7.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lived in Tomsk until his arrest. 8.  In July 1996 the applicant was elected to the position of mayor of Tomsk. In 2000 he was re-elected. 9.  In 2006 two co-owners of a private company complained to the Tomsk Regional Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) that the applicant’s relative, Ms E., had attempted to extort 3,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from them by threatening to destroy their real estate and prevent them from rebuilding. According to the co-owners, following their refusal to pay, the applicant annulled the Tomsk mayor’s decision of 26 September 2005 by which their company had been provided with a plot of land and granted that plot of land to his relative, Ms E. By a letter of 15 September 2006 the applicant had also ordered the Head of the Tomsk Town Land Committee to demolish the company’s property situated on that land. The Government provided the Court with a copy of the co-owners’ complaint registered by the FSB on 5 December 2006. 10.  On 6 December 2006 the office of the Tomsk Regional Prosecutor, acting on the complaint from the co-owners and the results of the preliminary investigative actions performed by the FSB, instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, suspecting him of having abused his position and having aided and abetted aggravated extortion. On the same day the applicant was arrested and placed in the Tomsk Town temporary detention facility. 11.  The applicant felt ill and was immediately transferred to the Scientific Research Cardiology Institute (“the Institute”), where he was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease, unstable stenocardia, impaired cardiac function, chronic pancreatitis, chronic cholecystitis and bronchitis. 12.  On 8 December 2006 a commission of medical experts from the Institute issued a report finding the applicant fit to participate in the pre-trial investigation. The commission also concluded that the applicant could remain in custody on condition that urgent medical assistance was to be provided to him if necessary. 13.  A senior investigator from the office of the Tomsk Regional Prosecutor asked the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk to authorise the applicant’s detention. 14.  On 8 December 2006 the District Court found that the prosecution had to submit additional evidence in support of their request, and granted a seventy-two-hour extension to keep the applicant in police custody. The District Court noted that the applicant should remain under arrest until 6.07 p.m. on 11 December 2006. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“At the hearing the acting head of the department... of the Tomsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office, Ms K., applied for a seventy-two-hour extension to keep [the applicant] in custody pending the submission of additional evidence, namely the suspect’s identification documents – a copy of the suspect’s passport – in support of the request.
The suspect, [the applicant], disagreed with the request and stated that there were no grounds for extending his detention.
The suspect’s lawyers also disagreed with the request and explained that [the applicant] had no intention to abscond, he had a permanent place of residence and his arrest was unlawful, as there were no grounds for his arrest as required by Article 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In these circumstances they asked for the request to be dismissed.
Having heard the submissions of the parties to the proceedings and having examined the material in the criminal case file, the court grants the extension...
By virtue of Article 108 § 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a court has the right to grant an extension on request. If the court considers that the arrest was lawful and justified, [it] may grant a seventy-two-hour extension from the moment when the court decision has been taken to allow a party to submit additional evidence in support of [the claim] that the application of a measure of restraint such as detention is justified or unjustified.
Having examined the material in the case file, the court finds that [the applicant’s] arrest was lawful and justified.
By virtue of Article 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, an investigating authority, an investigator or a prosecutor has the right to arrest a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence which is punishable by imprisonment, if one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(1) that person has been caught committing a crime or immediately after having committed a crime;
(2) victims or eyewitnesses have identified that person as the perpetrator of a criminal offence; or
(3) obvious traces or signs of a criminal offence have been discovered on that person or his clothes, or with him or in his house.
As follows from the record of [the applicant’s] arrest, he was arrested on 6 December 2006 on suspicion of having committed criminal offences under Article 91 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation because the victims had identified him as the perpetrator of the offences. There were no violations of criminal procedural law.
On 6 December 2006, at 9.05 a.m., that is before the arrest, criminal proceedings were instituted against the identified person – [the applicant] – on suspicion of offences under Article 33 § 5, Article 163 § 3 (b) and Article 285 § 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Having regard to the foregoing, the court considers it lawful and justified to grant a seventy-two-hour extension...” 15.  Several hours later the prosecution provided the District Court with additional evidence (a copy of the applicant’s passport, the report of the medical expert commission showing the state of the applicant’s health, and documents confirming that he was the mayor of Tomsk) in support of its request for authorisation of the applicant’s detention. 16.  Acting upon the additional information provided by the prosecution, the District Court on the same day authorised the applicant’s detention on the grounds that he was charged with serious criminal offences, he had several places of residence and he was liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice. The District Court noted that the applicant was suspected of having abused his position as mayor and that consequently, if released, he could have influenced witnesses who worked in the mayor’s office and could have destroyed evidence. It also relied on the report by the medical commission, which had concluded that the applicant was fit to participate in the criminal proceedings and to remain in custody. 17.  On 11 December 2006 the District Court suspended the applicant from his position as mayor of Tomsk. 18.  On 18 December 2006 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the decisions of 8 December 2006 by which the District Court had granted a seventy-two-hour extension to keep the applicant in police custody and had authorised his detention. The Regional Court endorsed the reasons given by the District Court. 19.  Later in December other two criminal cases were launched against the applicant. On 25 December 2006 he was additionally charged with aggravated abuse of position and illegal business activities. In particular, the prosecution suspected that in 1997, abusing his powers as the mayor of Tomsk, the applicant had unlawfully obtained 30% of the shares in a large wholesale company and approximately 33% of the shares in another public company. 20.  On 30 January 2007 the Tomsk Regional Prosecutor asked the Sovetskiy District Court to extend the applicant’s detention for an additional three months, arguing that the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and that he was liable to influence witnesses, destroy evidence, pervert the course of justice and abscond. The prosecutor relied on information provided by the Tomsk Regional FSB Department, according to which the applicant wanted to leave Russia and move to a member State of the European Union, possibly Poland or the Czech Republic. A letter from a deputy head of the Tomsk Regional FSB Department was enclosed. The relevant part of the letter read as follows:
“Thus, according to the available information, [the applicant] has asked his daughter Ms Y. to resign from [her position] in the law-enforcement bodies and to sell quickly the immovable property she owns, including a house..., and has advised her to leave Russia with her children as soon as possible.
At the same time, [the applicant] is taking steps to pervert the course of the investigation using his connections with the authorities in Tomsk and the Tomsk Region. In particular, [the applicant], with the help of his relatives and confidants, has influenced officials of the [Tomsk] Town Council who are acting as witnesses in criminal case no. 2006/4500, including by making threats to use physical force against them and their family members. Moreover, he is actively using negative information damaging to the reputation of senior officials and employees of the Tomsk mayor’s office, the Tomsk Regional Administration and members of the Tomsk Town Council.
