6.  The applicant was born in 1968. He originates from Baghdad. 7.  The applicant applied for asylum in Sweden on 5 November 2007. In support of his application, he submitted in essence the following. He is Christian and had been an active member of the Syrian-Orthodox Church. In Baghdad, he had lived with his wife and two children. In February 2007 his wife, who had worked as a university lecturer teaching Arabic, had received a threatening letter, demanding that she quit her job and stating that, as a Christian, she had no right to teach “the language of the Qur’an”. She had not returned to work after receiving the letter. In April 2007 the applicant had been contacted by a man claiming to be a member of the Mujahedin. He had demanded a contribution of 10,000 U.S. dollars to help the group in its fight against the American troops. The applicant had responded that he did not have the money. One week later, the man had called again, saying that the applicant and his family had to convert to Islam if they did not pay the amount. They had gone into hiding at a friend’s home in another part of Baghdad for three weeks and had thereafter returned to their house. On the day of their return, 6 May 2007, three masked and armed men had tried to pull the applicant out of his car when he had been driving his son home. They had assaulted the applicant, taken his son and disappeared in a car. Three days later the son had been found on the street, strangled. The applicant had reported the murder to the police but had received no help as, according to the police, they could not even protect themselves. The applicant and his family had again moved in with friends in another part of the city. In June 2007 an unknown person had called the applicant, saying that he knew the applicant had a daughter and that she risked being subjected to the same treatment as his son. In September 2007 the family had fled to Syria. The applicant had returned to Iraq alone on 14 September 2007 and had left for Sweden on 25 October the same year. In August 2008 his wife had received a call from their previous neighbours, who had stated that the applicant and his family had been searched for at their house on several occasions. In October 2008 the family had been told that their house had been seized by the persons who had searched for them. 8.  On 30 December 2008 the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) rejected the application. The Board pointed out that a year and a half had passed since the alleged incidents and that the security situation in Baghdad had improved during this period. It also stated that the threats against the applicant appeared to be limited to the area where the incidents had occurred and that the applicant could return to a different part of Baghdad. 9.  The applicant appealed, adding that his wife had returned to Baghdad in April 2009 due to the precarious situation in Syria and that she had tried to return to her previous job. On 2 April 2009, however, she had been attacked and assaulted by two masked men, who had threatened to kill her as she had not obeyed their demand that she quit her job. She had reported the incident to the police but had received no help. She had then returned to Syria. 10.  On 4 May 2010 the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) upheld the decision of the Board. The court considered that the letter to the applicant’s wife was clearly connected to her work and held that the applicant had failed to show that there was a connection between the letter, the kidnapping and death of his son in May 2007 and the assault of his wife in April 2009. The incidents rather seemed to be individual and separate acts of criminality related to the general security situation in Iraq at that time. Three years had passed since the initial incidents, during which time the level of sectarian violence had declined. 11.  On 27 August 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrations-överdomstolen) refused leave to appeal. 12.  In July 2010 the applicant’s wife and his daughter, born in 2002, arrived in Sweden and applied for asylum. The wife essentially gave the same account of events as the applicant, adding that she had returned to Baghdad from Syria in search of a job for a second time in May 2010. She had then been kidnapped and raped by a group of men who had told her that this was her last warning. As she had been raped, it was excluded that her husband would want her back and the couple therefore intended to divorce. 13.  On 22 September 2011 the Migration Board granted the wife and the daughter permanent residence permits in Sweden. The Board had regard to the incidents to which the wife had been exposed when returning to Baghdad on two occasions and concluded that, against the background of the serious violent conflict prevalent in the city, the wife would risk severe assaults if she returned there. Taking further account of her Christian beliefs and status as a single mother without a male network, it found that she had substantiated that she could not rely on the protection of the Iraqi authorities. The Board also considered that there was no reasonable internal flight alternative for her and the daughter. 14.  On 15 December 2011 the Migration Board examined ex officio whether there were any impediments to the enforcement of the applicant’s deportation order. It noted that a residence permit based on family ties could exceptionally be granted if the enforcement of a deportation order would have consequences for a child and it was clear that the family ties were so strong that the permit would have been granted if the application, as prescribed by the standard rules, had been lodged before the arrival in Sweden. It considered that this situation was not at hand in the applicant’s case, as there was no information as to how the relation between the applicant and his wife and daughter would develop. 15.  The applicant has thereafter made two requests for reconsideration, stating that, while he and his wife had been separated for a long time and had been in conflict, they had now decided to reunite. They had moved in with each other and the wife was pregnant with a child expected for October 2012. 16.  On 8 May and 21 September 2012, respectively, the Migration Board again refused to reconsider the case. Taking into account the applicant’s long separation from his wife and their ensuing conflict, it did not find the family ties to be strong enough to grant a residence permit based on an application lodged in Sweden.


4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Yambol. At the material time she was employed as a human resources specialist at a steel production company. 5.  In February 1998 the applicant’s employment was terminated and she was offered another position with the same company for a lower salary. 6.  On 17 September 1998 she brought a claim against her employer, complaining about the loss of income resulting from her reassignment to a less well-paid job. 7.  In a judgment of 29 June 1999 the Sofia District Court dismissed the claim, and the applicant appealed to the Sofia City Court. 8.  The court held two hearings, one of which was adjourned owing to the defective summoning of the applicant’s employer. At the third hearing, held on 23 November 2000, the applicant asked for the proceedings to be stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings brought in May 1999 (see paragraph 11 below). On 4 June 2001 the court turned down her request. The applicant appealed against this ruling. On 22 November 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation found that it could not examine the appeal as it had no access to the case file of the May 1999 proceedings. It therefore sent the case back to the Sofia City Court, instructing it to enclose the case file and return all the materials to it for an examination of the appeal. After this was done, on 6 August 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the Sofia City Court’s ruling, holding that the determination of the case was not dependent on the outcome of the 1999 proceedings. 9.  The proceedings on the merits then resumed before the Sofia City Court. On 27 October 2004, after holding four more hearings, it upheld the Sofia District Court’s judgment. The text of the court’s judgment indicated that it was appealable on points of law. 10.  The applicant lodged an appeal, but on 14 March 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation declared it inadmissible, observing that following a legislative amendment which had entered into force in 2002, appellate judgments in certain employment disputes were no longer subject to appeal on points of law. 11.  In February 1999 the applicant was dismissed from her employment, and on 25 May 1999 she instituted proceedings against her former employer, seeking a declaration that the dismissal had been unfair, reinstatement and compensation for six months of lost wages. 12.  After holding five hearings, two of which were adjourned owing to the failure of an expert to file her report in time, in a judgment of 17 July 2000 the Sofia District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. 13.  On 6 October 2000 the applicant appealed. After holding six hearings, in a judgment of 29 April 2004 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. 14.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant appealed on points of law. After holding a hearing on 8 February 2008, in a final judgment of 1 July 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment.


5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in İzmir. He is a homosexual. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Eskişehir Prison.
