6.  The first applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Prague, the Czech Republic. The second applicant was born in 2005. She currently lives in Russia with O.H., her mother. 7.  On 5 June 2003 the first applicant married a Russian national, O.H. The couple decided to settle in Prague. 8.  On 28 January 2005 their daughter, the second applicant, was born. 9.  In 2007 the first applicant and O.H. decided to separate. 10.  On 1 November 2007 O.H. filed for divorce in the Czech Republic. Both O.H. and the first applicant sought custody of the child. 11.  In April 2008 O.H., unbeknownst to the first applicant, obtained a one‑month Russian visa for the second applicant, and on 17 April 2008, together with the latter, left for Russia (Vologda Region). Upon the expiry of the visa on 12 May 2008 O.H. did not bring the second applicant back to the Czech Republic. Instead, on 20 May 2008 she obtained a temporary residence permit for the second applicant from the Russian Federal Migration Service, and on 27 May 2008, Russian citizenship for the latter. On an unspecified date O.H. and the second applicant left for St Petersburg. 12.  On 7 July 2009 O.H. applied to the Federal Security Service Border Control (Пограничное управление Федеральной службы безопасности Российской Федерации по городу Санкт-Петербургу и Ленинградской области) in order to restrict the second applicant’s travel outside Russia. 13.  As of 10 July 2009 the second applicant’s travel abroad was restricted. 14.  Since 29 May 2011 the first applicant has had no contact with the second applicant, because O.H. prevented him from either seeing the second applicant or communicating with her by telephone. The Russian authorities have been unable to establish O.H.’s and the second applicant’s whereabouts since then. 15.  The interim decision of Prague 4 District Court of 30 April 2008 as amended by the interim decision of Prague Municipal Court of 21 July 2008 granted the first applicant temporary custody of the second applicant pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings. The Prague Municipal Court thereby obliged O.H. to hand the child over to the first applicant, not to leave the Czech Republic and not to remain outside the territory of the Czech Republic with the minor. The interim decision entered into force on 8 August 2008. 16.  On 2 June 2011 Prague 4 District Court issued a final custody judgment by which custody of the second applicant was granted to the first applicant. O.H. was obliged to pay the first applicant 5,000 Czech korunas – about 200 euros (EUR) – monthly in alimony. The court held as follows:
“The father loves [his daughter] very much; in the opinion of the experts he is better developed emotionally in comparison to the mother, is more capable of self-control and handling [stress] so as to not spoil the relationship between the mother and [the child] or otherwise turn [the child] against her mother. It was established that the interests of [the child] require that she be placed in her father’s care [as he] was established to be a more suitable caregiver; at the same time it was established that as a result of [the child’s] separation from her father the former’s psychological well-being [has been affected]. It was established that for the last three years the father, unlike the mother, has been cooperating with [the custody and guardianship authority], and the [guardian] had therefore had a real possibility to examine the father’s living conditions and his situation; ... it was established that he can provide [the child] with normal accommodation ... The father is financially stable, which enables him to provide [the child] with the material [items] and non-material values necessary for her health, mental, cultural and physical development. [The child] will soon go to primary school and the father, in view of his education and indisputable interest in [the child], is capable of providing her, along with the possibility of school education, with everything she needs. ... Despite the fact that the father was and is still being prevented from communicating with [the child], he [supports the child financially by giving money directly to the mother and making deposits into the child’s bank account], and in addition to alimony the father gives [the child] presents whenever he has the possibility to meet her.
The mother, on the contrary, was characterised as unstable, authoritative, unfriendly to the father and inclined to impulsive aggression and rash behavior. While carrying out her parental duties she harms [the child], she has abused her parental authority since November 2007 at least ... Therefore, she acts both unlawfully and contrary to the interests of [the child] and the court’s decision. While exercising her parental authority the mother consciously and purposefully acts in total disregard of the recommendations of the experts and her lawful duties; she completely prevented communication between the father and [the child], at first without any reason. Subsequently, under an invented pretext, in April 2008 she took [the child], without the permission of the father, the court or [the custody and guardianship authority] abroad to the Russian Federation, where she has kept [the child] until now. At the same time the mother has not complied with the decision of the court pursuant to which she should have handed [the child] over to the father, to render to the father [the child’s] travelling passport and not to remain [with the child] outside the territory of the Czech Republic. [It was established that the decision in question] was served on [the mother] first of all through her representative in the Czech Republic, and thereafter to her personally in the course of the proceedings at the courts in St Petersburg and Moscow. Furthermore, the mother refuses to send an invitation for visiting Russia to the father, [who] has to go through demanding procedures to obtain Russian entry visas, and when the father succeeds in obtaining a visa and goes to Russia the mother often hides [the child] and refuses to communicate with the father[.] [S]he does not even allow the father to talk to [the child] on the telephone, and even if she lets them talk she purposefully manipulates the father’s and [the child’s] mindset according to the situation. Therefore, the court believes that the mother has, in disregard of the law of the Czech Republic, willfully interfered with [the child’s family life], her right to know her father and her right to be in her father’s custody. She has interfered with [the child’s] right to freedom of movement and to choose her place of residence, and her right to free entry to her homeland, the Czech Republic. Thereby the mother has breached the rights guaranteed by the State in the framework of Conventions on Human Rights, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The mother, unbeknownst to the father, the court or [the custody and guardianship authority] and without their consent in contravention of the legal order of the Czech Republic, applied to Russian administrative authorities to grant [the child], a national of the Czech Republic, Russian citizenship, on the basis of which in a record-breaking short term of five days the latter was granted Russian citizenship.
...
Regarding the father’s claim for termination of the mother’s parental rights, the court has decided to dismiss it [since termination of parental rights is the most serious interference in relations between parents and children, when the violation of parents’ duties is so serious that the termination of parental rights is the only possible solution to protect the interests of the child]. The court has arrived at the conclusion that termination of the mother’s parental rights would be in contradiction with the father’s own statement in his final speech that [the child] should have both parents.