Furthermore, ... on orders from [the applicant], his confidants and close relatives visited Moscow and had several meetings with high-ranking officials, including those in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, and with intermediaries who have connections with corrupt officials in law-enforcement bodies who may discontinue the criminal proceedings against him in return for money. As a result of those meetings, presumably, [the applicant’s] confidants reached an agreement concerning the provision of consultative, administrative and legal assistance in their efforts to secure [the applicant’s] release.
The available information supports the conclusion that, if released, [the applicant] will have real opportunities to obstruct the course of justice.” 21.  At the same time the applicant’s lawyers lodged an application with the Sovetskiy District Court for the applicant’s release. They argued that the applicant had a permanent place of residence in Tomsk, that his family also lived in Tomsk, that he did not have any immovable property outside Tomsk and that he did not have a passport to travel. Furthermore, he had been registered as a candidate for the forthcoming parliamentary elections in the Tomsk Region and had deposited RUB 900,000, approximately 26,000 euros (EUR) to be registered as a candidate. The lawyers insisted that the applicant did not intend to abscond, arguing that there was no evidence that his relatives had sold property or had bought foreign currency. They also pointed out that he was sixty-one years old and seriously ill and that he needed special medical treatment and a particular diet which could not be provided in a detention facility. 22.  On 5 February 2007 the District Court accepted the prosecutor’s request and extended the applicant’s detention until 6 May 2007. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“Thus, [the applicant] is currently suspended from his position as mayor of Tomsk; however, by virtue of Article 114 of the Code on Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, this measure is temporary and does not entail dismissal from the position or loss of social and employment status and personal authority over certain groups of individuals and officials who may be questioned as witnesses in the course of the criminal proceedings. In particular, [the applicant’s] former subordinates may act as witnesses in the criminal investigation.
...
When on 8 December 2006 the court chose a measure of restraint, [it] noted that there was evidence supporting the conclusion that the defendant might abscond; that evidence did not cease to exist after the examination of the question of the application of the measure of restraint. Thus, [the fact that the applicant has] a permanent place of residence and the family (wife, children, grandchildren) in one town, [and that he does not have] immovable property and bank accounts outside Tomsk cannot serve as an independent ground excluding the possibility of the defendant’s absconding or perverting the course of the investigation. [The applicant] can also participate in the election campaign while outside his electoral district.
There is no evidence that the state of [the applicant’s] health has deteriorated since he has been in custody. According to the conclusions of the complex forensic medical examination no. 342-Uzh, [the applicant] has several chronic conditions, including...; however, taking into account those diseases, he may be detained on condition that urgent special medical assistance is provided.” 23.  On 1 March 2007 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 February 2007, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court. 24.  On 26 April 2007 the applicant was charged with bribery and an additional two counts of aggravated abuse of position. In particular, the prosecution alleged that he had bought a municipal plot of land, paying a tenth of its value as had been estimated by the Tomsk Town Land Committee, and that he had received RUB 300,000 as a bribe. 25.  On 25 April 2007 the applicant’s counsel, Mr K., asked a senior investigator from the office of the Tomsk Regional Prosecutor to authorise a medical examination of the applicant by three particular specialists in view of the fact that the authorised period of his detention was to expire on 6 May 2007 and he was continuously complaining of severe back and stomach pain and the lack of adequate medical assistance. 26.  Three days later the senior investigator dismissed the request on the ground that the applicant had undergone treatment in a prison hospital from 8 December 2006 to 12 January 2007 and that he had on numerous occasions been examined by groups of prison doctors who had found him fit to participate in the investigation. 27.  On 4 May 2007 the Sovetskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 6 September 2007 on the grounds that he was charged with serious criminal offences, that he could have influenced witnesses – his former subordinates – using his official powers and that he was liable to pervert the course of justice and abscond. The District Court also found that the applicant’s state of health was stable and he was fit to remain in detention. According to the Government, in its decision to extend the applicant’s detention the District Court had relied on information provided by the Tomsk Regional FSB Department. The FSB officials alleged that the applicant’s relatives “were actively selling immovable and other property belonging to the mayor’s family” and “were using proceeds to buy large sums of foreign currency for a subsequent move to foreign countries”. 28.  On 31 May 2007 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 4 May 2007, finding no grounds for the applicant’s release. 29.  In July and August 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant pertaining to three other counts of abuse of position, two counts of aggravated bribery, possession of drugs and aiding and abetting fraud. 30.  On 23 August 2007 the applicant was served with a bill of indictment comprising accusations on all charges. Four days later the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyers began studying the case file. 31.  On 3 September 2007 the Sovetskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 6 December 2007. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“As it follows from the case file materials, [the applicant] is charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences and the case is very complex, which is confirmed by the substantial volume of the materials (approximately thirty-five volumes) and the necessity for the defendant and his lawyers to study the file...
It also follows from the case file materials that the measure of restraint was chosen for [the applicant] correctly, in accordance with Article 97 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, which is based on the particular seriousness of the charges, [and] the presence of the possibility for the defendant to use his official powers to prevent the establishment of the truth.
The grounds for the application of such [a measure of restraint] did not cease to exist; [they] did not change and the new grounds, showing that it is necessary to apply another measure of restraint, did not emerge.
Taking into account the materials of the case file and having regard to the official and material status of the defendant, the court has grounds to consider that, if released, [the applicant] as the head of the municipality might apply pressure to the witnesses, and [he] might also escape from the investigating authorities, including by leaving the Russian Federation.
A temporary suspension from the office does not mean the dismissal from the position, the loss of social and official status, [the loss] of personal authority over particular groups of private individuals and officials who may be questioned as witnesses in the case during the pre-trial investigation or in a court.
...
The [fact] that [the applicant] does not have a travel passport or medical insurance for a foreign State cannot serve as evidence that it is impossible for him to leave the Russian Federation.
[The facts that the applicant] has a permanent place of residence, [and] the family (spouse, children and grandchildren) living within the same town, [that he] does not have immovable property or bank accounts in foreign States cannot on their own serve as an independent ground excluding a possibility of the defendant’s absconding the investigation and trial or his liability to pervert the course of the investigation.
According to a medical certificate, [the applicant’s] state of health allows his detention in a temporary detention facility.
...