In 2009 a number of sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for, inter alia, forgery of documents, deception, credit-card fraud and misrepresentation on official documents. On 2 June 2009 the Karşıyaka Assize Court sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment at his first trial. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. The case is apparently still pending before that court. On 28 December 2009 the İzmir Assize Court, for its part, sentenced the applicant to ten years, three months and twenty-two days’ imprisonment for committing the offences referred to above more than once. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation against that judgment as well. The appeal is still pending. 6.  On 24 October 2008 the applicant went to the Çiğli police station in İzmir and confessed to committing a series of offences, such as forgery of documents, deception, credit-card fraud and misrepresentation on official documents. He was subsequently remanded in custody by a justice of the peace and taken to Buca Prison in İzmir. 7.  At Buca the applicant was first placed in a shared cell with heterosexual inmates. 8.  On 5 February 2009 the applicant’s representative asked the prison authorities to transfer the applicant, for safety reasons, to another shared cell with homosexual prisoners. In support of the request, he specified that his client had been intimidated and bullied by his fellow inmates. According to the record of his statement drawn up the same day and signed by two prison warders and the applicant, the latter made the following statement:
“I am currently living in block no. 6. I have a homosexual condition (“eşcinsellik hastalığ”). When my fellow inmates found out about this, I started having problems. I have informed the prison governor about the situation through my lawyer. I wish to be transferred to a block adapted to my situation.” 9.  On 5 February 2009 the prison authorities decided to place the applicant on his own in an individual cell. The record of that decision contains the following passage:-
“... the prisoner, who has said he has a homosexual condition, has been placed in an individual cell instead of his current block.” 10.  The applicant stated that the cell in which he had been placed measured 7 m², with living space of no more than half that. It had a bed and toilets, but no washbasin, was very poorly lit and very dirty and rat-infested. The applicant said that there were ten other cells of the same type that were intended for solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure or for inmates accused of paedophilia or rape. After he had been put in an individual cell on 5 February 2009, the applicant was deprived of any contact with other inmates and any social activity. He had not been permitted any outdoor exercise and had been allowed out of his cell only to see his lawyer or attend hearings held approximately once per month. 11.  The Government did not dispute those facts. They specified that the cell had been equipped with the furniture and facilities necessary for day-to-day living, such as lighting, toilets, a bed, wardrobe and chair. They explained that the applicant had been alone in the cell until another homosexual prisoner had arrived at the prison. 12.  On 21 April 2009 the applicant lodged a request with the İzmir public prosecutor’s office for the measures against him to be lifted. He specified that he was a homosexual and not a transvestite or transsexual. On account of his sexual orientation, he had been detained in an individual cell without any contact with other inmates and without being able to take part in any social activity. He had been detained in those conditions for three months and had had psychiatric problems as a result. He pointed out that in the Turkish prison system only inmates who had been sentenced to whole-life imprisonment were detained in similar conditions. He requested equal treatment to other inmates. 13.  On 7 May 2009 the applicant lodged a further request, through his lawyer, with the İzmir Post-Sentencing Judge, who also had responsibility for monitoring conditions of pre-trial detention, seeking an end to his solitary confinement and a return to ordinary conditions of detention. He stated that there had been no basis for placing and keeping him in solitary confinement and that he had suffered detrimental and irreparable psychological effects as a result. He maintained that these inhuman and degrading conditions of detention had been imposed on him solely on the basis of his sexual orientation, on the pretext of protecting him from bodily harm. He had never asked to be put in cells with other inmates; his complaint was about the fact that for more than three months he had been unable to go outdoors and that the only person he had been able to talk to had been his lawyer. He requested equal treatment to other inmates, with the possibility of outdoor exercise and social activities with other inmates, by means of measures protecting his physical integrity. He observed further that the matters of which he complained amounted to a violation of Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8, taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. 14.  On 25 May 2009 the Post-Sentencing Judge decided, after merely examining the file, that it was not necessary to decide the applicant’s claim on the merits. In doing so, he observed in particular that the applicant was not a “convicted prisoner” but was merely in pre-trial detention and that the practice of the prison authorities was in conformity with the law both in form and substance. He noted that the prison authorities had a discretionary power as Law no. 5275 on the execution of sentences and security measures did not contain specific rules for taking account of the wishes of remand prisoners regarding their placement in prisons, as was the case for the placement of convicted prisoners. He held, inter alia:
“... it has been established that the applicant is being detained as a preventive measure in an individual cell as the State cannot run the risk of a transvestite being lynched [in a prison] ...” 15.  On 29 May 2009 the applicant challenged that decision before the İzmir Assize Court. He stated in his pleadings that he had been placed in solitary confinement twenty-four hours per day in Buca Prison on no legal basis and that he had been deprived of any contact with other inmates or outdoor exercise. Drawing attention to his age and psychological condition, which had significantly deteriorated since he had been kept in solitary confinement, he explained that he was unable to endure such conditions of detention. He also stated that, notwithstanding the pretext that his physical integrity was at risk on account of his sexual orientation, the fact that he had been placed in solitary confinement was a highly inappropriate measure in his regard. He again requested equal treatment to other inmates and to be allowed outdoor exercise and social activities with other inmates, by means of measures capable of securing his physical integrity. 16.  On 4 June 2009 the Assize Court dismissed the challenge, after receiving the prosecutor’s opinion concerning the applicant’s request, without holding a hearing and without first communicating the prosecutor’s opinion to the applicant. The Assize Court confined itself to ruling that the Post-Sentencing Judge’s decision was in conformity with the law. 17.  During a hearing held on 12 June 2009 in another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant, the 5th Chamber of the İzmir Assize Court decided to send a letter to the Buca prison authorities requesting them to take all necessary measures regarding the applicant’s complaints about his conditions of detention. 18.  On 8 July 2009 the İzmir public prosecutor’s office transferred the applicant to Manisa Psychiatric Hospital for an assessment of his mental state. 19.  From 8 July to 12 August 2009 the applicant was kept under observation at Manisa Psychiatric Hospital. The parties did not provide any precise information about that period in hospital. On 12 August 2009 a medical report was drawn up by three psychiatrists. According to that report, the applicant suffered from a homosexual identity problem (“eşcinsel kimlik bozukluğu”). It also said that the suffering related to his conditions of detention corresponded to symptoms of reactive depression. It was decided that future psychiatric problems could be treated at the prison. The applicant was sent back to Buca Prison. 20.  From 8 August 2009 another homosexual inmate was placed in the applicant’s cell. 21.  On 11 November 2009 the prison authorities decided to separate the two prisoners. From that date the applicant was again deprived of any contact with other inmates. 22.  On 26 February 2010 the applicant was transferred to Eskişehir Prison and placed in a standard cell with three other inmates where he was given the same rights as other prisoners, such as outdoor exercise, sporting activities, regular contact with other inmates, and so on. According to his lawyer, the applicant still suffered from psychological problems – particularly depression and insomnia – on account of his previous solitary confinement at Buca Prison; he was taking anti-depressants and other medicines to calm him down and help him sleep.
...


5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Sarnów. 6.  The applicant is married and has two children. Prior to his application for an early‑retirement pension he had been employed for 25 years and had paid social security contributions to the State. 7.  In July 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 son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 15 May 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1994) suffered from mild asthma and bronchitis (astma oskrzelowa lagodna i spastyczne zapalenie oskrzeli) and that he was in need of his parent’s constant care. 9.  On 9 August 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 July 2001 in the net amount of 685 Polish zlotys (PLN). 10.  On 20 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 son required the permanent care of a parent. On 13 September 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care. 11.  On 19 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. 12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early‑retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights. 13.  On 29 May 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require his father’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his 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. 14.  The applicant further appealed against the first‑instance judgment. 15.  On 20 November 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. 16.  On 29 April 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. 17.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return his early‑retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of his right to an early‑retirement pension. 18.  The applicant submitted that after revocation of the EWK pension he remained unemployed until April 2007. During this time he received no social or unemployment benefits. His wife had been employed seasonally as a heating system operator in schools. They owned a farm which was too small to qualify them for the social security scheme for farmers and from which they derived no income. 19.  The Government submitted that the applicant took up employment in April 2007. They failed to specify the amount of his salary. However, after 2007 the family’s yearly income increased from PLN 6,000 (approx. 1,400 euros (EUR)) to PLN 30,000 (approx. EUR 7,000). The applicant’s wife worked between 2001 and 2010 during the winter months only. The Government maintained that the applicant’s wife also owned a small farm which might have constituted an additional source of income. 20.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards the 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. 21.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2022. 22.  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. 23.  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. 24.  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.


10.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Dettingen. 11.  In August 1996 the Dettingen municipal authorities imposed a fine of 120 German marks (DEM), plus costs amounting to DEM 36, on V.B., the applicant's son, for having exceeded the speed limit of 50 km/h by 28 km/h on the evening of 21 May 1996, when travelling in a car belonging to the Trinkomat private limited company (Regulations 3 § 3 (1) and 49 § 1 (3) of the Road Traffic Regulations and section 24 of the Road Traffic Act – see “Relevant domestic law” below). The applicant is the owner and manager of that company. 12.  On 4 September 1996 V.B. lodged an objection against the administrative decision imposing the fine. 13.  On 12 March 1997 the trial in the case opened before the Bad Urach District Court. V.B. pleaded not guilty, stating that about fifteen other persons could have been driving the company car in question on that day. The applicant, summoned as a witness, refused to give evidence, as he was entitled to do as a family member. The hearing was adjourned to 19 March 1997. 14.  On 13 March 1997 around 10 a.m. the applicant, on being asked by a policeman to give evidence about his employees in connection with the proceedings against his son, stated again that he did not wish to do so and that none of his employees was currently working on the business premises. On the same day a police officer, on the order of the Bad Urach District Court judge, asked the city of Dettingen to provide a passport photograph of the applicant's son. Police enquiries from the Dettingen trade authorities (Gewerbeamt) about the applicant's employees at the relevant time had led to nothing. 15.  On 13 March 1997, at an unknown time, the Bad Urach District Court, in the context of the above proceedings against V.B., issued a warrant to search the business and residential premises of the applicant. The warrant read as follows:
“In the context of the preliminary investigations against
... [V.B.] ...
concerning
the contravention of a traffic regulation,
pursuant to Article 33 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without a prior hearing, in accordance with Articles 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106 § 1, 111 et seq., and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 46 of the Contraventions of Regulations Act, 1.  the search of the business and residential premises of the father, Jürgen Buck, ..., 3 ... Street, Dettingen/Erms, Trinkomat company; 2.  the seizure of documents that reveal the identity of the employees of Trinkomat in ... Dettingen between 20 May and 22 May 1996
are ordered.