...” 17.  The case was examined in the absence of O.H. The District Court established that on 10 May 2011 consul T. of the Czech Consulate General informed O.H. by telephone about the venue and the time of the hearing, that is, 2 June 2011 at 1 p.m. in Prague 4 District Court, but O.H. did not say anything in reply and hung up. Nobody answered the phone when the consul tried to reach O.H. again. The telephone was subsequently switched off. The International Department for Civil Matters of the Czech Ministry of Justice did not receive confirmation from the Russian authorities on whether the request of October 2010 for the delivery of a court summons to O.H. had been complied with. The District Court therefore considered that O.H. had been duly notified and that she had failed to appear in court without valid reason. It therefore proceeded in her absence. 18.  On 10 February 2012 that judgment became final. 19.  The judgment remains unenforced to this day. 20.  The first applicant challenged the decision of the Russian Federal Migration Service of 20 May 2008 granting the second applicant a temporary residence permit (see paragraph 11 above). 21.  On 13 February 2009 Vologda Town Court dismissed the first applicant’s claims. The court held that the temporary residence permit had been granted to the second applicant in accordance with the procedure established by law, and that the relevant procedure did not require the applicant’s consent. 22.  On 24 April 2009 Vologda Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal. 23.  The first applicant challenged the decision of the Russian Federal Migration Service of 27 May 2008 granting the second applicant Russian citizenship (see paragraph 11 above). 24.  On 6 July 2009 Vologda Town Court dismissed the first applicant’s claim. The court held that the granting of Russian citizenship to the second applicant had been carried out in compliance with the procedure provided for by the Russian law and did not require the consent of the first applicant as O.H., the second applicant’s mother, had Russian citizenship and the second applicant, having received a Russian temporary residence permit, was considered to be residing in Russia at the moment when the relevant decision had been taken by the competent authorities. The court held that the Russian Constitution allowed for dual citizenship, and that the Treaty between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 6 June 1980 on prevention of dual citizenship, relied on by the first applicant, was no longer in force after 5 July 2006. The court further held that there was no evidence of criminally punishable acts in the actions of the Federal Migration Service. 25.  The hearing of the case on 6 July 2009 took place in the absence of the first applicant. His request for adjournment of the hearing (due to his involvement in other court proceedings in St Petersburg) was dismissed. The first applicant was, however, represented by a lawyer. 26.  On 9 October 2009 Vologda Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 27.  On 12 March 2009 the first applicant applied to St Petersburg City Court seeking formal recognition of the interim measure of the Prague Municipal Court of 21 July 2008 granting him temporary custody of the second applicant pending the divorce proceedings (see paragraph 15 above). 28.  By a final decision of 15 December 2009, however, the Supreme Court of Russia rejected the request. It held that the Treaty of 12 August 1982 between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance did not apply to interim measures. 29.  As he had been prevented by O.H. from seeing the second applicant, on 20 April 2009 the first applicant brought proceedings before the Russian court seeking to have the terms of his contact with the second applicant in Russia fixed. 30.  By a final decision of 18 May 2010 St Petersburg City Court discontinued the above proceedings. It found that according to the Treaty of 12 August 1982 between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance, litigation in the domestic courts of one High Contracting Party to the agreement had to be discontinued if the same litigation between the same litigants was pending before the domestic courts of the other High Contracting Party. 31.  On 23 September 2010 the first applicant brought proceedings against O.H. seeking to cancel the restriction on the second applicant’s travel outside Russia (see paragraph 13 above). 32.  By a final decision of 18 April 2011 St Petersburg City Court dismissed his claim. The court held that the essence of the first applicant’s complaint had been the fixing of the terms of his contact with the second applicant, which had been for the Czech courts to determine. The court held, therefore, that until the final judgment of the Czech courts the first applicant and O.H. were to decide on the issues in question by mutual agreement. The court further pointed out that the first applicant had the right to communicate with the second applicant on the territory of the Russian Federation and that O.H. had no right to prevent that. 33.  On 29 June 2012 the first applicant applied to St Petersburg City Court for recognition and enforcement of the judgment of Prague 4 District Court of 2 June 2011 (see paragraph 16 above). 34.  On 9 October 2012 St Petersburg City Court, relying on Article 60 of the Treaty between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance and Articles 409-12 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, refused the first applicant’s request, because O.H. had not been duly notified of the hearing of 2 June 2011 and had been deprived of the opportunity to take part in it. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“As it follows from the material of the case file [O.H.] did not participate in the proceedings before Prague 4 District Court resulting in a judgment the compulsory enforcement of which is sought by [the first applicant].
This circumstance is supported by the text of the judgment itself. As it follows from this document [O.H.] failed to appear [in court] for the hearing of the case [on 2 June 2011], although she had been informed orally about [the time and the place] of the hearing. The [Prague 4 District Court] found it established that [O.H.] had been informed about the hearing orally by a consul.
At the same time it follows from [the applicant’s] application and the text of the above-mentioned judgment that in 2008 [O.H.] had left the territory of the Czech Republic with the child [and] resides on the territory of the Russian Federation.
Taking into consideration [the fact] that at the time of delivery of the judgment O.H. has been residing on the territory of the Russian Federation, her notification should have been carried out in accordance with Article 9 of the Treaty, which provides that service of documents [must be] certified by a confirmation signed by the person on whom the document is served and officially sealed and signed by the competent authority responsible for the service with indication of the date of service, or by a confirmation issued by that competent authority with indication of the means, the place and the time of service.
No such [confirmation] was provided by [the first applicant]. It follows from the contents of the above-mentioned judgment that a request for delivery of documents to [O.H.] was addressed to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and remained without reply.
At the same time, according to Article 411 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation a request for compulsory enforcement of a foreign court judgment must be accompanied by a document showing that the party against whom the judgment was taken, and who did not participate in the proceedings, had been duly notified of the time and the place of the hearing. The same rule is contained in Article 55 of the Treaty.
It follows from the contents of the above-mentioned legal provisions that notification of [O.H.] of the time and the place of the hearing should have been certified by [a] written confirmation, signed by [O.H.], [and] sealed by [the competent authority] which handed over the notification.
No such documents were, however, provided by the [first applicant].
...
As noted above, the judgment of Prague 4 District Court indicates that [O.H.] was notified orally by a consul.
...