While extending the detention, the court takes into account the absence of prior convictions, the defendant’s state of health, the presence of the permanent places of residence and work, [his] age, however, taking into account the above stated, [the court] does not find any ground permitting a change of the measure of restraint applied to [the applicant].” 32.  On 27 September 2007 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 3 September 2007, noting that the District Court had not relied exclusively on the gravity of the charges against the applicant, and that it had taken into account other relevant information, such as the likelihood that applicant would abscond and pervert the course of justice by threatening witnesses and victims and prompting them to withdraw or change their statements. 33.  On 3 December 2007 the Tomsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for an additional three months, until 6 March 2008, to allow the defendants to finish studying the case file. The Regional Court held that the grounds for the applicant’s arrest, that is the gravity of the charges against him and his liability to abscond, pervert the course of justice and reoffend, were still applicable and that they warranted the exceptional duration of the detention for more than twelve months, in spite of the arguments advanced by the defence and the personal surety offered on the applicant’s behalf by the Archbishop of the Tomsk Region. Furthermore, the Regional Court noted that the case file contained information pertaining to the applicant’s attempts to influence a victim, Mr L., and a witness, Mr B., and his alleged attempts to pervert the course of the investigation. 34.  The applicant and his lawyers appealed, arguing that the Regional Court had failed to indicate any instance when the applicant had attempted to influence witnesses or victims. They insisted that the prosecution authorities had not presented any evidence of the applicant’s alleged attempts to influence the course of the investigation or of his liability to abscond or reoffend. 35.  On 11 February 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of 3 December 2007, noting that “at the time of the arrest [the applicant] was the mayor of Tomsk and he was charged with serious criminal offences pertaining to his office.” The Supreme Court also agreed with the Regional Court that additional time was necessary for the parties to finish reading the sixty-one volumes of the case file. 36.  On 3 March 2008 the Tomsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 6 June 2008. The reasoning was identical to the one given in the decision on 3 December 2007, save for one detail: the Regional Court mentioned that in 2007 the applicant’s relatives had bought large amounts of foreign currency. In addition, the Regional Court noted the exceptional duration of the applicant’s detention, holding as follows:
“While extending [the applicant’s] detention on the grounds prescribed by Article 109 § 7 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the court also notes that the suspect has been in custody for more than a year.
However, the court, relying on Article 109 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, considers that the particular complexity of the criminal case, the seriousness of the charges against [the applicant], [his] social and official status, the presence of circumstances which allow to conclude that, if released, [the applicant] is liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice represent the exclusive grounds warranting the extension of [the applicant’s] detention for more than twelve months.” 37.  On 21 April 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of 3 March 2008, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court. 38.  On 3 June 2008 the Tomsk Regional Court held a preliminary hearing in the case. It examined and granted a number of requests lodged by the applicant, his co-defendant and their lawyers, including a request for a jury trial and exclusion of certain items from evidence. By the same decision the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for an additional six months, until 20 November 2008, noting that the measure of restraint had been correctly chosen and that “the grounds for detention had not changed”. The Regional Court also held that the applicant could influence witnesses who worked in the Tomsk Mayor’s office and that he had several places of residence, thus being liable to abscond. 39.  On 18 August 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision, finding that the Regional Court had correctly identified the grounds for the extension of the detention and had issued a reasoned decision. 40.  It appears that the trial proceedings are still pending and the applicant remains in custody. 41.  On 8 December 2006 the applicant, having had an initial diagnosis of ischemic heart disease and unstable stenocardia, was admitted to the hospital in the Tomsk Town temporary detention facility. The Government provided a detailed description of the treatment administered to the applicant, including the type and frequency of medical procedures, type and dose of medicine. They also furnished a copy of the applicant’s medical record and medical certificates. 42.  As it follows from the presented documents, on the day of his admission to the prison hospital the applicant was submitted to five electrocardiographic examinations. It was established that he was not suffering from an acute heart condition. On 11 December 2006 the applicant was examined by a medical commission comprising nine specialists in various fields of medicine. The commission concluded that the applicant suffered from encephalopathy of the first and second degree aggregated by cervicalgia and accompanied by a syndrome of moderate pain; chronic pancreatitis and chronic cholecystitis in the state of remission. The treatment was prescribed. A week later the applicant was again examined by the commission with the participation of two cardiologists from the Tomsk Regional Clinical Hospital. The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease was confirmed. The doctors concluded that the applicant’s state of health was stable and that he did not need permanent medication. On 20 and 21 December 2006 the applicant did not consent to an examination by a neurologist. On 11 January 2007 he refused to have blood taken for a complete biochemical analysis. On the same day a group of three doctors examined the applicant, finding that he could be discharged from the hospital because his health was satisfactory and he was able to take part in investigative actions, including those performed outside the detention facility. On 19 January 2007 the applicant was examined by a medical commission comprising two surgeons, a therapist, a neurologist and an expert in ultrasound examinations from the Tomsk Regional Somatic Hospital. They confirmed the applicant’s diagnosis and set up a schedule for treatment. The applicant received etiotropic and pathogenic treatment in the facility medical department. 43.  As it follows from the information provided by the Government, the applicant remains under constant medical observation by a number of specialists in various fields of medicine, undergoing regular medical check-ups, including ultrasonic scanning, electrocardiographic examinations and blood tests. The applicant’s state of health is considered “stable [and] satisfactory”. 44.  The parties did not dispute the measurements of the cells and the number of inmates detained together with the applicant. As it follows from their submissions, on 12 January 2007 the applicant was placed in cell no. 214 which measured 9.5 square metres and had four sleeping places. He was detained alone. From 1 February to 23 May 2007 the applicant was kept in cell no. 26 which measured 9.2 square metres and was equipped with a two-tier metal bunk. He shared the cell with another detainee. Since 23 May 2007 the applicant has been detained in cell no. 251, measuring 11.5 square metres and having two two-tier metal bunks. From 23 May to 27 September 2007 the cell accommodated two detainees. Since 27 September 2007 the applicant has been sharing the cell with two inmates. 45.  It was likewise undisputed that each cell had a window measuring 70 centimetres in width and 90 to 95 centimetres in length. The windows were not covered with metal shutters, but there were two layers of metal vertical and horizontal lattices on the outer and inner sides of each window. Openings between the metal bars, measuring 20 square centimetres between the external lattices and 16 square centimetres between the internal lattices, brought natural light in the cells. According to the applicant, the lighting was clearly insufficient, as the metal bars blocked access to natural light and fresh air. The applicant claimed that insufficient lighting had impaired his eyesight. His condition was further exacerbated by the fact that he suffered from myopathy and increased intraocular pressure possibly coupled with glaucoma. He experienced severe headaches and became extremely tired if he attempted to work or read. The Government submitted that the size, location and number of windows allowed inmates to read and work in natural lighting. The cells were constantly lit with electric incandescent lighting: 100-watt bulbs during the daytime and 40-watt bulbs at night. The Government stressed that the lighting was in accordance with sanitary norms. 46.  