Reasons:
The son of the manager of Trinkomat, who is charged with having committed, on 21 May 1996, a contravention of Regulation 3 of the Road Traffic Regulations with a company car, has stated at the trial hearing on 12 March 1997 that a driver employed by the company could have committed the offence.
...” 16.  The search of the residential and business premises in Dettingen, a town of some 10,000 inhabitants, was effected the same day around 2 p.m. by four police officers from the local police station. Several documents, such as personnel files and statements on working hours, were seized; copies were made and the originals were given back to the applicant the next day. The documents disclosed the names of at least six persons, four women and two men, who had been employed by the applicant's company at the relevant time and revealed, furthermore, that another relative of the applicant could have been driving the company car at the time of the speeding offence. The applicant objected to the search and, assisted by counsel, appealed against the search and seizure decision on 13 March 1997, the very day on which the warrant had been issued. 17.  On 21 March 1997 the Tübingen Regional Court, in a decision addressed to V.B., dismissed the appeal of 13 March 1997. It considered that the appeal against the search warrant was inadmissible as it was devoid of purpose (prozessual überholt), the search having been effected in the meantime. The relevance of the few documents seized could be established without the need for a further procedure. The appeal against the seizure order was ill-founded, as the documents seized were relevant for the assessment of the evidence because they could show whether, as asserted by the appellant, one of the company's employees had committed the traffic offence in question. Moreover, the seizure had not been disproportionate because copies of the originals had been filed and the originals handed back. 18.  On 21 May 1997 the Tübingen Regional Court, upon a complaint by the applicant's representative, re-examined the applicant's appeal, declaring it inadmissible as far as the search warrant was concerned and unfounded as to the seizure order. In these respects the court repeated its earlier reasoning. The Regional Court added that its earlier decision of 21 March 1997 had become devoid of purpose and, for the sake of clarity, quashed it. 19.  On 30 June 1997 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. He submitted in particular that the District Court, at the hearing of 12 March 1997, had been unable to establish whether the person on the radar photo was V.B. He further stated that the documents seized showed that none of the six other persons who had been working for the applicant's company at the relevant time could have been the person shown on the radar photo. 20.  On 13 September 1997 a panel of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the complaint. The Constitutional Court disagreed with the Regional Court's finding that the appeal against the search warrant was inadmissible for the sole reason that the search had already been carried out. According to the Constitutional Court, that finding disregarded the principle of effective legal protection as guaranteed by Article 19 § 4 of the Basic Law. In support of its view, the Constitutional Court referred to its decision of 30 April 1997, which had reversed its former case-law on the point. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court considered it inappropriate to admit the constitutional complaint. Indeed, when examining the lawfulness of the seizure order, the Regional Court had also, incidentally, addressed the question of the lawfulness of the search order. In any event, the impugned search warrant was obviously lawful. This decision was served on 24 September 1997. 21.  On 19 March 1997, in the resumed trial proceedings, the Bad Urach District Court rendered its judgment against V.B. It found him guilty of having negligently exceeded a speed limit, imposed a fine of DEM 120 (approximately 61 euros) on him in accordance with the uniform scale of fines (Bußgeldkatalog) for the various road-traffic regulatory offences, and ordered him to bear the costs of the proceedings. 22.  As regards V.B.'s personal background, the District Court noted that V.B. had had his driving licence since 1991, that he drove between 40,000 and 50,000 km per year and that there was no record of previous traffic offences. 23.  The District Court, having regard to expert technical evidence, found that the radar check had been properly carried out and that the measurements were correct. Moreover, having compared the photographs taken on the occasion of the radar check, in particular the enlargement prepared by the expert, and V.B.'s passport photograph taken in 1994, which had been retained in the administrative files of the Dettingen municipal authorities, the court reached the conclusion that it was V.B. who had been driving the car. In this respect, the court compared the form of the face, the nose, the position of the eyes and the eyebrows. Furthermore, although V.B. had meanwhile grown a beard, the lower part of the face on the radar photos and of V.B.'s face on the passport photo, showing him without a beard, clearly matched. There were no indications that any other person with the same characteristics had been driving the car at the relevant time. 24.  On 19 August 1997 the Stuttgart Court of Appeal dismissed V.B.'s request for leave to appeal.


5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the town of Pestovo in the Novgorod Region. 6.  On the evening of 14 April 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed murder and remanded in custody in detention facility IVS of police station no. 36 in the Vyborgskiy District of St Petersburg (ИВС при 36 отделении милиции Выборгского района г. Санкт-Петербурга). 7.  The arrest report drawn up on 15 April 2000 at 1 p.m. contains the typed description of the applicant's procedural rights, in particular “the right to be represented by a lawyer from the moment of drawing up of the arrest report” and “the right not to incriminate oneself”. It was signed by the applicant and also includes the applicant's statement that he “wishes to give evidence in the presence of counsel G.”. Lastly, the report contains the following hand-written statement, also signed by the applicant:
“I did commit, together with V., the murder of P. on 5 April 2000.” 8.  A record of the applicant's questioning on 15 April 2000, signed by the applicant and counsel G., according to which the applicant was questioned from 1.15 to 4 p.m. in the presence of counsel G., contains a detailed description of the murder and robbery of P. 9.  According to a subsequent record of 17 April 2000 signed by the applicant and counsel G., the applicant “confirmed his testimony contained in the record of 15 April 2000”. 10.  According to the records of subsequent interviews, also signed by the applicant and his representative, the applicant refused to give further evidence and stated that he confirmed his confession, but only in part. 11.  The records do not contain any indication of or complaints about coercion or ill-treatment. 12.  On 17 April 2000 the prosecutor of the Vyborgskiy District of St Petersburg authorised the applicant's further detention. 13.  According to the applicant, he was transferred to remand prison IZ45/4 in St Petersburg (SIZO no. 4). 14.  The Government submitted that the transfer had taken place on 20 April 2000. 15.  In his application to the Court the applicant gave the following account of the events of 15 April 2000. 16.  The applicant was escorted for questioning to an office, where he was fettered to the floor with handcuffs and put in an uncomfortable sitting position. The applicant was then beaten up by men who did not state their names. 17.  The applicant submitted that they had beaten him “professionally”, inflicting blows in such a way as to leave no traces and using, in particular, plastic bottles filled with water. They had also held a knife to his throat, threatened him with death and promised to chop his head off. At first, the officers had beaten the applicant without asking him to do or say anything, but after some time they had invited him to confess. When the applicant refused, they had shown him a written statement of his friend V., who had been arrested in connection with the same criminal case and had “confessed to things he had never done”. 18.  The applicant submitted that, being demoralised and fearing for his life, he had confessed to a murder and a robbery but had refused to incriminate V. 19.  The applicant submitted that he had told his counsel about the illtreatment but his counsel had failed to react. 20.  It does not appear that the applicant requested medical assistance or complained to any domestic authority in connection with the alleged illtreatment. 21.  By a judgment of 5 December 2000 the St Petersburg City Court convicted the applicant of having killed and robbed P. and having stolen his passport. The court sentenced the applicant to eighteen years' imprisonment in a high security prison and the confiscation of his property. 22.  By the same decision it acquitted him on a separate count of theft because the prosecution had been based solely on the applicant's confession and the victim's statement. Referring to the record of the applicant's psychiatric-psychological examination, the court ordered his compulsory out-patient psychiatric treatment for drug addiction. 23.  The applicant was represented at the trial by counsel G. Throughout the trial they consistently defended the view that the victim had in fact been killed by a third person and not by the applicant. 24.  The court rejected this argument by reference to the oral evidence given by three witnesses and a police officer in charge of the investigation and also to the discrepancies and contradictions in the applicant's own statements. 25.  The court further cited the applicant's and his co-accused's statements from the pre-trial stage describing in detail the killing and robbery, and held that they “corresponded to the factual circumstances of the case in part, concerning the preparation and execution of the robbery of the victim P. and his especially cruel murder by [the applicant]”. In finding the applicant guilty, the court also referred to various pieces of evidence, including, in particular, statements from four witnesses, the crime scene inspection report, three identification parade reports, a record of the identification of the stolen goods, seizure records, forensic medical and biological reports and the applicant's explanations about the blood spots on his jacket. 26.  During the trial the defence argued that the applicant had been forced by the authorities to confess, with threats of violence. In this respect, the court established the following:
“As to [the applicant's] allegations that, by threatening him with violence and even death, the police officers had forced him to confess to having killed and robbed P., witness Pe. [the investigator] stated that no violence or threats were applied to [either] co-accused throughout their arrest and questioning. They gave evidence voluntarily, on some occasions in the presence of their defence counsel.