The [first applicant’s] argument that [O.H.’s] notification by consul orally by telephone was in accordance with section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Czech Republic does not amount to proof of [O.H.’s] proper notification ...
The above-mentioned Treaty does not provide for the possibility of notification by a consul. Under Article 10 of the Treaty Contracting Parties are entitled to serve the documents through consular establishments to their citizens only. However, [since O.H.] is not a citizen of the Czech Republic, but only had a permit for permanent residence on the territory of the Czech Republic, the [court summons] was not served on her ...
In view of the foregoing the court finds that [O.H.] was deprived of the possibility to take part in the proceedings as a result of a failure to duly notify her of the time and the place of the hearing ...” 35.  The decision of 9 October 2012 was taken in the absence of O.H. Court summonses were repeatedly sent to O.H.’s place of residence in St Petersburg and to the address in Nyuksenitsa, Vologda Region, given to the court by the first applicant. However, the summonses returned unclaimed following the expiration of the storage time. Attempts were also made to notify O.H. through a local police inspector, without success. The court therefore considered that it had taken sufficient and exhaustive measures to notify O.H. and to ensure her presence at the hearing, that the latter had abused her right, and that it was possible to examine the first applicant’s request in her absence. 36.  On 3 December 2012 St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 9 October 2012 on appeal. 37.  On 16 September 2013 the first applicant’s “cassation appeal” lodged against the judgment of 9 October 2012 and the decision on appeal of 3 December 2012 was dismissed. 38.  In February 2009 the first applicant applied to the guardianship and trusteeship body for St Petersburg Porokhovye municipal circuit (орган опеки и попечительства местной администрации внутригородского муниципального образования г. Санкт-Петербурга муниципальный округ Пороховые) to facilitate visits between him and the second applicant. 39.  In March 2009 the first applicant renewed his application. 40.  On 12 March and 29 September 2009 representatives of the guardianship and trusteeship body accompanied the first applicant to visit the child. 41.  In the meantime, on 8 July 2009 the guardianship and trusteeship body examined O.H.’s living conditions in St Petersburg. It was established that the flat was in a very good condition, that all the furniture and household appliances were new, and that the girl had a separate room, which was spacious, tidy and cosy. 42.  Between 2010 and July 2011 the first applicant did not apply to the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise visits between him and the second applicant. 43.  In February 2012 the first applicant again applied to the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise his upcoming visit in March 2012. He relied on the judgment of Prague 4 District Court of 2 June 2011. However, his request was refused in the absence of a judgment by the Russian court obliging the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise visits between the first applicant and the second applicant. 44.  On over a dozen occasions the first applicant applied to the Ombudsman for Children in St Petersburg seeking for assistance in establishing contact with his daughter and visa support. 45.  In response to the first applicant’s requests the Ombudsman tried to reconcile the first applicant and O.H. In particular, during his visit to Russia between 23 September and 4 October 2010 the first applicant stayed at O.H.’s apartment and was able to have contact with his daughter. However, the first applicant and O.H. later had a conflict. O.H. claimed that the first applicant had been cruel to the child and that she would interfere with contact between the first applicant and the child in the interests of the latter. The Ombudsman explained to O.H. the provisions of the Family Code concerning the right of the parent living apart from the child to have contact with the child. Nevertheless O.H. stated that she viewed the situation as a strictly private family matter. In her opinion the wide media coverage of the case initiated by the first applicant and the involvement of a number of official bodies went contrary to the principles of the inviolability of private and family life. She further submitted that the child did not want to communicate with the first applicant. Since May 2011 the Ombudsman for Children in St Petersburg has lost all contact with O.H. Information about the second applicant was put on the Ombudsman’s website (www.spbdeti.org) in the “missing child” section. 46.  Concerning the issue of visa support to the first applicant, the Ombudsman applied to the representation of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in St Petersburg, which explained that the first applicant could apply to the health care and social welfare authorities for the invitation which was required in order to obtain a Russian visa. 47.  In his letter of 23 August 2013 the first applicant expressed his gratitude to the Ombudsman for Children in St Petersburg for her active participation in protecting the second applicant’s rights.
(b)  In Vologda Region 48.  On 24 October 2012 the first applicant lodged a request with the Ombudsman for Children in Vologda Region asking for assistance in establishing his communication with his daughter. 49.  On 21 November 2012 the Ombudsman visited Nyuksenitsa, where O.H. was supposedly living. However, the information about O.H. and the second applicant’s whereabouts in Nyuksenitsa was not confirmed. The first applicant was informed accordingly. 50.  On 7 December 2012 the first applicant applied to the Ombudsman for Children in Vologda Region asking for an inquiry into the activity of the commission for the affairs of minors in Nyuksenskiy municipal district to be carried out owing to what he saw as their negligent attitude in examining the issue of establishing his communication with his daughter. 51.  On 29 December 2012 the first applicant was informed that his request was outside the Ombudsman’s competence and that he could apply to the prosecutor’s office or the court. 52.  On 11 April 2013 the first applicant again applied to the Ombudsman for Children in Vologda Region asking for assistance in establishing his daughter’s whereabouts. 53.  On 29 April 2013 the first applicant was informed that the child was not studying in any school in Nyuksenskiy municipal district and was not living there.