According to the Government, the detention facility was equipped with a central heating system. Each cell had a two- or three-unit heating device. In a certificate issued on 13 November 2007, the facility director noted that the temperature in the cells during the heating season “depended on the provision of the heat by the town heating system, according to the temperature chart”. The Government, relying on the information provided by the facility administration, further stated that the average temperature in the cells was 20 degrees Celsius in winter and 23 degrees Celsius in summer. The applicant averred that the Government did not indicate the year for which the average temperature had been measured. He argued that it was extremely hot in summer and cold in spring and winter. 47.  The parties further submitted that the windows in the cells had a casement. Inmates could open the casement to bring in fresh air. Each cell had a ventilation system. According to the Government, the applicant was also allowed to have a private fan. The latter fact was disputed by the applicant, who pointed out that an extract from a log, presented by the Government and showing his personal belongings, did not bear his signature against the last line, where the private fan was mentioned, although he had confirmed receipt of all other items with a signature. 48.  Each cell was equipped with a lavatory pan, a sink, a tap for running water and wooden desk. A smaller cell had a wooden bench. The lavatory pan was placed in the corner of the cell. The Government produced black and white photos of the cells where the applicant had been detained. The photos showed that the lavatory pan was separated from the living area by a tiled brick partition. As it follows from a certificate issued on 13 November 2007 by the facility director, the height of the partitions varied from 145 to 165 centimetres. The applicant submitted that the partition afforded no privacy, as it had been only installed on the one side of the lavatory pan. The pan could still be seen by inmates lying on the bunks and warders standing near the cell door. The applicant further pointed out that inmates were not provided with cleaning fluids for the sanitary equipment. 49.  The applicant was allowed to take a shower once a week for a minimum of fifteen minutes. The applicant asserted that it was difficult to maintain personal hygiene, particularly in summer when it was extremely hot. He could also take a one-hour walk in a small concrete facility courtyard. The applicant insisted that the courtyard was so small that he could not do any physical exercises although the prison doctor had prescribed him therapeutic exercises to alleviate back pain caused by osteochondrosis. 50.  At all times the applicant had an individual sleeping place and he was provided with bedding. The applicant argued that the bedding, in particular a mattress, did not satisfy his needs. Relying on medical certificates and his medical record, the applicant submitted that he suffered from osteochondrosis of the vertebral column with the primary localisation in the lumbar spine. Prison doctors who had examined the applicant on two occasions recommended that the applicant should be provided with a special board which could be placed under the mattress to provide support for his back. The recommendation was not fulfilled. As a result the applicant suffered from severe back pain. In particular, the pain was so severe that on four occasions in March, April and May 2007 a prison doctor prescribed him painkillers. Furthermore, the applicant pointed out that the distance between the lower and upper tiers of the bunks was only 65 centimetres. The applicant was thus forced to bend when seated, experiencing additional back pain. 51.  The Government, relying on the information provided by the director of the facility and copies of entries to facility logs, further stated that the applicant was given dietetic food “in accordance with the norms established for detainees undergoing medical treatment”. Medical personnel checked the quality of the food and made entries to that effect in logs. On a number of occasions the applicant refused to eat facility food. However, during the entire period of his detention he received 308 food parcels from his relatives and on thirty-seven occasions he bought food from a facility shop. The applicant submitted that the chronic diseases, that is chronic cholecystitis and pancreatitis, from which he suffered required dietary management which could not be met by normal diet alone. The food prepared in the facility did not correspond to the distinctive nutritional needs and was not intended for the dietary management of those diseases. For example, during two first weeks of his detention he was served fried potatoes and boiled fat, which had been expressly prohibited for the applicant.


5.  The applicants were born in 1928 and 1930 respectively. The second applicant lives in Belgorod. 6.  The applicants received old-age pensions. 7.  In 1999 the applicants sued the Pension Fund Agency of Belgorod (“the Agency”) alleging that their pensions had been calculated in breach of a scheme for the calculation of retirement benefits – the “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”) – introduced by the Pensions Law of 1997. The applicants maintained that they were entitled to an IPC of 0.7, whilst the Agency only applied an IPC of 0.525. 8.  On 27 May 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod (“the Oktyabrskiy District Court”) dismissed the applicants’ claims as unfounded. 9.  On 27 July 1999 the Civil Section of the Belgorod Regional Court (“the Belgorod Regional Court”) set aside the above judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination. 10.  On 23 September 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court found in the applicants’ favour. It held that the Agency had misinterpreted the Pensions Law and that the IPC to be applied in the applicants’ case should be 0.7. The court ordered the Agency to increase the applicants’ pension by RUR 642.84 and awarded them arrears of RUR 3,222.6. 11.  On 16 November 1999 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and the judgment of 23 September 1999 became final. 12.  On 3 December 1999 enforcement proceedings commenced. 13.  On 13 January 2000 the Agency requested the court to suspend the enforcement pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Russia concerning similar pension cases. 14.  On 14 February 2000 the Western Circuit Court of Belgorod (Федеральный суд Западного округа г. Белгорода, “the Western Circuit Court”) dismissed the request, having established no grounds for suspending the enforcement. 15.  On an unspecified date the Agency filed a new request to postpone the execution of the judgment of 23 September 1999. On 17 March 2000 the Western Circuit Court granted the request. 16.  On 18 April 2000, upon the order of the same court, the enforcement proceedings were resumed. 17.  On an unspecified date the Agency again applied for a stay of the enforcement, referring to the lack of funds. On 19 June 2000 the Western Circuit Court rejected this request as groundless. 18.  On 29 June 2000 the acting President of the Belgorod Regional Court ordered a stay of enforcement, as on an unspecified date an extraordinary appeal had been brought against the judgment of 23 September 1999. 19.  On 29 September 2000 the President of the Belgorod Regional Court set aside the above order, following the withdrawal of the extraordinary appeal. The enforcement proceedings re-commenced. 20.  On 19 May 2000 the Agency filed an application to re-consider the judgment of 23 September 1999 on account of newly-discovered circumstances. It stated that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour had passed an instruction clarifying the application of the Pensions Law which had gone against the interpretation of that law by the courts in the applicants’ case. The Agency maintained that it had been unaware of these circumstances when the judgment of 23 September 1999 had been given and, therefore, the judgment should be re-considered. 21.  On 15 June 2000 the Western Circuit Court of Belgorod disallowed the Agency’s application, having noted that the instruction in question was not newly-discovered evidence within the meaning of the domestic law. 22.  On 10 October 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court overturned the decision of 15 June 2000 on appeal and remitted the case for a new consideration. 23.  On 2 November 2000 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court set aside the decision of 10 October 2000, referring to a number of procedural irregularities and remitted the case to the appeal instance. 24.  During a new examination, on 21 November 2000, the Belgorod Regional Court again quashed the decision of 15 June 2000 and ordered the first instance to consider the case afresh. 25.  On an unspecified date the President of the Belgorod Regional Court lodged an extraordinary appeal against the decision of 27 July 1999, the judgment of 23 September 1999, the decision of 16 November 1999 and the decision of 21 November 2000. 26.  On 1 February 2001 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court, having examined the extraordinary appeal in the supervisory review proceedings, quashed the aforementioned decisions and judgment and upheld the judgment of 27 May 1999 and the decision of 15 June 2000, thus reinstating the applicants’ IPC at 0.525 and annulling the previously awarded increase as well as the arrears. 27.  On an unspecified date the applicants filed a claim against the Belgorod Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage for the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment of 23 September 1999 within a reasonable time. 28.  On 5 April 2001 the Eastern Circuit Court of Belgorod (Федеральный суд Восточного округа г. Белгорода) rejected the action. The court found that the delays in the enforcement proceedings had not been imputable to the bailiffs. 29.  On 5 June 2001 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld this judgment on appeal.