In this connection Matveyev [the applicant] submitted at a court hearing that Pe. had never threatened him at the pre-trial investigation and that he [the applicant] did not know the names of the police officers who had threatened him and would not be able to identify them.” 27.  According to the minutes of the hearing, the applicant and his counsel did not object to the conclusion of the trial in the absence of witness M. The hearing transcript also contains no indication that the applicant or his defence counsel requested the court to summon witness K. 28.  It appears that some time after the trial the defence changed their counsel. 29.  The applicant, his newly appointed counsel and his mother, admitted to the appeal proceedings as a “public defender”, appealed against the conviction. In his appeal submissions, the applicant's counsel alleged, among other things, that the trial court had failed to summon and examine witnesses K. and M.; that in ordering the applicant's compulsory medical treatment it had failed to properly take into account his state of health; and that it should not have based the applicant's conviction on his forced pretrial statements and referred to the statement of the investigator in rejecting his submission that the victim had been killed by a third person. The applicant's counsel further contested at length the way in which the trial court had assessed the evidence before it. In his own appeal submissions, the applicant alleged that he had not killed P. 30.  By a decision of 18 April 2000, judge Sh. rejected the applicant's objections to the transcript of the court hearings as unfounded and tending to revise the facts established by the trial court. 31.  By decision of 27 September 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment in respect of the applicant. The hearing was conducted by way of videoconferencing. Both the applicant and his mother were given the floor. 32.  The court held, in particular, that:
“Having analysed the evidence gathered in the case in its entirety, the first-instance court reached a well-founded conclusion as to [the applicant]'s and [V.'s] guilt in the crimes committed by them ... [,] having provided sufficient reasons for its conclusions concerning their guilt and the classification of the defendants' acts.
The case was investigated and examined by the [trial] court without any significant violations of the provisions of the RSFSR CCrP which could have had prejudiced the court's judgment, including the issue of admissibility of evidence.” 33.  The applicant submitted that he had been held in SIZO no. 4 in St Petersburg and also in remand prison IZ-77/3 (SIZO no. 3) in Moscow. In respect of the former facility, he submitted that he had been detained there from 17 April 2000 to 8 September 2001 and from January to March 2002. He did not submit specific dates concerning his detention in SIZO no. 3, but suggested that it had taken place between September 2001 and January 2002. 34.  The Government submitted, with reference to prison records, that the applicant's detention in SIZO no. 4 had lasted from 20 April 2000 to 7 September 2001 and from 23 January 2002 to 13 March 2002, whilst his detention in SIZO no. 3 had taken place in between the mentioned terms, from 10 September 2001 to 21 January 2002. 35.  The applicant gave the following account of the conditions of his detention. 36.  At all times the prison was heavily overcrowded. His cell measured 20 square metres and was meant to accommodate twelve inmates but actually housed between forty and fifty. The bunk beds in the cell had three “levels”, the applicant's sleeping place being on the top level, right under the ceiling. The inmates slept in turns, two or three persons sharing one bed at a time. The applicant slept on a worn-out mattress and was not provided with any bedding. Because the detainees shared beds, they often contracted skin infections and had lice. The inmates had a one-hour outside walk per day. The lavatory pan was separated from the living area by a makeshift partition. As such an arrangement was prohibited by the prison authorities, it was ripped down in the course of every routine check and then rebuilt by the inmates until the next check. 37.  The windows had double bars and metal shutters which let almost no natural light in. The electric lights were always switched on. For the same reason there were problems of fresh air, especially in summer when it was very hot. The windows had no glass and in winter the detainees covered them in order to avoid freezing, so there was even less fresh air. 38.  The quality of the food was deplorable. The inmates were sometimes given out-of-date biscuits from humanitarian supplies. 39.  The applicant could not wash himself properly because the “washing schedule” (once every 8-10 days) was rarely respected by the prison authorities. Furthermore, the shower facility, a former morgue, was in a disgusting state. 40.  On several occasions tuberculosis or hepatitis sufferers and mentally disturbed inmates had been placed in the applicant's cell. The applicant submitted that although the detainees underwent HIV and AIDS tests upon their arrival in the detention facility, they were informed of the results with a considerable delay. 41.  The applicant alleged that he suffered from epileptic fits and nocturnal enuresis and could not count on adequate medical assistance. 42.  He further stated that the regular searches in the cells, assisted by members of the special forces (спецназ), were usually accompanied by violence, especially throughout 2000. On one such occasion the applicant's fellow detainees were ordered to leave the cell and the applicant was ordered to hand over any prohibited items. When he refused, he was ordered to kneel down, which he again refused to do because it was humiliating. In response, persons wearing masks beat him up. 43.  It does not appear that the applicant complained about the alleged incident or requested medical assistance at the time. 44.  The Government disagreed with the above description and submitted that the applicant had been provided with his own sleeping place, bedding and cutlery. They also submitted that all original documentation relating to the periods in question had been destroyed. They submitted that the cells in the prison had had windows measuring between 0.9 and 1 metre and had been equipped with light bulbs. They admitted that the windows had been covered with metal shutters until 1 April 2003. The inmates had been able to wash themselves once a week and also to wash their personal things. The Government denied the applicant's allegations concerning the detention of mentally disturbed persons and persons infected with tuberculosis in his cell, and submitted that such a situation was impossible, since the applicable law did not allow it. There may have been HIV infected persons in the applicant's cell, but that was not in breach of the domestic law or the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government also submitted that the prison administration had taken measures against the insects in the cells and that the quality of the food had been in accordance with all relevant standards. 45.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the remand prison in Moscow had been better than in St Petersburg only in two respects: he had been able to shower more regularly and he was provided with a mattress. As to the rest, although there were fewer inmates, the cell was overcrowded and the detainees slept in turns. The ventilation was inadequate, there was lack of natural light and the lights were always switched on. The cell was infested with insects and cockroaches. 46.  The Government disagreed and submitted that between 10 and 12 September 2001 the applicant had been detained in cell no. 417, which measured 14.98 square metres and was equipped with two-tier bunk beds for ten persons. From 12 September 2001 to 21 January 2002 he was detained in cell no. 414, measuring 15 square metres and equipped with ordinary beds for eight persons. The original documentation concerning the number of inmates in these cells at the relevant time was destroyed on 20 February 2004, the regulatory time for its storage having elapsed. The Government submitted that the conditions of detention could not have been worse than those required by the Rules on the prison regime in pre-trial detention centres (as approved by Ministry of Justice Decree no. 148 of 12 May 2000 – see the Relevant Domestic Law section below). The Government argued that the cells had been properly lit, ventilated, and disinfected and had generally been in good condition. 47.  On 19 March 2002 the applicant arrived in the correctional colony OYa-22/7 in Pankovka settlement in the Novgorod Region. 48.  Upon arrival, the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell for protesting about serving his sentence in the Novgorod Region instead of the Yaroslavl Region as the authorities had allegedly promised him. 49.  He was kept in the disciplinary cell from 19 March to 22 June and from 19 September to 19 November 2002. According to the applicant, the cell measured around 25 square metres and held six prisoners. He was not allowed to have any personal belongings. He could shower once a week and had a onehour walk per day. There was no table, bench or washbasin and the applicant was not provided with a mattress or bedding. 50.  Throughout his confinement in the disciplinary cell the applicant was prohibited from sending and receiving letters. He was also banned from smoking, reading and receiving parcels. 51.  By letter dated 28 June 2002 the head of the correctional colony OY22/7 informed the applicant's father that the applicant was detained in the disciplinary cell and that during his detention there all correspondence and family visits were prohibited. 52.  The applicant submits that from 22 June to 19 September 2002 he was held in a “safe cell” (безопасное место) where correspondence was allowed and the restrictions imposed in the disciplinary cell did not apply. 53.  On 23 July 2003 he was transferred to correctional colony YN-88/3 in Uglich in the Yaroslavl Region.