(c)  Ombudsman for Children under the President of the Federation of Russia 54.  On 25 November 2009 and 29 July 2010 the Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs applied to the Ombudsman for Children under the President of the Federation of Russia for assistance in the protection of the right of the second applicant to communicate with both parents. Since at the time O.H. lived in St Petersburg with the child, the applications were transmitted to the Ombudsman for Children in St Petersburg. 55.  On 21 March 2011 and 28 November 2011 the Ombudsman for Children under the President had consultative meetings with the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Czech Republic in the Russian Federation and actively corresponded with the Czech Embassy on the issue. Regular contact was maintained with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the guardianship and trusteeship body for St Petersburg Porokhovye municipal circuit. 56.  Meanwhile, on 25 July 2011 and 3 September 2012 the first applicant himself applied to the Ombudsman for Children under the President of the Federation of Russia. Regular contact was maintained with the first applicant by telephone and e-mail. 57.  As a result of the work carried out by the Ombudsman for Children under the President and the ombudsmen for children in St Petersburg and Vologda Region, on 28 February 2013 a reply was given to the first applicant. He was informed about the legal means of protecting his right to communicate with his daughter which were applicable to his situation. In particular, he was told that he could bring a civil action before the Russian courts in order to determine his access rights (иск об определении порядка общения с дочерью). That recommendation was made with regard to the first applicant’s repeated assurances that he was not seeking compulsory enforcement of the judgment of Prague 4 District Court of 2 June 2011 as he understood that after such a long – in comparison to the child’s life – passage of time, the enforcement of that judgment could be harmful to his daughter and would not be in her best interests. At the same time the first applicant repeatedly stated his wish to establish and maintain regular contact with his daughter and to receive information about her life. However, the first applicant did not follow the above recommendation. 58.  On 2 November 2011 the first applicant reported O.H.’s refusal to allow him to communicate with his daughter, the second applicant, to the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of St Petersburg. 59.  The local police inspector went to O.H.’s registered place of residence in St Petersburg and found that she was not living there. The neighbours had no information about O.H.’s whereabouts. A summons requesting O.H. to present herself at the local police station was returned unclaimed after the expiration of its storage time. 60.  On 22 December 2011 the first applicant asked the police to search for O.H. in the absence of any information about her and the second applicant since 30 May 2011. The file was transferred to Krasnogvardeyskiy District investigations department (следственный отдел по Красногвардейскому главному следственному управлению Следственного комитета Российской Федерации по Санкт-Петербургу). 61.  The investigator of Krasnogvardeyskiy District investigations department succeeded in reaching O.H.’s mother, G.K., on her mobile telephone. The latter submitted that she was in regular contact with O.H., but refused to divulge O.H.’s whereabouts. 62.  On 11 January 2012 the investigator received a fax message from O.H. in which the latter confirmed that she was living at her registered place of residence with the second applicant, and that she refused all contact with the first applicant. 63.  On the same day the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings into the disappearance of O.H. and the second applicant. 64.  On 22 March 2012 the juvenile inspector of the local police went to the flat at O.H.’s registered address in St Petersburg, but nobody opened the door. O.H.’s neighbour, Mr Sh., said that O.H.’s flat had not been lived in since June 2011. 65.  On 26 March 2012 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Deputy Prosecutor set aside the decision of 11 January 2012 and returned the file to the investigator with instructions to carry out an additional check aimed at determining the whereabouts of O.H. and the second applicant. 66.  On 3 April 2012 and 26 May 2013 the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings into O.H.’s and the second applicant’s disappearance. Those decisions were subsequently set aside by the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Deputy Prosecutor and additional checks were ordered. 67.  The additional checks revealed that O.H. had not been receiving her correspondence. They also established that the second applicant had not been attending kindergarten since 6 June 2011, and that the last appointments she had attended at the health care facility had been on 22 June and 6 September 2011. 68.  According to information provided by the Krasnogvardeyskiy District commission for the affairs of minors (комиссия по делам несовершеннолетних и защите их прав при администрации Красногвардейского района), since the end of May 2011 O.H. had been hiding the second applicant from her father, the first applicant; she had not been opening the door and had been ignoring summonses to appear in court. 69.  The Krasnogvargeyskiy District Prosecutor’s Office examined the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against O.H. under Article 5.35 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. However, the failure to establish O.H.’s whereabouts made it impossible to serve summonses on her, to obtain her explanations and to serve her with the record of administrative offence. 70.  The prosecution authorities also conducted a check at O.H.’s presumed place of residence in Nyuksenitsa, Vologda Region. It was established that O.H. and the second applicant did not live there. 71.  On 21 December 2012 Nyuksenskiy District Prosecutor questioned O.H.’s mother, G.K. The latter submitted that O.H. had lived and worked in Nyuksenitsa between June and August 2012, but that O.H.’s subsequent whereabouts were unknown to her. G.K. further submitted that the first applicant was not supporting O.H. financially, that he had arrived in Nyuksenitsa in summer 2012 and sent 4,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to O.H.’s place of residence in St Petersburg, although he had known that O.H. had been living and working in Nyuksenitsa at that time. 72.  It was established that in 2012 the second applicant had been enrolled for external studies in the first grade of Kirovskiy District school no. 277 in St Petersburg under a distance learning programme. When O.H. had signed a contract with the school she had given a St Petersburg address. 73.  On 31 January and 13 May 2013 the local police inspector again went to the above-mentioned address in St Petersburg, in vain. 74.  In August 2013 O.H. logged onto the school educational website, which suggested that the child started the second grade programme. 75.  To the present day the whereabouts of O.H. and the second applicant remain unknown. 76.  On 30 December 2008 the Russian Ministry of Justice received from the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic court orders issued by Prague 4 District Court for a check of O.H.’s living conditions and certain other procedural actions to be carried out. 77.  On 26 January and 27 January 2009 respectively, in accordance with the Treaty between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance, the court orders were submitted to the North-Western Federal Circuit Department of the Ministry of Justice (Управление Министерства юстиции Российской Федерации по Северо-Западному федеральному округу). 78.  On 16 March and 30 April 2009 reminders were sent to the North‑Western Federal Circuit Department of the Ministry of Justice. 79.  According to that department, the execution of the orders had been complicated by the failure of the court to provide O.H.’s correct address. 80.  On 31 July 2009 the Russian Ministry of Justice submitted to the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic the documents on execution of the orders of Prague 4 District Court. 81.  On 29 October 2010 and 12 November 2010 the Russian Ministry of Justice received from the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic another order issued by Prague 4 District Court to take certain procedural steps in respect of O.H. and a request for service of court documents on O.H. 82.  On 11 November and 23 November 2010 respectively the court order and request for service of documents were submitted to the North‑Western Federal Circuit Department. 83.  On 12 May 2011 the Russian Ministry of Justice informed the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic that it was impossible to execute the orders of Prague 4 District Court. 84.  Following receipt of a note from the Embassy of the Czech Republic forwarded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, on 29 March 2012, the Russian Ministry of Justice submitted to the North-Western Federal Circuit Department a court order issued by Prague 4 District Court for service of court documents on O.H. 85.  On 31 July 2012 the Russian Ministry of Justice submitted to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs the documents attesting to the impossibility of executing that court order. 86.  Following receipt of another note from the Embassy of the Czech Republic, on 22 November 2012 the Russian Ministry of Justice again submitted to the North-Western Federal Circuit Department a court order issued by Prague 4 District Court for service of court documents on O.H. 87.  On 1 June 2012, the first day of acceptance by the Czech Republic of Russia’s accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, the first applicant filed a request under Article 21 of the Convention for securing the effective exercise of his “access rights” in respect of his daughter, the second applicant. 88.  On 21 August 2012 the Office for the Legal Protection of Children (“the Czech Central Authority”) informed the Russian Ministry of Education and Science (“the Russian Central Authority”) that the first applicant had discovered the whereabouts of O.H. in Vologda Region. However, he had not seen his daughter. 89.  As the Russian Central Authority had not replied to the above‑mentioned letters, on 1 October 2012 a reminder was sent to it. 90.  On 1 November 2012, at the request of the Czech Central Authority, the Ambassador of the Czech Republic in Moscow sent a letter to the Russian Central Authority. 91.  On 5 March 2013 the Russian Central Authority replied that it was not possible to establish O.H. and the second applicant’s place of residence. 92.  In the meantime, on 12 December 2012 and 27 March 2013 the Czech Central Authority contacted the Russian Children’s Ombudsman about the same issue. The Czech Authority has not yet received a reply. 93.  On 21 May and 6 September 2013 the Czech Central Authority sent further letters to the Russian Central Authority. No reply has been received. Another reminder was sent on 13 December 2013. 94.  On 11 November 2013 the Czech Central Authority sent a letter to the Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private Law asking for help in securing effective cooperation between the Czech and Russian Central Authorities.