11.  The applicants were born in 1959 and 1971 respectively and are currently in custody in the Republic of Uzbekistan. They are members of Erk (Freedom), an opposition party in Uzbekistan. 12.  On 3 March 1999 the first applicant arrived in Istanbul from Alma-Ata (Kazakhstan), on a tourist visa. He was arrested by the Turkish police at Atatürk Airport (Istanbul) under an international arrest warrant and taken into police custody on suspicion of homicide, causing injuries through the explosion of a bomb in Uzbekistan and an attempted terrorist attack on the President of Uzbekistan. 13.  The Republic of Uzbekistan requested his extradition under a bilateral treaty with Turkey. 14.  On 5 March 1999 the Bakırköy public prosecutor made an application to the investigating judge for the first applicant to be remanded in custody. The first applicant, who was assisted by his lawyer, was brought before the judge on the same day and remanded in custody for forty-five days, in accordance with the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. 15.  On 11 March 1999 the first applicant was interviewed by the judge of the Bakırköy Criminal Court. In an order made on the same day under the expedited applications procedure, the judge referred to the charges against the first applicant and noted that the offences concerned were not political or military in nature but ordinary criminal offences. The judge also made an order remanding him in custody pending his extradition. The first applicant, who was assisted by his lawyer and an interpreter, denied the charges and protested his innocence. 16.  In written pleadings that were lodged at a hearing on 11 March 1999, the first applicant’s representative argued that his client was working for the democratisation of his country and that political dissidents in Uzbekistan were arrested by the authorities and subjected to torture in prison. He added that the first applicant had been in Kazakhstan at the material time and had asked the Turkish authorities for political asylum as his life was at risk. He argued that his client was being prosecuted for an offence of a political nature and, relying on Article 9 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code, asked the Criminal Court to refuse Uzbekistan’s request for extradition. 17.  On 15 March 1999 the first applicant appealed to the Bakırköy Assize Court against the order made under the expedited applications procedure on 11 March 1999. Having examined the case file, the Assize Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal on 19 March 1999. 18.  The second applicant entered Turkey on 13 December 1998 on a false passport. On 5 March 1999, acting on a request for his extradition by the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Turkish police arrested him and took him into police custody. He was suspected of homicide, causing injuries to others through the explosion of a bomb in Uzbekistan and an attempted terrorist attack on the President of Uzbekistan. 19.  On 7 March 1999 the Bakırköy public prosecutor made an application to the investigating judge for the second applicant to be remanded in custody. On the same day the second applicant was brought before the judge, who remanded him in custody. 20.  At a hearing on 11 March 1999, the second applicant’s representative submitted that the offence with which his client had been charged was political in nature and that political dissidents in Uzbekistan were arrested by the authorities and subjected to torture in prison. He added that the second applicant had been in Turkey at the material time on a false passport. 21.  In a letter of 12 March 1999 the Fatih public prosecutor applied to the Fatih Criminal Court for a determination of the second applicant’s nationality and of the nature of the alleged offence. 22.  In a decision of 15 March 1999, after hearing the applicant, the Criminal Court determined his nationality and the nature of the offence pursuant to Article 9 of the Turkish Criminal Code. It held that the offences with which he had been charged were not political or military in nature but ordinary criminal offences. It also made an order remanding the applicant in custody pending his extradition. 23.  On 18 March 1999 the second applicant appealed to the Istanbul Assize Court against the judgment of 15 March 1999. Having examined the case file, the Assize Court dismissed the appeal on 26 March 1999. 24.  On 18 March 1999 the President of the relevant Chamber of the Court decided to indicate to the Government, on the basis of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and of the smooth progress of the proceedings before the Court not to extradite the applicants to Uzbekistan prior to the meeting of the competent Chamber, which was to take place on 23 March 1999. 25.  On 19 March 1999 the Turkish government issued a decree ordering the applicants’ extradition. 26.  On 23 March 1999 the Chamber decided to extend the interim measure indicated pursuant to Rule 39 until further notice. 27.  On 27 March 1999 the applicants were handed over to the Uzbek authorities. 28.  In a letter of 19 April 1999, the Government informed the Court that it had received the following assurances regarding the two applicants from the Uzbek authorities: on 9 March and 10 April 1999 the Uzbek embassy in Ankara had transmitted two notes from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to which were appended two letters from the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Uzbekistan, stating:
“The applicants’ property will not be liable to general confiscation, and the applicants will not be subjected to acts of torture or sentenced to capital punishment.
The Republic of Uzbekistan is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture and accepts and reaffirms its obligation to comply with the requirements of the provisions of that Convention as regards both Turkey and the international community as a whole.” 29.  On 11 June 1999 the Government transmitted to the Court a diplomatic note dated 8 June 1999 from the Uzbek Ministry of Foreign Affairs setting out the following points:
“It appears from investigations conducted by the Uzbek judicial authorities that Mr Mamatkulov and Mr Askarov have played an active role in planning and organising terrorist acts against the leaders of the Republic of Uzbekistan and its people since May 1997, as members of a criminal organisation led by C.H. and T.Y., who are notorious religious extremists.
It appears from information obtained through cooperation with the intelligence services of foreign countries that Mr Mamatkulov and Mr Askarov have committed offences in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.
Their indictment, which was drawn up on the basis of previously obtained evidence, includes a number of charges: setting up a criminal organisation, terrorism, a terrorist attack on the President, seizing power through the use of force or by overthrowing the constitutional order, arson, uttering forged documents and voluntary homicide.
All the investigations have been conducted with the participation of their lawyers. The defendants have made statements of their own free will on the activities of the criminal organisation and their role within it. That information has been corroborated by the other evidence that has been obtained.
The assurances given by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Uzbekistan concerning Mr Mamatkulov and Mr Askarov comply with Uzbekistan’s obligations under the United Nation’s Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984.