5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is now serving his sentence in prison UP-288/T of Minusinsk, the Krasnoyarsk Region. 6.  On 14 August 1989 seven teenagers were found dead near Kazynet railway station of the Askizskiy District of the Republic of Khakassia. On an unspecified date in 1989 the competent authorities opened an investigation into the case. On 24 July 1992 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed murder. By a judgment of 24 March 1995, the Kemerovo Regional Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to capital punishment. By a judgment of 11 October 1995, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal. On 4 September 1996 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 24 March 1995 and 11 October 1995 and remitted the case for an additional investigation. 7. On 17 February 1997 the case file was transferred to the General Prosecutor's Office and the criminal proceedings were reopened. On 3 April 1997 the applicant was released from custody on an undertaking not to leave his town of residence. On 18 August 2000 he was officially charged. 8. On an unspecified date the pre-trial investigation was completed and on 30 November 2000 the case file was submitted to the trial court for judicial examination. 9. On 18 September 2001 the Supreme Court of the Republic Khakasia convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment. The applicant was detained in the court room immediately after the pronouncement of his sentence. By a judgment of 12 February 2003, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal.


5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Poltava. 6.  In November 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Poltava Kyivsky District Court against his former employer – the Poltava Regional Fire Safety Department – claiming payment arrears of a monthly subsistence allowance for the years 1999 and 2000. 7.  On 27 September 2002 the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him 767.04 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). 8.  On 11 October 2002 the same court rectified its judgment of 27 September 2002 and increased the amount awarded to UAH 797.04. 9.  On 15 April 2003 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decisions of 27 September and 11 October 2002 and rejected the applicant's claims. The appellate court based its findings on the fact that the Budget Act 2000 had not foreseen expenditure for the payments under the applicable Presidential Decree, and therefore held that the applicant had no entitlement to such payments during the impugned period under the Budgetary System Act. 10.  On 15 September 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of 15 April 2003.


4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine. 5.  On 18 October 1995 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. He was subsequently charged with illegal possession of arms. 6.  On 21 October 1995 the applicant was charged with theft. 7.  On 30 May 1997 the Leninskyy District Court separated the two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant and remitted the case of theft for further investigation. 8.  On 2 June 1997 the court sentenced the applicant to three and a half years’ imprisonment for illegal possession of arms. On 6 August 1997 the Balakleyskyy District Court amnestied the applicant and he was subsequently released. According to the applicant, the release was subject to an undertaking not to abscond. 9.  On 6 November 1997 the applicant was arrested again, apparently in the context of the criminal proceedings in the case of theft mentioned above, and charged with embezzlement; subsequently this charge was reclassified to theft and robbery. The gravity of the crimes with which he was charged and the danger of his absconding were mentioned in the investigator’s arrest order as reasons for the applicant’s detention on remand. 10.  Alongside the applicant, other persons were charged within these proceedings (by the end of the trial there were fourteen persons), although on different dates and with different crimes. 11.  On 25 December 1997 the Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 14 April 1998. In doing so he referred to the gravity of the crimes with which the accused were charged and the danger of their absconding. 12.  Between 1998 and 2001 the applicant’s criminal case was transferred several times for examination to the Kharkiv Regional Court. However, the latter remitted it for additional investigation. The last time this happened was on 8 February 2001. In doing so the court, inter alia, ordered the applicant’s further detention on remand; it did not specify any reasons for this detention. On 15 May 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed this decision and remitted the case back to the court. 13.  On 6 September 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (formerly Kharkiv Regional Court) remitted the case to the Kharkivskyy District Court of the Kharkiv Region for examination because of the changes introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code on 12 July 2001, which provided that such cases had to be considered by the district courts. 14.  The applicant and his lawyer asked the court to release the applicant on several occasions referring, inter alia, to the applicant’s state of health, but to no avail. In particular, on 27 March, 8 July and 18 August 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court refused the applicant’s and his lawyer’s requests to replace the applicant’s detention on remand with an undertaking not to abscond. On the latter date the court rejected the applicant’s reference to his poor state of health, arguing that he was taking an active part in the criminal proceedings against him and, therefore, his argument of poor health was ill-founded. Apparently, the remainder of the applicant’s and his lawyer’s requests for release were either not taken into account by the court or the copies of relevant court decisions were not provided to the Court.
The applicant was finally released on 1 October 2003 for health reasons, on an undertaking not to abscond. 15.  The other accused and their lawyers also made several requests to the court for their detention to be replaced with an undertaking not to abscond. 16.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the court also considered numerous motions filed by the accused and their lawyers, among which there were motions to order forensic examinations (in total, more than twenty different forensic examinations, for example, medical, fingerprints, and so on, were held at the pre-trial and trial stages), to extend the time-limit for familiarisation with the case-file, to replace one lawyer with another (at least three lawyers were replaced at the applicant’s request). The accused also challenged the judge who was dealing with their case on a number of occasions. 17.  By the end of the trial, sixteen persons had lodged civil claims against the accused. 18.  On 29 July 2004 the Kharkivskyy District Court sentenced the applicant to five years, eleven months and 25 days’ imprisonment for numerous robberies and burglaries. The court also found all the other accused guilty and imposed on them various sentences. The court further examined the civil claims and allowed them in part. 19.  The applicant and prosecutor appealed against this judgment. 20.  On 20 December 2006 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the impugned judgment in regard to the applicant and changed it in regard to other accused. 21.  The applicant appealed in cassation and, according to him, on 12 March 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected his appeal. 22.  According to the applicant, in November 1997 he was beaten by the police. By a letter of 27 January 1998 the prosecutor informed the applicant that on 3 December 1997 a medical expert had established that he had minor bodily injuries. The parties did not provide the Court with a copy of this medical report. 23.  On 10 April 1998, apparently having examined the applicant’s complaints, the prosecutor found no prima facie case of ill-treatment. Accordingly, he refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen concerned. 24.  The applicant further raised his complaints of ill-treatment before the Kharkivskyy District Court during the trial against him. However, the court dismissed these complaints as ill-founded, referring to the prosecutor’s decision. 25.  According to the applicant, between October and November 1995 he was beaten by the police and that caused him, inter alia, a spinal trauma. 26.  The Government produced a collection of documents which appear to be extracts from the applicant’s medical records, a substantial part of which is illegible. The legible pages list the applicant’s diagnoses but contain no information about the nature of treatment administered to the applicant in the Pre-Trial Detention Centre No. 27 (слідчий ізолятор № 27 - hereinafter “the SIZO No. 27”), where he was detained at the material time. They can be summarised as follows. 27.  In the period between 24 December 1996 and 10 January 1997 a medical expert report, prepared in the course of the applicant’s detention, established that the applicant was suffering from a peroneal nerve neuropathy and partial paralysis of the right foot (нейропатія малогомілкового нерва з парезом правої стопи). The experts further concluded that these disorders could have been caused by an osteochondrosis, and that the applicant could be treated in the pre-trial detention centre, where he was detained at the time. He warned that “in the absence of appropriate medical treatment the disease [would] progress”. 28.  Following his arrest in November 1997 (see paragraph 9 above), the applicant was examined by the doctors of the SIZO No. 27, where the applicant was placed. He was also examined by a psychoneurologist on 10 December 1997. The doctors’ report does not contain any information about his alleged neurological problems. 29.  On 14 July 1998 the head of the medical department of the SIZO No. 27 reported to the prosecutor that, having examined the applicant on the same date, it had been concluded that his state of health was satisfactory and he did not need medical treatment. He further stated that the applicant could be detained in the SIZO No. 27. 30.  On 12 October 1999 the applicant was examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with partial paralysis of the right peroneal nerve (парез правого малогомілкового нерва). In this regard the doctor ordered an X‑ ray examination, which revealed sacral assimilation (сакралізація п’ятого поперекового хребця). 