5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Wadowice Górne. 6.  The applicant is married with two children. Prior to his early retirement he had been employed for twenty-eight years and had paid social security contributions to the State. 7.  On 28 May 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension. 8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on 24 May 2001. The certificate stated that his daughter M (born in 1990) had suffered from chronic asthma (przewlekła astma oskrzelowa) and chronic allergy sinusitis (całoroczny alergiczny niezyt nosa) and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care. 9.  On 16 July 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 May 2001 in the net amount of 880.99 Polish zlotys. 10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 31 July 2001 the applicant resigned from his full-time job as a driver at the road and bridge construction company (Przedsiębiorstwo Drogowo-Mostowe) in Dębica. 11.  Consequently, on 21 August 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a new decision authorising the payment of the previously awarded retirement pension starting from 1 August 2001. 12.  On 27 August 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On an unknown date the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care. 13.  On 4 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. 14.  By virtue of the first decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings and revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. 15.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. 16.  On 28 November 2002 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) ordered that the case be remitted to the Social Security Board and that the applicant’s child be examined by the Social Security Board’s doctor. 17.  On 31 March 2003 the Social Security Board’s doctor, who had examined the applicant’s child, stated that M suffered from asthma (astma oskrzelowa) and allergy sinusitis (alergiczny nieżyt nosa) but did not require the permanent care of a parent. 18.  On 25 February 2004 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her father’s permanent care, since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as he did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care. 19.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. 20.  On 22 July 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. 21.  On 24 January 2005 the Supreme Court refused to entertain a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer. 22.  Following the revocation of his right to the early-retirement pension the applicant was not ordered to return his early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board. 23.  As from 1 September 2002 the applicant was unemployed and has been covered by the social insurance scheme for farmers. 24.  The Government submitted that between 6 January 2005 and 11 May 2010 the applicant received sickness benefits in a total amount of PLN 7,183. They stressed that the applicant and his wife own a farm with an area of 1.83 hectares which was an additional source of income for them. Furthermore, a farm with an area of at least 1 hectare entitles the owner to receive support payments for farmers from European Union funds. 25.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they did not specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation. 26.  The applicant did not provide details about his financial situation after the revocation of his EWK pension. He only submitted that he was unemployed and although he ran a small farm it did not generate much income. 27.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension when he turns sixty‑five in 2018. 28.  Some 130 applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the Court. The majority of the applicants form the Association of Victims of the SSB (Stowarzyszenie Osób Poszkodowanych przez ZUS) (“the Association”), an organisation monitoring the practices of the Social Security Board in Poland, in particular in the Podkarpacki region. 29.  Out of all applications lodged with the Court, about twenty-four applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal given in their case. 30.  One hundred-and-four applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases. The Supreme Court entertained and dismissed on the merits fifteen appeals. In eighty-one applications the Supreme Court refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require the Supreme Court to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts. In the remaining eight cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements.


4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Siemianowice Śląskie, Poland. 5.  On 21 August 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having stabbed a certain A.T. during a quarrel and being under the influence of alcohol. 6.  On 23 August 2001 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that he had attempted to commit a homicide. The court also considered that given the severity of the penalty that could be expected, it was probable that the applicant would interfere with the course of proceedings. At the same time, the court rejected the prosecutor’s assertion that there was also a risk of collusion. 7.  On 12 November 2001 the District Court further prolonged the detention, referring in particular to the fact that the investigation had not yet ended. 8.  On 8 February 2002 the applicant was indicted before the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). 9.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently prolonged on 18 February and 5 August 2002 and on 5 January 2003. The trial court justified its decisions by reference to the high probability that the applicant had committed the offence and the gravity of the charges, which might attract a heavy sentence. 10.  On 14 April 2003 the Katowice Regional Court further prolonged the applicant’s detention relying, in addition to the previous grounds, on the fact that the trial court had not yet completed the taking of evidence. 11.  The applicant’s numerous applications for release and appeals against decisions concerning prolongation of his detention were to no avail. 12.  On 23 May 2003 the trial court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant as charged finding that, given his state of mind at the time of events, he could not be held fully responsible for his actions. The Regional Court sentenced the applicant to six years’ imprisonment. 13.  On 11 December 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal gave judgment which it quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case. 14.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was not lifted. The trial court prolonged it on 16 January, 10 May and 13 September 2004 relying on the same grounds as before: the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the gravity of the charges and the risk that given the severity of the expected penalty the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. 15.  On 29 September 2004 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The court considered that the applicant had overstepped the limits of legitimate self-defence and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. 16.  On 27 January 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. It appears that the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal and that this judgment became final. 17.  On 27 November 2004 the applicant sent a letter to the Court. The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the following stamp: Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny Katowice), a handwritten note: censorship, 29 December 2004 (cenzura, 29.12.04) and an illegible signature. The envelope bears signs of having been opened after being sealed: its left side has been cut open and then resealed with sellotape. It appears that the envelope was stamped with the Court of Appeal’s stamp described above after being resealed with sellotape.