The defendants and their lawyers have examined the prosecution evidence relating to the investigation and the proceedings and a copy of the indictment transmitted to the Supreme Court has been served on them.
Arrangements for the accused’s security during the investigation and trial have been made through the use of secure premises (with cells specially equipped for that purpose) and appropriate measures have been taken to prevent them being attacked.
The defendants’ trial in the Supreme Court has recently begun with hearings in public. The hearings are attended by members of the local and foreign press. Members of diplomatic missions and representatives of human rights organisations also attend the hearings.
Officials from the embassy of the Republic of Turkey may also attend.” 30.  In a letter of 8 July 1999, the Government informed the Court that by a judgment of 28 June 1999 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan had found the applicants guilty of the offences charged and had sentenced them to terms of imprisonment. 31.  In a letter to the Court dated 15 September 1999, the applicants’ representatives said that they had not been able to contact their clients, that conditions in Uzbek prisons were bad and prisoners subjected to torture. They noted, inter alia:
“...
The applicants did not have a fair trial in the Republic of Uzbekistan. The rule requiring trials to be held in public was not complied with. Our only information about the applicants’ trial comes from the Uzbek authorities.
We wrote to the Uzbek embassy in Ankara on 25 June 1999 requesting permission to attend the trial as observers in our capacity as lawyers, but have received no reply.
As to the assertion that the applicants’ trial was followed by ‘members of the local and foreign press and representatives of human rights organisations’, the only non-governmental organisation present in Uzbekistan that was able to follow the trial was Human Rights Watch. Although we have made express requests to that organisation, we have not been able to obtain any detailed information about the hearings and events at the trial.
Since the applicants’ extradition, we have been unable to contact them by either letter or telephone. We still have no means of contacting them. This state of affairs serves to confirm our suspicions that the applicants are not being held in proper prison conditions.
According to the letter sent by the Court on 9 July 1999 and information published in the press, Mr Mamatkulov has been sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. That is the heaviest sentence that can be handed down under the Uzbek Criminal Code. Furthermore, if account is taken of the conditions of detention in Uzbek prisons, and in particular of the use of torture, it is very difficult for prisoners to serve their sentences in the prisons in proper conditions. Moreover, it is generally believed that certain prisoners, in particular those convicted of offences pertaining to freedom of expression, are given additional sentences.” 32.  On 15 October 2001 the Uzbek Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent the following information to the Turkish embassy in Tashkent:
“On 28 June 1999 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan found R. Mamatkulov and Z. Askarov guilty of the offences listed below and sentenced them to twenty years’ and eleven years’ imprisonment respectively: 33.  At the hearing on 23 October 2001, the Government informed the Court that on 19 October 2001 two officials from the Turkish embassy in Tashkent had visited the applicants in Zarafshan Prison and Şayhali Prison, which are respectively 750 and 560 kilometres from Tashkent. According to the embassy officials, the applicants were in good health and had not complained about their prison conditions. 34.  On 3 December 2001 the Uzbek authorities communicated to the Government medical certificates that had been drawn up by military doctors in the prisons in which the applicants were being held. The doctors made the following findings:
“... Mr Mamatkulov was imprisoned on 9 December 2000. He did not present any health problems on arrival. Examinations on 14 December 2000 and 2 April 2001 did not reveal any pathological symptoms.
On 19 November 2001 the prisoner attended the prison medical centre complaining of general weakness and a bout of coughing. ... on examination he was diagnosed as suffering from acute bronchitis and was prescribed medication ...”
“... Mr Abdurasulovich Askarov was imprisoned on 21 July 2001. He did not complain of any health problems on arrival. Examinations conducted on 25 July, 30 August and 23 October 2001 did not reveal any pathological symptoms ...” 35.  On the basis of lists that had been communicated by the Uzbek authorities, the Government informed the Court on 16 April 2004 that the applicants had received a number of visits from close relatives between January 2002 and 2004. 36.  To date, the applicants’ representatives have been unable to contact the applicants.


4.  The applicant was born in 1966. He entered the Czech Republic in 1983. 5.  On 17 December 1997 at 10.30 a.m. the applicant was brought to a police investigation office in order to provide certain explanations (podání vysvětlení) in connection with an investigation for fraud. He was heard by a police investigator from 2.15 to 4.45 p.m. A lawyer was appointed for him. The applicant was arrested at 5.50 p.m, and charged with attempted fraud under sections 8(1) and 250(1) and (4) of the Criminal Code (hereinafter “the CC”) on the ground that he, together with a certain M.M., had opened bogus bank accounts on which they had attempted to collect CZK 56,228,000 (EUR 1,938,897) and CZK 36,572,000 (EUR 1,261,103) through false postal orders. 6.  On 19 December 1997 the applicant was brought before a judge at the Prague 1 District Court (soudce obvodního soudu) who ordered his detention on remand.  On the same day, the applicant’s home was searched. 7.  On 19 January 1998 the Prague Criminology Institute (Kriminalistický ústav) was requested to draw up an expert report on the false postal orders.  On 16 February 1998 the Criminology Technique and Expertise Department of the criminal police (odbor kriminalistické techniky a expertiz) was requested to examine the applicant’s computer and diary. The expert opinions were submitted on 29 April and 12 June 1998 respectively. 8.  On 3 and 18 March, 22 July and 22 October 1998 respectively, the applicant was heard. 9.  On 18 March 1999 he was informed that his criminal activity would be considered as complicity in fraud in an organised group under section 43 of the CC. On 6 September 1999 the postal orders were described. 10.  On 24 September and 9 August 2000 respectively, the applicant was heard. 11.  On 25 April 2001 the applicant’s defence counsel, after having examined her client’s file, asked that the evidence be completed by the hearing of two witnesses, one of them, T., being the applicant’s cousin. His request was refused by the police investigator on 22 May 2001 who did not consider the hearing of these witnesses necessary for the decision of the prosecutor and court. 12.  Meanwhile, 28 other suspects had been charged with the same offence, some of them being placed in custody. 13. On 3 July 2001 the Prague Regional Prosecutor (krajský státní zástupce), upon the investigator’s proposal of 21 June 2001, indicted the applicant and other co-accused before the Prague Regional Court (krajský soud). The applicant was so informed on 4 July 2001. 14.  On 6 September 2001 the Regional Court sent the case back to the Regional Prosecutor for additional investigations. It held that the applicant should remain in custody until 17 December 2001. On 22 November 2001 the High Court dismissed the prosecutor’s objection to this decision. On 5 December 2001 the case file was remitted to the Regional Prosecutor. 15.  On 29 May 2002 the applicant was heard but used his right to remain silent. 16. On 14 August 2002 another expert, having been appointed on 13 February 2002, submitted a report. 17.  Between June 2002 and January 2003, the authorities took a number of procedural steps. 18.  On 30 January 2003 the Regional Prosecutor again indicted all the suspects, including the applicant. The indictment contained 89 pages. The applicant was so informed on 10 April 2003. 19.  On 15 April 2003 the indictment in Czech, French and Arabian was forwarded to the Regional Court which, on 15 July 2003, set the trial for 20 October until 19 November 2003. 20.  On 10 September 2003 a procedural hearing of the applicant was held. The latter said that he would not need an interpreter at the trial. 