31.  Later, on 6 November 1999, the head of the medical department of the SIZO No. 27 reported that the applicant had applied for medical aid on account, inter alia, of partial paralysis of the right peroneal nerve and left peroneal nerve disorder syndrome (синдром порушення лівого малогомілкового нерва). He had received out-patient treatment. Finally, the head of the department stated that the applicant needed additional examinations. 32.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant was examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with partial paralysis of both feet. 33.  Following the applicant’s medical check-up on 17 October 2000, it was reported, inter alia, that his above-mentioned neurological problems were a result of the spinal trauma suffered in 1995. It was further stated that the applicant needed routine surgical treatment. No further information as to whether the applicant underwent this treatment is available. 34.  On an unknown date in October 2001 and on 25 January 2002 the doctors came to the conclusion that the applicant, given his state of health, could be detained in the SIZO No. 27. Furthermore, on 15 March 2003 they concluded that the applicant could be placed in a disciplinary cell (карцер). 35.  On 19 December 2002 the doctors of the SIZO No. 27, following the applicant’s complaints of pain and weakness in the right hand and foot, examined the applicant and concluded that he was suffering from partial paralysis of the right hand and foot. They noted that the disease was progressing and that there was a suspicion of syringomyelia (сирингомієлія)[1]. In their view, to make a diagnosis and to plan a therapeutic approach the applicant needed to undergo additional medical examinations and treatment at a specialised hospital. 36.  According to the Government, on 10 June 2003, following the applicant’s complaints of, inter alia, pain in his right hand, he was examined by a neurologist who reaffirmed his above-mentioned neurological problems. He noted, among other matters, the progressive nature of the disease and the suspected syringomyelia. 37.  On 11 June 2003 the doctors of the SIZO No. 27, having examined the applicant, again diagnosed him as suffering from the progressive neurological problems mentioned in the preceding paragraph. They further noted that in the SIZO No. 27 there was no neurologist, no neurosurgeon, no appropriate medication (in particular, painkillers) and no possibility to provide specialised treatment for the applicant. 38.  On 8 July 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court of Kharkiv Region, rejecting one of the applicant’s lawyer’s requests to release the applicant, held that the applicant’s detention was lawful and that the court was not competent to consider the issues of detainees’ medical treatment. However, the court noted that it “took into account” the information mentioned in the preceding paragraph. 39.  The applicant again requested his release, referring to his aggravated state of health and lack of necessary medicine; these in his view made it difficult for him to participate effectively in the court proceedings. On 18 August 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court noted that the SIZO doctors had not requested it to release the applicant in order to participate in the proceedings, and held that the applicant himself and with the assistance of his counsel actively participated in the court proceedings. Accordingly, it rejected the applicant’s request. 40.  On 1 October 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court noted, referring to the medical data, that “[the applicant] was suffering from the after-effects of a spinal injury and a fracture of the right foot, median and radial nerve neuritis [неврит серединного та радіяльного нерва] and partial paralysis of the right hand” and released him. 41.  The next day the applicant applied to a local hospital for medical assistance and was sent to City Hospital No. 7 where he underwent specialised diagnostic procedures and treatment (including as an in-patient).


9.  The applicant, who was born in 1956, was living in Aktaş village at the time of the alleged events giving rise to this application. The facts of the case are in dispute between the parties and may be summarised as follows. 10.  Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Aktaş, a village of Ovacık district in Tunceli province, in the then state-of-emergency region of Turkey. In 1994, terrorist activity was a major concern in this area. Since the 1980s a violent conflict had been going on in the region between the security forces and sections of the Kurdish population in favour of Kurdish autonomy, in particular members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The inhabitants of the applicant’s village were suspected of “aiding and abetting terrorists”; and accordingly they were strictly and frequently controlled by the gendarmes stationed near the village. 11.  On 5 October 1994 the security forces surrounded the applicant’s village and assembled the residents in the village square. Using curse words, they told them that the village would be evacuated at once with no possibility of return. The applicant took what he was able to carry with him and left the village. Immediately after the evacuation, the soldiers set the houses and the crops on fire. 12.  The applicant moved temporarily into a prefabricated State disaster housing complex close to Ovacık. 13.  Following the impugned events the applicant filed a petition with the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s office complaining about the burning down and forced evacuation of his village by gendarmes. 14.  As the case concerned an investigation into alleged acts of the security forces, the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction and referred the petition to the office of the District Governor in Ovacık in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu). 15.  The District Governor sent a letter to the Ovacık Gendarmerie Headquarters and requested information about the applicant’s allegations. 16.  In a letter of 1 November 1994 the Gendarmerie Commander informed the District Governor that the security forces had not burned any house during their operations in the area. Accordingly, the Ovacık Administrative Council issued a decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the gendarmes. 17.  On 25 October 1995 the Ovacık District Governor sent a letter to the applicant. Relying on the Ovacık Gendarmerie Commander’s letter of 1 November 1994, he explained that he was unconvinced by his allegations. He further explained that pursuant to the established case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court (Danıştay), no inquiry was possible unless the identity of the accused civil servant were specified. He therefore stated that the authorities would not initiate an investigation into the alleged events. 18.  The applicant did not receive this letter. He learned of the Ovacık Public Prosecutor’s decision of non-jurisdiction and the Ovacık Administrative Council’s decision from his fellow villagers. 19.  In 1994 members of the PKK started a propaganda campaign for the organisation in the villages of Ovacık district. They kidnapped young men from these villages and forced them to join the organisation. The PKK militants issued threats against the villagers and harassed them. The inhabitants of the villages left their homes as a result of the pressure exerted by the PKK. 20.  The investigation carried out by the authorities revealed that the applicant’s village had not been burned by the security forces but by terrorists wearing military uniforms. In his statements to the investigating authorities, the applicant failed to specify the identity of the perpetrators of the alleged crime. 21.  The parties submitted various documents with a view to substantiating their claims. These documents, in so far as they are relevant, can be summarised as follows. 22.  The applicant submitted a protocol dated 2 May 2001 in which he claimed that he had suffered financial damages because of the burning down of his village. He submitted that prior to the events in 1994 he had owned 50 acres land, 150 poplar trees, 20 walnut trees, 30 fruit trees, 400 metres square plot of land, two-story house, 40 goats, 4 cows and 50 beehives. This document has been stamped by the mayor of Aktaş village, Cafer Öztürk.
(b)  Annual Reports of the Human Rights Foundation (“the TIHV”) 23.  The Human Rights Foundation is a non-governmental organisation with its head office in Ankara, Turkey. Its 1993 Report stated that, from 1990 to 1993, more than 913 villages and hamlets had been evacuated. The 1993 Report maintained that village evacuations had accelerated in 1993, mostly targeting the villages whose inhabitants refused to serve as village guards. 24.  The 1994 Report of the TIHV argued that the Government’s policy was to claim that the evacuations and eventual destructions were caused by PKK terror, poverty and the forces of nature. According to the same report, some 50 to 60 villages were burned down in each of the provinces subject to the emergency rule. 25.  The 1995 Report maintained that more than 400 villages had been evacuated in 1995. According to the 1996 Report, the State-of-Emergency Regional Governor once mentioned that a total of 918 villages and 1,767 hamlets had been evacuated for various reasons, although never admitting that evacuations had been carried out by security forces. 26.  The 1997 and 1998 Reports described the Government’s policy of evacuating villages as a systematic “internal security operation” applied throughout the 1990s.
(c)  Excerpts from “Burned-down / Evacuated Villages and Migration”, a book published by the Human Rights Association 27.  The excerpts gave a comprehensive list of burned-down and/or evacuated villages from February 1990 to January 1999. The list did not make any reference to Aktaş as having been evacuated and destroyed. 28.  The excerpts contained several articles reproduced from a daily newspaper Ülkede Gündem, relating to the evacuation of villages and its detrimental effects on the displaced persons. The articles stressed that numerous villagers had filed petitions with the State authorities, complaining that their villages had been burned down by security forces. 29.  The articles also emphasized that the Government’s public declarations, which appeared to allow displaced villagers to return to their villages, were unreliable. Whenever villagers had attempted to do so, they were physically denied access to their villages.