5.  The applicants were born in 1929 and 1937 respectively and live in Plovdiv. 6.  The applicants are sisters. Their ancestor and another person, P.D., had owned 14,688 square metres of agricultural land which they had divided in 1957 in equal parts of 7,344 square metres each. Following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act in 1991, the applicants and the heirs of P.D., separately, requested the restitution of their respective parts. The applicants’ request was submitted on 13 March 1991. In a decision of 5 July 1994 the Plovdiv Agricultural Land Commission (“the land commission”) restored 7,015 square metres to the applicants and dismissed their request for the remaining 329 square metres. The heirs of P.D. obtained a decision restoring to them their 7,344 square metres of land. 7.  On 8 September 1994 the applicants appealed to the Plovdiv District Court, asking the court to declare that they were entitled to restitution of the entire plot. 8.  On 24 October 1995 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. Relying on an expert’s report it held that the land had been restored to the heirs of P.D. The court thus concluded that the applicants should have brought an action against the latter. The applicants did not submit a petition for review (cassation) against the judgment of 24 October 1995. 9.  On 18 August 1997 the applicants brought an action for rei vindicatio against the heirs of P.D. They sought to be recognised as the owners of 391.5 square metres of land and to obtain possession thereof. 10.  Of the seventeen hearings held between 12 November 1997 and 16 March 2000 four were adjourned at the applicants’ request. Six of the remaining hearings were adjourned for reasons related to the preparation of expert reports commissioned by the court. At least four other hearings were adjourned so that new evidence could be collected or to allow the parties to get acquainted with such evidence. 11.  On 5 April 2000 the Plovdiv District Court found against the applicants. It noted that the applicants had stated that their action had been based on section 14 § 4 of the Agricultural Land Act and had not been a rei vindicatio one. However, it was clear from the facts on which it was grounded and the formulation of the applicants’ claims that the action was for rei vindicatio. The District Court noted that the land commission had restored 7,015 square metres to the applicants and 7,344 square metres to the defendants. The missing land had not been restored to the defendants, although it was not clear to whom it had been given. Accordingly, the action was dismissed. 12.  On 13 April 2000 the applicants filed an appeal against the judgment of 5 April 2000. 13.  The first hearing was held on 12 December 2000 and the second one on 26 February 2001. 14.  On 29 June 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. It noted that the applicants did not claim that the heirs of P.D. had obtained land in excess and on that ground found that there was no legal dispute, within the meaning of section 14 § 4 of the Agricultural Land Act. It further found that it could not assess the lawfulness of the land commission’s decision of 1991 which had become final in 1995. 15.  Following an appeal filed by the applicants on 2 August 2001 and a hearing held on 10 October 2002, on 4 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 29 June 2001 and remitted the case to the Regional Court for fresh examination holding that the latter had failed to examine all the relevant issues and instructing it to examine the whole restitution file. 16.  On 12 September 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of the District Court of 5 April 2000. It subscribed to the lower court’s findings and noted that the land commission’s decision had become final in 1995. 17.  Following an appeal filed by the applicants on 15 October 2003 and a hearing held on 26 January 2005, on 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment. The court endorsed the lower courts’ finding that the decision of the land commission had become final and therefore must be respected. It also held that the applicants had neither proved that the defendants were in possession of the claimed piece of land nor its precise location.


5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in the town of Vanadzor, Lori Region of Armenia. 6.  The applicant worked as the Lori Regional Branch Manager of the Credit Service Bank (hereafter, the Bank). 7.  On 19 March 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of abuse of official capacity by the former management of the Bank through embezzlement of funds entrusted to it by another company. 8.  On 8 April 2002 the Lori Regional Court issued a judicial warrant authorising the search of the premises of the Bank’s Lori Regional Branch with the aim of seizing relevant accounting documents. 9.  On 22 April 2002 the applicant was questioned as a witness and was asked various questions about the Bank’s activities in dealing with the funds entrusted to it. According to the applicant, during the following year he was questioned as a witness on seven other occasions. 10.  On 29 November 2002 the prosecutor’s office ordered an expert examination of the Bank’s financial records. 11.  On 1 April 2003 the applicant was arrested. 12.  On 2 April 2003 the applicant was formally charged under paragraph 4 of Article 90, paragraph 4 of Article 90 in conjunction with Article 17, and Article 187 of the former Criminal Code (hereafter, the former CC) with embezzlement through abuse of his official capacity and official falsification through preparation and use of false accounting documents. It appears that ten other persons, including A.D., were also charged with involvement in the above crimes and later stood trial with the applicant. 13.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the investigator’s motion seeking to have the applicant placed in pre-trial detention for a period of two months. In doing so, the District Court referred to the nature and degree of dangerousness of the acts of which the applicant was accused, as well as all the grounds envisaged by Article 135 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the CCP). 14.  On 16 April 2003 the applicant, who had a defence lawyer, lodged an appeal against this decision. 15.  On 2 May 2003 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 16.  On 23 May 2003 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to grant the investigator’s motion seeking to have the applicant’s detention extended for two months, referring to the need to carry out further investigative measures. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision. 17.  On 23 July 2003 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to grant the investigator’s motion seeking to have the applicant’s detention extended for one more month, namely until 1 September 2003, on the same ground. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 18.  On 1 August 2003 a new Criminal Code (hereafter, the new CC) entered into force in Armenia. 19.  On 11 August 2003 the charges against the applicant were adapted to the new CC and on 12 August 2003 he was formally charged under Article 179 § 3 (1), Article 179 § 3 (1) in conjunction with Article 38 and 325 § 2 of the new CC. 20.  On 26 August 2003 the applicant was informed of the conclusion of the investigation and was granted access to the case file which apparently consisted of 34 volumes of written materials. It appears that the applicant finished familiarising himself with the materials of the case on 10 November 2003. 21.  On 11 November 2003 the applicant complained to the prosecutor that, inter alia, he had been kept in detention since 1 September 2003 without a court decision and requested to be released. 22.  On 13 November 2003 the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. 23.  