21.  According to the Government, the Regional Court started to deal with case on 21 October 2003, eight suspects having failed to attend the trial on 20 October 2003. The criminal case relating to two suspects was excluded from the joint trial. 22.  On 22 October 2003 an interpreter into French was appointed to assist M.M. who did not understand Czech. On 27 October 2003 an interpreter into Arabian was appointed for the needs of certain witnesses. 23.  The trial continued between 7 and 30 January 2004, 36 witnesses being summoned and an additional expert report in psychiatry being ordered. According to the Government, the main hearing was actually held from 7 to 9 January 2004 and on 13, 16, 19 and 27 January 2004. 24.  From 19 to 27 January 2004 the case file was given to the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) for an examination of a complaint made by one of the suspects against a detention order. The matter was decided on 26 January 2004 and, according to the Government, the case file was immediately remitted to the Regional Court. 25.  The court continued to deal with the case between 1 and 26 April 2004, certain witnesses not having attended court. 19 witnesses were summoned to attend the hearing. 26.  On 22 March 2004 the court issued two arrest warrants against two suspects. Nevertheless, the main hearing continued on 1-2, 5, 7-9, 13-16 and 19-20 April 2004. On 21 April 2004 the hearing had to be adjourned until 21 June 2004. 16 witnesses were summoned to attend the court. 27.  The main hearing was held from 21 to 23 June and from 24 to 25 June 2004. 28.  In a judgment of 28 June 2004, the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of attempted fraud under sections 8(1) and 250(1) and (4) of the CC, and was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment. A time-limit for the elaboration of the judgment was extended until 22 January 2005 because of the complexity of the case. 29.  The criminal proceedings are now pending before the High Court, which scheduled a hearing for 21 February 2006. 30.  On 19 December 1997 the judge at the Prague 1 District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand, upon a request of 18 December 1997 by the Prague Municipal Prosecutor (městský státní zástupce), under section 67(a) and (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”), with effect from 17 December 1997 at 5.50 p.m. The judge held that, given the applicant’s Sudanese citizenship and passport and the fact that he was likely to be sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence, there was a risk that he would abscond to avoid the criminal proceedings. The judge also found that the applicant, being prosecuted together with M.M., could influence his co-accused and witnesses who had not yet been heard, and thus jeopardize the investigation. 31.  On 16 January 1998 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against his detention order. 32.  On 3 March 1998 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request for release. On 27 March 1998 the Municipal Court upheld this rejection. 33.  On 2 June 1998 the court, following the Municipal Prosecutor’s request of 29 May 1998, extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 17 October 1998. It held that the applicant was likely to be sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence which created the risk that he would abscond abroad if released, and that he could influence M.M. or other persons who had not yet been questioned. 34.  On 30 September 1998 the District Court, upon the Municipal Prosecutor’s request, extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 17 February 1999. The court considered that the reasons for the applicant’s detention, as set out in the earlier decision, were still relevant. It emphasised the fear that the applicant would influence M.M. who was currently serving his prison sentence or other persons who had not yet been heard. It finally referred to the complex character of the case which needed to be properly investigated. 35.  On 23 October 1998 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 12 October 1998 against this extension. 36.  On 14 December 1998 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) against the court decisions by which his detention on remand had been extended. He complained in particular that his continued detention on remand was not justified, and that the courts had not dealt with the case properly when examining the existence of the reasons for extending his detention. He further complained that he had not been brought before the court within 24 hours, as required by law. He invoked in this connection Articles 3 § 1 (the prohibition on discrimination), 8 §§ 2, 3 and 5 (the right to liberty and security), 36 § 1 (the right to judicial protection) and 40 § 2 (the presumption of innocence) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod). 37.  On 4 January 1999 M.M., whose prison sentence would have expired on 6 January 1999, was taken into custody pursuant to section 67(1)(a) of the CCP. 38.  On 26 January 1999 the District Court, upon the Municipal Prosecutor’s request of 22 January 1999, decided to prolong the applicant’s detention on remand until 17 June 1999, with reference to section 71(2) of the CCP, finding that the reasons for the detention under section 67 § 1(a) and (b) of the CCP continued to exist. The applicant’s belated complaint against this extension was rejected by the Municipal Court on 19 February 1999. 39.   In the meantime, on 15 February 1999, the investigator had decided to join the applicant’s and M.M.’s cases. 40.  On 3 June 1999 the Prague-East District Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 17 November 1999. On 30 June 1999 the Regional Court, upon the applicant’s and M.M.’s complaints, found that the reasons for their detention still existed, but reduced the detention period to 28 September 1999, considering that the investigation could be closed by the end of September 1999. 41.  In the meantime, on 9 June 1999, the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) had rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal as being manifestly unsubstantiated. 42.  On 13 September 1999 the District Court, at the Prague Regional Prosecutor’s (krajský státní zástupce) request of 6 September 1999, extended the applicant’s, M.M.’s and two other suspects’ detention on remand until 31 October 1999 with reference, inter alia, to the necessity to complete the investigation. 43.  On 15 October 1999, the District Court granted the Regional Prosecutor’s request of 11 October 1999 and extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 16 December 1999, stating that other persons had been accused in the meantime which would require hearing all 31 accused persons, as well as certain witnesses and experts. It found that there was still a risk that the applicant would influence the witnesses and co-accused and, given the risk of a lengthy prison sentence being imposed on him, he might avoid the criminal prosecution by absconding abroad. 44.  On 29 October and 24 November 1999, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints against the decisions of 13 September and 15 October 1999, by which his detention had been extended until 31 October and 16 December 1999 respectively. 45.  On 10 December 1999 the High Court, upon the motion of the Prague High Prosecutor’s Office (Vrchní státní zástupce), relying on section 71(3) of the CCP, extended the applicant’s detention until 31 May 2000 finding that there were still reasons for his detention under section 67(1)(a) and (b) of the CCP. It referred, inter alia, to the complex character of the case. It further relied on the reasonable suspicion based on cogent evidence that the applicant had committed the serious criminal offence with which he had been charged. 46.  On 6 January 2000 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) quashed the aforesaid decision, holding that there were no concrete reasons justifying the applicant’s remand in custody for fear of collusion or intimidation, under section 67(b) of the CCP, and decided anew, finding that there was still a risk that the applicant would abscond and avoid the criminal prosecution if released given the possible lengthy prison sentence, his Sudanese citizenship and domicile and his personal and family background. It held that the criminal proceedings had not been terminated within the two-year detention time-limit laid down in section 71(3) of the CCP, due to the complexity of the case and for other serious reasons. The court finally held that, on the basis of the material evidence collected in the pre-trial proceedings, it was possible to conclude that the serious criminal offence with which the applicant had been charged had really been committed by him. 47.  