(d)  The report of 14 January 1998 of the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Commission of Inquiry on the measures to be taken in order to address the problems of the persons displaced following the evacuation of settlement units in east and south-east Anatolia 30.  This report was prepared by a Commission of Inquiry composed of ten members of parliament. According to the report, in 1993 and 1994 the inhabitants of 905 villages and 2,923 hamlets were evicted and forced to move to other regions of the country (p.13). 31.  The report included a statement by Mr Doğan Hatipoğlu, a former governor of Diyarbakır. Mr Hatipoğlu explained that, during his office, occasional village evacuations by military authorities were brought to his attention. He stated that – although very rarely – he had received complaints about village burnings. According to Mr Hatipoğlu, it was inconceivable to assert that all the villages were vacated due to PKK coercion. He alleged that the Government had failed to take the necessary measures for a healthy resettlement of displaced persons (p.13). 32.  The report also referred to the “Human Rights Report – Turkey”, prepared and submitted to the Commission of Inquiry in 1995 by Mr Yavuz Önen, the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation. This latter report dedicated a chapter to immigrants and evacuated villages. It argued that, in 1995, the practice of evacuation of villages and hamlets was widespread. Many houses in villages were either destroyed or made uninhabitable. People were forced to emigrate from the region and pressure was exerted on the inhabitants until they left their villages. In early 1995 there was practically no village or hamlet inhabited except those whose inhabitants agreed to become village guards (p.19). 33.  The report of the Commission of Inquiry also referred to the speech delivered at the Turkish Grand National Assembly by Mr Salih Yıldırım, a deputy from Şırnak, on 3 June 1997 on the question of evacuated villages. Mr Yıldırım stated, inter alia, that the villages were evacuated either by the PKK, in order to intimidate those who opposed it, by the authorities since they were unable to protect the villages, or because the inhabitants of those villages refused to become village guards or were suspected of having aided the PKK (p. 20). 34.  In conclusion, it was recommended in the report that the inhabitants of the settlement units should be re-housed in the provinces, districts or central villages – rather than hamlets – close to the area where they used to live and that necessary economic measures should be taken with a view to providing employment to the inhabitants of the region, priority being given to the immigrants. 35.  This report aims at indicating the property owned by the applicant. Following an investigation carried out by the authorities it appeared that the applicant did not own any land according to the records of the land registry office and the municipal registry office. The applicant does not have any registered trees either. In his declaration of 12 May 1986 to the municipality the applicant claimed that he owned a house measuring 80 metres square, whereas in his declaration dated 2 May 1998 he noted that he owned a house measuring 140 square metres which had been built in 1980. According to the official records, he did not have any commercial activity given that he did not pay any tax before 1994. Between 1994 and 2002 he lived in one of the natural disaster houses provided to him by the Government. In 2002 he moved into a new house which was built by the Government within the framework of the “Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project”. The local authorities gave the applicant 10 sheep and 323,000,000 Turkish liras’ aid. He also benefited from the food support by the authorities.
(b)  Veys Toprak’s statements dated 10 March 2004, taken by two gendarmes 36.  The witness is the mayor of Kandolar neighbourhood in Ovacık. His statements were taken in order to determine the situation of the applicant who had lodged an application with the Court. The witness stated that the applicant had lived in one of the prefabricated houses between 1994 and 2002 and that he had moved to a newly built house provided for him in 2002 by the Government. The applicant died in 2003. At the relevant time nobody lived in Aktaş. There was no electricity, school or telephone in the village.


5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Chişinău. He is the director of Tantal SRL, a company offering security services. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 12 July 2005 the applicant's company was informed by a client (a petrol supply company) of damage caused to the latter by one of the applicant's employees' having stolen fuel and damaged a fuel pump. On 20 July 2005 the applicant responded by revealing the results of an internal inquiry, which had established that one of the applicant's employees responsible for guarding the relevant petrol stations, G.N., had confessed to the above actions, but had refused to pay for the damage. The applicant proposed to send the relevant information to the local police and the client. 8.  On 25 November 2005 G.N. made a complaint to the General Directorate for Fighting Organised Crime (“GDFOC”), a subdivision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, about threats to him and his family by “persons at the office of the Tantal company” who, from 5 July 2005, had threatened him with violence in order to obtain money from him. When he refused, he was coerced into signing a receipt which showed that he had borrowed money from T.G., another employee of the applicant's company. Finally, G.N. complained that he had been illegally detained between 7 and 11 July 2005 at one of the detention centres. The complaint was registered by GDFOC officer O. 9.  On 26 November 2005 officer M. from the prosecutor general's Office ordered the opening of a criminal investigation into the allegations made by G.N. and the creation, for that purpose, of a team of twenty investigators from two departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The order described the applicant and T.G. as the alleged perpetrators. 10.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant was arrested. The reason given for the arrest was “the victim directly identified the suspect as the perpetrator of the crime; there is reason to believe that the suspect may exert pressure on the victim and witnesses”. From that date until 9 March 2006 the applicant was detained in the GDFOC remand centre, except for a few days when he was on bail (see paragraph 11 below). 11.  The prosecutor asked a court to remand the applicant in custody, accusing the applicant of unlawfully detaining and blackmailing G.N. in order to obtain 1,000 United States dollars (USD) from him. On 2 December 2005 the Buiucani District Court rejected that request. The court found that the prosecutor had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the existence of grounds for detaining the applicant. It further found that G.N.'s detention in July 2005 had been sanctioned by the deputy prosecutor of Chişinău and could not therefore be considered unlawful detention; that no evidence had been adduced to substantiate the danger of the applicant's exerting pressure on the victim or witnesses; and that the applicant had a permanent residence, a job, and supported a child. Nonetheless, the court ordered the applicant's house arrest for ten days. 12.  On 7 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed that decision, finding that the court had incorrectly applied the law, which did not allow any preventive measure other than remand in custody of persons accused of especially serious crimes. However, the court accepted the applicant's request for release on bail, which was set at 50,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (3,300 euros (EUR) at the time). He paid that amount and was released. 13.  In the meantime, on 6 December 2005, the applicant's company's licence was revoked at the request of one of the subdivisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The reasons given were the company's failure to observe the rules on the wearing of uniforms of certain colours, and the participation of the applicant in criminal activities. 14.  On 12 December 2005 the applicant mentioned to the media that his prosecution and arrest had been the result of efforts by the Ministry of Internal Affairs to monopolise the security services market by destroying competitors, including his company. 15.  On 15 December 2005 officer M. ordered the opening of another criminal investigation against the applicant and two others and the creation of a working group consisting of 24 investigators from two departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The reason given was a complaint by H.A and another person about having been blackmailed by the applicant and three other persons between December 2004 and September 2005. The complaint was registered by GDFOC officer O. On the same day, the applicant was arrested, the reasons given in the minutes of arrest being that the victim expressly identified the applicant as the author of the crime. 16.  On 18 December 2005 the prosecutor requested a court to remand the applicant in custody. On the same day the Centru District Court accepted that request and ordered the applicant's detention for ten days. The reasons given by the court were that:
“the crime of which [the applicant] is accused is a serious one for which the law provides a penalty of more than two years; during the initial stage of proceedings the accused could obstruct the investigation, could put pressure on witnesses and the victim and could destroy evidence”. 17.  The applicant appealed, claiming his innocence and the insufficiency of reasons for choosing the preventive measure of detention. On 22 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, giving similar reasons. 18.  At the prosecutor's request, on 23 December 2005 the Buiucani District Court ordered the extension of the applicant's detention by twenty-five days. The court cited the relevant provision of domestic law and found that:
“[the applicant] is accused of a particularly serious crime, evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully, the accused could put pressure on witnesses and the victim, there is a need to verify the submissions of a co-accused and there is a danger of the fabrication of evidence and collusion between the accused. Also, the [applicant] has not made any declarations to the investigating authorities relying on his right to remain silent, which allows him to fabricate defence evidence should he not be detained”.
On 30 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision, giving essentially the same reasons as before. 19.  On 6 January 2006 the applicant made a habeas corpus application, claiming that no evidence had been submitted to the courts in support of the alleged risk if he were to be released. He also drew the court's attention to the large number of investigators assigned to his case, which should have allowed them to take all necessary investigative action. Accordingly, his continued detention was not justified by the needs of the investigation. 20.  On 11 January 2006 the Buiucani District Court rejected that request, finding that:
“the grounds on which the detention was ordered remain valid. The court also considers that ... the investigation of [the applicant's] case by a group of officers is not a ground provided by law for changing the preventive measure”.