On 14 November 2003 the prosecutor approved the indictment and the case was transmitted to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan for examination. 24.  On 17 November 2003 Judge A. of the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to admit the case to his proceedings. 25.  On 1 December 2003 Judge A. decided to set the case down for trial, fixing the date of the first hearing for 8 December 2003 and finding, inter alia, that there were no grounds to change or cancel the applicant’s detention. 26.  Between 8 December 2003 and 13 September 2005 the District Court held 57 hearings at varying intervals, ten of which were apparently adjourned. At the trial the indictment was maintained by prosecutors T. and A. 27.  As it appears from the handwritten court transcripts, at the hearing of 15 December 2004 the applicant filed a motion seeking to be released from detention. Upon a request of a representative of the victim, Judge A. postponed the examination of the applicant’s motion until the next court hearing due to take place on 27 December 2004. At the hearing of 27 December 2004 the applicant requested the trial court not to examine his motion lodged at the previous hearing, and Judge A. left it without examination. 28.  According to the applicant, during the hearing of 27 December 2004 two of his co-defendants lodged two other motions with the trial court. At the time those motions were made, his written motion to be released, lodged at the previous court hearing, was still lying on the judge’s desk. As the judge retired to the deliberation room in order to decide on the two motions of the co-defendants, he expected the judge to examine his motion too. However, as the judge came back and pronounced his decision on the two co-defendants’ motions only, he realised that his motion to be released had not been examined. The judge’s behaviour caused considerable stress to him and his family members, who were present in the court room. As a result, a dispute broke out between him and the judge, which grew into a polemic involving all the co-defendants, their defence lawyers and the court audience. The court room became very noisy and the judge announced that he was going to adjourn the hearing. It was at that moment that he gave in to his emotions and announced that if the judge continued subjecting him and his family to psychological anguish, he would better never examine the motion. Immediately thereafter, the judge adjourned the hearing and left the court room. The judge apparently took his emotional announcement as an explicit request to withdraw the motion as he then decided to leave it without examination. In substantiation of his account of the events, the applicant attached written statements made to that effect by one of the co-accused, A.D. and his mother. 29.  On 14 November 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan delivered its judgment. The District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 179 § 2 (3) in conjunction with Article 38, and Article 325 § 1 of the new CC of abetting one of the co-defendants to embezzle funds, and of falsification and use of documents such as various credit agreements concluded between the Bank and a third person. The District Court sentenced the applicant to two years and six months’ imprisonment under Article 179 § 2 in conjunction with Article 38, and discontinued the proceedings under Article 325 § 1 by applying a statute of limitations. The applicant was immediately released from detention since he had already served the term of his sentence. 30.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal. It appears that during the examination of the appeal by the Criminal Court of Appeal the applicant submitted that he could not have been considered as a perpetrator of an offence under Article 325 § 1. 31.  On 10 April 2006 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court finding, inter alia, that any person who had reached the age of 16 and had a legal capacity, including a private employer, could be considered as a perpetrator under Article 325 § 1. 32.  On 20 April 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In his appeal he argued, inter alia, that Article 325 of the new CC should not have been applied to his case as documents of a private bank could not be considered as official and, consequently, their falsification fell outside its scope. 33.  On 1 June 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Court of Cassation found, inter alia, that:
“Documents to which public authorities give legal significance are considered official. Official documents may be issued both by public authorities, their officials and bodies of local self-government, and by legal entities, commercial and other types of organisations. Such documents as credit or other financial documents drawn up by commercial banks can also be considered as [official documents], since they also have legal significance...”


5.  The applicant was born in 1971. He is currently serving a prison sentence. 6.  On 1 May 2007, at about 1 a.m., the corpse of Ms Kh., the applicant’s wife, from whom he was separated, was discovered with multiple stab wounds. 7.  Later on 1 May 2007, at about 3 a.m., the police apprehended and questioned the applicant. His questioning was documented as that of a witness. The applicant confessed to the murder of Ms Kh. 8.  The applicant described the circumstances in which that confession was given as follows. He had been taken to Gorodok Town Police Station, where the police had threatened him with a view to extracting a confession. As the applicant had refused to confess, they had handcuffed his hands behind his back, pulled a black cap over his head, covering his eyes, and had taken him somewhere downstairs. The applicant had been made to sit on a chair and his feet had been tied to the chair legs. The applicant had felt something touching his head behind the ears and something being pressed against his temples, and as his body started to shake and jerk realised that electric shocks were being administered to him. This had been repeated several times. The applicant had fallen off the chair. Thereafter a police officer had unzipped the applicant’s trousers and attached electric wires to his genitals. After several electric shocks had been administered to his genitals, the applicant had agreed to confess to the incriminated murder. After saying that he could not remember certain details, more electric shocks had been administered to him. One of the police officers involved in the ill-treatment had complained to the applicant that the latter had ruined his birthday celebration and had expressed his determination to obtain a confession from him. 9.  According to the Government’s account of the events, the applicant had not suffered any ill-treatment and had confessed to the murder of his own free will. 10.  On the evening of 1 May 2007 the applicant’s “voluntary surrender to the police” was documented, and he was questioned again, this time as a suspect. He signed a report confirming that his right to legal assistance had been explained to him. As noted in the questioning report, at first the applicant had expressed the wish to be represented by a lawyer, but had later decided to waive his right to legal assistance. He stated during the questioning that his waiver had not resulted from any ill-treatment. 11.  On the same day an expert from the Yarmolyntsi Town Forensic Expert Examination Bureau examined the applicant on the investigator’s instruction with a view to establishing whether he had any injuries, if so, what their location and nature were, and finally whether those injuries could have been caused by a struggle with the victim. 12.  With effect from 2 May 2007, the applicant was represented by lawyer B., who had been contracted by his sister. He was questioned as a suspect in the presence of his lawyer and maintained his confession. He further maintained it during the reconstruction of the crime conducted on the same day with the participation of his lawyer. 