreement to sell Demirbank to HSBC. On 21 April 2004 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the agreement on the ground that the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund had been found to be illegal by the Supreme Administrative Court. An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the Fund were rejected and the decision became final on 24 February 2006. 12.  On different dates the applicants applied to the Board and claimed compensation arguing that they had lost their shares in Demirbank, as a result of its transfer to the Fund. The Board did not respond to the applicants’ claims within the statutory period. The applicants therefore applied to the administrative courts and requested the annulment of the Board’s implied rejection of their compensation claims. However, the administrative courts dismissed the applicants’ cases as out of time on the ground that they should have initiated proceedings at the latest within sixty days following 31 January 2001, the date on which Demirbank’s equities had been transferred to the Fund’s account at the Stock Exchange. The administrative courts’ decisions were upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court and thus became final. 13.  Following the annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund by the domestic courts in 2005, the applicants applied to the administrative courts. Relying on the restitutio in integrum principle, the applicants argued that the judgment of the court which annulled the Board’s decision dated 6 December 2000 had to be enforced and their rights as shareholders of Demirbank should be reinstated. On different dates the applicants’ requests were rejected by the administrative courts and the administrative courts’ decisions were upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the judgment regarding the annulment of the Board’s decision of 6 December 2000 could be secured by the return of the supervisory and executive rights to Demirbank’s shareholders, and did not require the restitution of the actual shares. It also maintained that even if that was the case, the judgment could not be executed, as Demirbank’s shares had ceased to exist as a result of the loss of its legal personality following its sale to HSBC. 14.  Following the annulment of the agreement to sell Demirbank to HSBC, the applicants in the applications followed by an asterisk (*) in the annexed list, brought a third set of proceedings against the Fund and claimed compensation for their lost shares in Demirbank. The Istanbul Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ compensation claims for being out of time on the ground that they should have brought their claims within sixty-day statutory time-limit after Demirbank’s equities had been transferred to the Fund’s account at the Stock Exchange on 31 January 2001. The decisions of the administrative courts were upheld, and the applicants’ requests for rectification of the decision were rejected.


4.  The applicant is a Roman Catholic community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, based in Sarajevo. 5.  By decision of 9 May 2003, which became final and binding on 4 September 2003, the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Chamber”) found that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) had discriminated against the applicant in its enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention. In order to remedy the situation it ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure the relocation of public schools housed in the Archdiocese High School building in Travnik, and to reinstate the applicant in the premises within one year. The Chamber rejected a request by the applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 6.  By an agreement of 21 May 2004, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina undertook to reinstate the applicant in the impugned premises by 1 July 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Travnik Municipal Council adopted the implementing decisions, and also one of the public schools was moved from the premises. 7.  On 23 June 2010 the Travnik Municipal Council issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju). On 5 October 2011 the Travnik Cantonal Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for reconsideration. On 17 October 2011 the Travnik Municipal Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. On 16 May 2012 the Travnik Cantonal Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for reconsideration. On 3 July 2012 the Travnik Municipal Court held that the decisions of the Chamber were not subject to enforcement proceedings. On 12 July 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (28 August 2017), the Travnik Cantonal Court had not yet ruled on the matter. 8.  On 30 October 2012 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina determined that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina had not yet fully enforced the decision of 9 May 2003. 9.  On 17 February 2017 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the public school remaining in its premises, requesting its relocation, as well as damages for the use of the premises for the period between 1 February 2014 and 1 June 2017. 10.  On 14 July 2017 the Municipal Court in Travnik rendered a judgment in the applicant’s favour, rewarding in full its claims finally specified in the proceedings, namely 270,360 convertible marks (BAM)[1] for pecuniary damages and 6,713 BAM for costs and expenses. The Municipal Court also ordered the respondent to vacate the applicant’s premises within 30 days from receiving the judgment. On 20 December 2017 the Cantonal Court in Novi Travnik upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (20 February 2018), the Central Bosnia Canton submitted a revision petition to the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the final judgment in these proceedings. It also appears that the public school has still not been relocated.