On 18 January 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision, giving essentially the same reasons as before. 21.  On the same day the Buiucani District Court extended the applicant's detention by a further 15 days. On 25 January 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision. Both courts gave essentially the same reasons as before. 22.  Also on 25 January 2006 the applicant's wife asked permission to give the applicant food and newspapers on a daily basis. By a letter of 30 January 2006 from the detention centre's management she was informed that, according to a regulation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the applicant, with the approval of the investigating officer, was allowed one parcel per week. 23.  On 1 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court ordered the extension of the applicant's detention by twenty days, giving essentially the same reasons as before. In his appeal the applicant relied, inter alia, on the Convention and the Court's judgment in Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005), submitting a copy of the judgment. On 6 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision, giving essentially the same reasons as before. 24.  On 17 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court extended the applicant's detention by another ten days. In his appeal the applicant relied on Article 5 of the Convention. On 22 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision. Both courts gave the same reasons as before for continuing to detain the applicant. 25.  The first preliminary hearing of the trial court was scheduled for 27 March 2006, but it was postponed owing to the absence of the prosecutor, who had not informed the court of his non-attendance or the reasons for it. At the same hearing, the applicant made a habeas corpus application, claiming that there was no continuing need to detain him and that the conditions of his detention in the Ministry of Justice detention centre were inhuman and degrading. The court refused to examine the application because of the absence of the prosecutor from the hearing. On 3 April 2006 the Buiucani District Court rejected the habeas corpus request lodged by the applicant. 26.  In a further habeas corpus request of 22 May 2006 the applicant's lawyer relied, inter alia, on statements made in court on 14 and 16 April 2006 by H.A. and another person, whose complaints had earlier served as the basis for the initiation of the second criminal investigation against the applicant (see paragraph 15 above). The lawyer reminded the court that one of the two alleged victims had declared before it that the signature on the complaint was not his and that he had no claims against the applicant. H.A., declared that he had claims against two other persons but that he had also included the applicant's name at the suggestion of the GDFOC officer O. He stated that there had been no threats against him and that none of the accused had committed any acts of violence against him. The Government did not dispute that summary of the statements made in court by these two persons. 27.  On 23 May 2006 the Buiucani District Court granted the applicant's habeas corpus request and ordered his release against an undertaking not to leave the city. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:
“... Both accused have no criminal record, have permanent residence and assure the court that they will not abscond from the law enforcement authorities or the court.
The court also considers that the sole argument of the gravity of the crime alleged to have been committed cannot serve as a ground for detention, in the absence of any specific evidence regarding the person's danger to society, the danger of pressuring witnesses who have already given their statements before the court, where none of the grounds provided for in Article 176 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been proved, namely that the accused might abscond, obstruct the investigation or re-offend...” 28.  On 6 and 7 February 2006 the applicant's lawyer complained to the Prosecutor General's Office about the conditions of detention in the GDFOC detention centre. In particular, he complained, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, of the insufficiency and poor quality of food and that he could not receive food from his wife on a daily basis. He also complained that he had been detained alone in a cell and that unidentified persons had visited him, in the absence of his lawyer, with the aim of subjecting him to psychological intimidation to induce him to give up his business. He asked to be transferred from the GDFOC detention centre, as GDFOC was the institution investigating his case, to a centre under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, in order to obtain protection from such unlawful pressure.
There was no response to either of the two complaints. 29.  On 7 February 2006 the applicant claimed that his health had deteriorated and asked to be transferred to another centre where he could be given medical assistance, claiming that the GDFOC centre had no medical staff. 30.  On an unknown date the Head of GDFOC replied that the detention centre under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice was overcrowded and that it would be impossible to transfer the applicant there. Should the applicant need it, he would be given full medical assistance. 31.  In an appeal against the decision of 17 February 2006 (see paragraph 24 above), the applicant complained, inter alia, of his conditions of detention: the cell had been situated underground and he had had no access to daylight; low-intensity artificial light had never been turned off; there had been very high humidity; there had been no linen for the wood-covered stone platform which served as a bed; loud music had been played all day long; the ceiling had been so low as to prevent him from standing upright in the cell; access to shower facilities had been limited to one shower every ten days, which had only become possible following numerous requests by the applicant's lawyers; there had been no toilet in the cell and access to the toilet had been limited to once a day. There had been no opportunity for daily exercise and the ventilation system had only been switched on when the administration so decided. There had been no medical staff in the detention centre. The applicant also expressed the fear that he might have contracted tuberculosis. 32.  On 22 February 2006 the applicant's wife requested the GDFOC authorities to transfer him to another detention centre. As an alternative, she requested permission to give him food on a daily basis and requested that the authorities allow him daily walks and access to daylight, switch off the artificial light at night, allow him to use the toilet whenever he needed it (or transfer him to a cell with a toilet), provide access to shower facilities once a week and permit him to be seen by an independent doctor and be given necessary medication. It is unclear whether there was any response to these requests. 33.  In his submissions to this Court, the applicant stated that only the Head of GDFOC had had the keys to his cell and that the quality of food had been very poor. He reiterated his fears that he might have caught tuberculosis and that it was impossible to verify this without medical assistance. 34.  On 9 March 2006 the applicant was transferred to the Ministry of Justice detention centre (Prison no. 13, formerly known as Prison no. 3), where he was detained until his release on 23 May 2006.


5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lived in Przemyśl, Poland. 6.  On 14 August 1997 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 15 August 1997 the Przemyśl District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a homicide. 7.  Subsequently, the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions, in particular at the hearing held on 5 November 1998. 8.  On 21 December 1998 the Przemyśl Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) convicted the applicant of homicide and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment. 9.  On 29 April 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case. 10.  On 2 June 1999 the Przemyśl Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) decided to prolong the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court gave the following reasons:
“Prolongation of the applicant's detention on remand is justified by the fact that the applicant has been accused of homicide.” 11.  On 24 February 2000 the Przemyśl Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for release. The reasons of the decision are as follows:
“[The applicant] has been accused of having committed [a homicide] and the original reasons for keeping him in detention are still valid.” 12.  On 3 March 2000 the Przemyśl Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court found that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary because he had been charged with homicide and the trial court had started the process of obtaining expert evidence. 13.  On 12 April 2000 the trial court held the first hearing. Subsequently, ten hearings were held. 14.  On 2 June and 29 August 2000 the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged as the courts considered that the necessity to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and the severity of the anticipated penalty justified keeping him in custody. 15.  On 14 September 2000 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 29 August 2000.
The applicant submits that neither he nor his lawyer was informed about the majority of scheduled court sessions at which his detention on remand was prolonged and that he was not allowed to attend any of these sessions. 16.  On 28 December 2000 the Rzeszów Regional Court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed. 17.  On 17 May 2001 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the impugned judgment. The court sentenced the applicant to 15 years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). 18.  On 28 February 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal as being manifestly ill-founded. 19.  On 28 February 2001 the Court's Registry sent to the applicant, who at that time had been detained on remand in the Przemyśl Detention Centre, an application form and accompanying documents in reply to his letter in which he had notified his intention to lodge a complaint with the Court. The Court's envelope delivered to the applicant bears the stamp: Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy w Rzeszowie) and a hand‑written note: censo., 21.03.2001 (cenzu. 21.03.01). 20.  The envelope from the Chancellery of the Senate of the Republic of Poland of 30 January 2001 bears the same stamp as above and a hand‑written note: censored, 1 [February 20]01 (cenzurowano, 7.02.01) and an illegible signature. 21.  The applicant also submitted that his correspondence with his court‑appointed lawyer had been censored by the authorities of the Przemyśl Detention Centre. He provided an envelope addressed to his lawyer which bears the following stamps: the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy w Rzeszowie), a hand-written note: censored, 19 [July 20]00 (cenzurowano, 19.07.2000) and an illegible signature. The envelope was posted on 19 July 2000. The second envelope, also addressed to his lawyer, bears the same stamp of the Regional Court, a date: 1.02.2001 and an illegible signature.
The third envelope was addressed to the applicant by his lawyer. The envelope, posted on 26 January 2001, bears the following stamps: the Przemyśl Prison 29.01.2001 (Zakład Karny w Przemyślu), the Rzeszów Regional Court, 1.02.2001, and an illegible signature.


4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kent. 5.  The applicant and his wife had two children, born in 1982 and 1987. The applicant’s wife died on 2 June 1999. 6.  On 5 October 2000 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits. He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment (“Wpt”) and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance (“WMA”), payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). On 17 October 2000 his application was rejected as these benefits were only available to women. This decision was reconsidered without alteration on 25 October 2000. 7.  The applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal on 10 July 2001 and again his claim was rejected. In November 2001 the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Appeal Commissioner. Eventually permission was granted but his appeal was again rejected on 28 May 2004. The applicant again appealed to the Commissioner who rejected the applicant’s appeal on 13 December 2006. 8.  Finally, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), which was refused on 16 March 2007. 9.  At the time of his claim in 2000 the applicant was in receipt of child benefit.