13.  On 3 May 2007 the expert who had examined the applicant on 1 May 2007 completed the examination report. It documented a bruise on the applicant’s left shoulder blade, a bruise on the left side of his torso, a bruise beneath the right shoulder blade, a bruise on the left shoulder and another bruise in the upper part of the left forearm, a bruise on the left wrist, a bruise on the back of the right hand and on the right wrist, and an abrasion and a bruise on the left ear. The injuries in question were assessed as having originated one or two days prior to the examination from blows inflicted by blunt objects with a limited surface, and by falling against a blunt surface. They were assessed as insignificant. In addition, the expert reported two abrasions behind the applicant’s right ear, which could have originated from blunt hard objects with a limited surface and a slightly sharp edge (such as nails). The age of these sores was assessed as one day prior to the examination. Some older bruises (three to five days old) were also discovered. 14.  On 4 May 2007 the applicant was again questioned in the presence of his lawyer. He maintained his confession. As regards his injuries, he explained that he had sustained them while working on a construction site and during his fight with Ms Kh. The applicant stated that the police had not ill-treated him. 15.  On the same day the Gorodok Town Court remanded the applicant in custody pending trial. During the hearing he repeated his confession and did not lodge any complaints. 16.  Still on that date, 4 May 2007, the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors in the Gorodok Central City Hospital. They found him to be in good health. 17.  With effect from 8 May 2007 the applicant was represented by lawyer T. instead of lawyer B. He immediately retracted his confession and complained of his ill-treatment to the Gorodok town prosecutor’s office. The applicant submitted that he had incriminated himself as a result of coercion and that he had not committed the crime in question. He alleged that he had sustained electric shocks at the hands of the police and stated that no other ill-treatment had been used on him. As to his bruises, the applicant noted that they could have been caused by his falling to the floor whilst tied to a chair. He further explained that even when represented by lawyer B., he had been afraid to tell the truth and had repeated his confession as the lawyer had recommended. 18.  On 10 May 2007 the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer T. While maintaining the complaint concerning his ill-treatment, he submitted that his ear had been injured earlier, prior to his encounter with the police. 19.  On 7 June 2007 an additional forensic medical examination report was delivered in respect of the applicant. The question before the expert was whether the applicant had any injuries demonstrating that electric shocks had been administered to him on 1 May 2007. According to the report, the applicant had three superficial wounds to his genitals, which had been inflicted at least two weeks before the examination. The expert found it impossible to establish whether those wounds had originated from electric shocks. However, he stated that it was equally impossible to exclude that possibility. 20.  On 14 November 2007 the prosecutor questioned the forensic medical expert who had examined the applicant on 1 May and 7 June 2007 (see paragraphs 11, 13 and 19 above). She submitted, in particular, that the bruises discovered on his wrists on 1 May 2007 could have been caused by handcuffs. The expert also noted that the applicant had not complained before 7 June 2007 that electric shocks had been administered to him. It was not possible to state with precision when the wounds on his genitals could have been inflicted. Their healing time could vary significantly depending on individual characteristics. Overall, the expert considered it improbable that the applicant might have sustained those injuries on 1 May 2007 and in the circumstances described by him. 21.  On the same day the prosecutor also questioned the dermatologist who had participated in the examination of the applicant on 4 May 2007 (see paragraph 16 above). The doctor stated that she had examined the applicant’s genitals and that no wounds or other signs of ill-treatment had been discovered. She also noted that the applicant had not raised any complaints. 22.  During the period between May 2007 and January 2008 the prosecution authorities refused on six occasions to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers involved in the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. Five of those rulings were quashed for the incompleteness and superficiality of the investigation. As to the sixth ruling, of 29 January 2008, it is not clear whether it was eventually quashed. The report of 7 June 2007 was mentioned in only one ruling, that of 16 November 2007. The prosecutor, however, concluded that it could not be regarded as sufficient evidence that electric shocks had been administered to the applicant. 23.  On 27 February 2008 the Dunayivtsi Town Court found the applicant guilty of the premeditated murder of Ms Kh. and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. It relied, in particular, on the applicant’s “surrender to the police” and subsequent self-incriminating statements. As to his allegation of ill-treatment by the police, it was dismissed as unsubstantiated. 24.  The applicant appealed. He submitted that he had incriminated himself under duress and pointed out certain discrepancies in the evidence. 25.  On 14 May 2008 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal (“the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court”) upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. 26.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, in which he maintained the arguments advanced earlier in his appeal. 27.  On 14 April 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 14 May 2008 and remitted the case for fresh examination by the appellate court. It stated that the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court had not sufficiently addressed the applicant’s arguments. The Supreme Court also criticised the lower courts for formalistic examination of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. It stated that no evaluation had been made of the medical evidence in the case file, according to which it could not be ruled out that his injuries had been sustained in the circumstances as described by him. 28.  On 27 July 2009 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court quashed the judgment of 27 February 2008 and remitted the case to the Gorodok Prosecutor for additional investigation. It referred to the issues pointed out by the Supreme Court. 29.  On 17 March 2010 the Dunayivtsi Court pronounced a new verdict, the operative part of which was identical to that of 27 February 2008. As before, the court relied on the applicant’s initial confessions, including that of 1 May 2007, which was documented as his “voluntary surrender to the police”. The court dismissed all the defence arguments, considering them to be nothing more than the applicant’s attempts to avoid criminal liability. As to his motives for the murder, the court considered them to have been his jealousy and his wish to reunite with Ms Kh. Allegations of aggressive behaviour towards the victim in the past had been confirmed by several witnesses. Lastly, the applicant’s allegation about having suffered electric shocks was rejected as unsubstantiated. The court noted in that regard that the applicant had made his confessions in the presence of his lawyer B. 30.  The applicant submitted an appeal, and later an appeal on points of law, reiterating his earlier argumentation. 31.  The Khmelnytskyy Regional Court and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 17 March 2010 on 26 May 2010 and 24 March 2011 respectively.