4.  The applicant company is a privately owned company registered in Danilovgrad, Montenegro. 5.  In July 2004 a call for tender for hotel “Otrant” in Montenegro was issued. The deadline for submitting bids was October 2004. Together with three other companies, the applicant company took part in the tendering process. On 30 November 2004, however, it was informed that the tender was awarded to another bidder. 6.  On an unspecified date in December 2004, the applicant company objected to this decision. On 29 December 2004 the Commercial Court in Podgorica (Privredni sud u Podgorici) rejected the applicant company’s objection. 7.  On 28 January 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance. 8.  On 15 June 2006 the Commercial Court ruled against the applicant company. This decision was served on the applicant company on 8 September 2009. 9.  On 26 March 2010 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Commercial Court. The decision of the Court of Appeal was served on the applicant company’s lawyer on 27 April 2010. 10.  On 15 July 2010 the applicant company lodged an initiative urging the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office (Vrhovno državno tužilaštvo) to file a request for the protection of legality (zahtjev za zaštitu zakonitosti), but this motion was rejected on 21 July 2010. 11.  On 30 July 2010 the applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal. On 14 October 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected this appeal as having been lodged out of time.


4.  The applicants were born in 1984 and 1979 respectively and live in Moscow. 5.  On 14 December 2012 the State Duma adopted at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited adoption of children of Russian nationality by US citizens. 6.  On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading was scheduled for 19 December 2012. 7.  According to the applicants, they read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo “pickets” (одиночные пикеты) on 19 December 2012 in front of the State Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo “pickets” was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory three‑day notification period for other types of (group) events. 8.  The applicants decided to hold their own solo “pickets” and at around 9 a.m. positioned themselves, holding banners, in the vicinity of the State Duma at some distance from other protesters (see also Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 206-15, 7 February 2017). 9.  According to the applicants, they were arrested by the police several minutes later and brought to a police station. At 10.30 a.m. the police drew up a record of the administrative escorting (протокол административного доставления) in respect of each applicant. A record of administrative arrest (протокол административного задержания), drawn up at the same time, stated that the applicants had arrived at the police station at 10.30 a.m. The first applicant, Mr Tsukanov, made a handwritten note on his arrest record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.20 a.m. The second applicant, Mr Torchinskiy, made a handwritten note on his escorting record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.30 a.m. 10.  At the police station both applicants were accused of organising and holding a group public event without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter, “CAO”). The administrative offence records indicate that the offences were committed at 10 a.m. The first applicant made a handwritten note that he came to the event venue at 9 a.m. and was arrested at 9.20 a.m. 11.  The first applicant was released at 1.20 p.m. The second applicant was released at 1.10 p.m. 12.  On 15 January 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the second applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB), (about 495 euros (EUR) at the time). The justice of the peace found it established, on the basis of the records and testimony of police officers, that the applicant had taken part in a “picket” involving fifty people. That “picket” was unlawful because no notification had been submitted by the organisers as required by the Public Events Act (hereinafter “PEA”). The applicant had waved a banner, thereby attracting the attention of passers-by and journalists assembled for the occasion. He had not complied with the police order to stop picketing. 13.  On 6 February 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the first applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000 (about EUR 495 at the time), with the reasoning identical to that in the judgment of 15 January 2013. The justice of the peace also relied on police reports and testimony of a police officer who had apprehended the first applicant at the venue of the public event. 14.  Both applicants appealed, insisting that each of them had held a solo demonstration which did not require prior notification of the authorities. The first applicant also pointed out that he had been arrested earlier than indicated in the arrest record. 15.  On 13 February and 11 March 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgments concerning the second and the first applicant respectively. 16.  The second applicant applied for review of the court decisions under Article 30.12 of the CAO. On 28 June 2013 the Deputy President of the Moscow City Court partly allowed his complaint and changed the classification of the administrative charge against him. The second applicant was found guilty of the breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events committed by a participant, an offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. His fine was reduced to RUB 10,000 (about EUR 233 at the time).