On 5 April and 7 June 2000 respectively, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s requests for release. On 28 April and 13 July 2000 respectively, the Regional Court rejected his complaints against these dismissals. 48.  On 19 May 2000 the High Court, granting the High Prosecutor’s request of 5 May 2000, extended the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2000, pursuant to section 71(3) of the CCP. It referred to the complex character of the case involving 31 suspects. The court stated inter alia that, given the legal classification of the applicant’s offence, he was likely to be sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment if convicted. It also noted that, being of a Sudanese nationality and having his domicile not only in Prague but also in Sudan, and having his family there and in the United States of America, the applicant might abscond. It considered, therefore, that his detention was still necessary within the meaning of section 67(1)(a) of the CCP. 49.  On 21 June 2000 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against this extension, referring, inter alia, to his Tunisian nationality and passport[1], and to the fact that he had his domicile and family in Tunis. The court dismissed any discriminatory element which could be used against the applicant in order to keep him in custody. 50.  On 21 July 2000 the applicant filed a second constitutional appeal, this time filed against the two last decisions. He alleged a violation of Article 8 §§ 1, 2 and 5 of the Charter. 51.  On 24 November 2000 the High Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention up to 30 March 2001 under section 71(3) of the CCP finding, with reference in particular to the extent of pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the suspects, that there was still a real risk that the applicant, a Sudanese citizen, would avoid the criminal prosecution or possible lengthy prison sentence if released. 52.  On 29 November 2000 the applicant’s counsel informed the Constitutional Court that his client’s detention had again been prolonged. 53.  On 21 December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 30 November 2000 against the decision of 24 November 2000 to extend his detention until 30 March 2001. The court shared the opinion of the High Court that the reason for the applicant’s continued detention under section 67(1)(a) of the CCP persisted. It referred in this respect to the previous decision of the High Court of 21 June 2000 describing the applicant’s ties with the Czech Republic, the character of his criminal activities and possible prison sentence. 54.  On 6 February 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s second constitutional appeal as being manifestly ill-founded. It held that the decisions extending the applicant’s detention beyond two years had been taken by virtue of section 71(3) of the CCP, and that it was clear from the evidence available that these decisions had been taken on the basis of the facts established at the material time. 55.  On 20 March 2001 the High Court granted the High Prosecutor’s request of 13 March 2001 to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 30 June 2001. On 24 April 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against this extension. 56.  On 21 May 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release. On 20 July 2001 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against this dismissal. 57.  On 19 June 2001 the High Court, upon the High Prosecutor’s request of 5 June 2001, extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 August 2001. Referring to the complex character of the case, the seriousness of the criminal activities with which the applicant and the other suspects had been charged and to the evidence collected so far, it found that it had been impossible to close the investigation within the two-year statutory period. It further held that the purpose of the criminal proceedings would be jeopardised if the suspects were released. In this respect the court recalled, inter alia, that the applicant was a Sudanese citizen, that his family lived in Sudan and that he did not have any family or other ties with the Czech Republic. On 18 July 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 2 July 2001 against the extension. 58.  On 1 August 2001 the High Court granted the request dated 10 July 2001 of the president of the chamber of the Regional Court to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 17 December 2001, finding that the reason for the applicant’s detention under section 67(1)(a) of the CCP continued to exist. The applicant’s complaint against this extension was dismissed on 21 August 2001 by the Supreme Court which found that there were good reasons to extend his detention in accordance with section 71(4) of the CCP, sharing the opinion of the High Court. It held that the case was factually complex and that the competent authorities had not been responsible for any unjustified delay. 59.  On 17 December 2001 the applicant was released from custody. 60.  On 28 June 2002 the applicant married a Czech woman. 61.  On 16 August 2002 the applicant filed an application for a residence permit in order to live with his Czech wife. 62.  On 2 September 2002 the Prague Aliens and Customs Police Service (služba cizinecké a pohraniční policie) suspended the examination of this request given the criminal investigation against the applicant which was still pending. It held in particular that, under section 70(1)(e) of the Aliens’ Residence in the Czech Republic Act, such a request had to be supported by a certificate of good conduct (doklad k posouzení trestní zachovalosti) proving that he had no criminal record in his own country, in a country where he had his permanent residence or in a country where he had been living for more than six months in the past three years. The Service also held that the application had not contained necessary documents confirming the reason for his residence in the Czech Republic or his financial means to live there. It referred to section 70(1)(c) and (d) of the Act. 63.  On 6 December 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s constitutional appeal against the aforesaid decision, in which he had alleged a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 36 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 40 § 2 of the Charter. 64.  On 2 January and 3 April 2002 respectively, the Deputy Ombudsman (zástupkyně veřejného ochránce práv) found that the Service had proceeded unlawfully. 65.  On 5 June 2003 a private translation company offered employment to the applicant. On 17 July 2003 it withdrew the offer, as the applicant had not submitted his residence permit.


5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Georgiyevsk. 6.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the joint stock company “Nov” (акционерное общество “Новь”), subsequently known as the collective farm “Nov” (сельскохозяйственная артель “Новь”), seeking recovery of 100 tons of sunflower seeds under a supply agreement. 7.  On 17 October 2001 the Georgiyevskiy Town Court granted the applicant’s claim. The defendant was absent from the hearing. 8.  On 24 December 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the Georgiyevskiy Town Court as it had not been possible to enforce it. 9.  On 13 March 2002, following a request by the defendant, the Georgiyevskiy Town Court quashed the judgment of 17 October 2001 and resumed the proceedings. 10.  On 22 October 2002 the applicant modified her claims and asked the court to order the defendant to pay her 800,000 Russian roubles. 11.  On 17 December 2002 the Georgiyevskiy Town Court granted the applicant’s claim. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 12.  The judgment could not be enforced because the defendant had insufficient funds. 13.  On an unspecified date in June 2003 the applicant lodged a claim against the Ministry of Finance seeking compensation for damages incurred through the inappropriate administration of justice, notably the excessive length of proceedings in respect of her claims against the company. She argued that the courts had failed to observe the time-limits prescribed by the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, which had undermined the possibility of enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. 14.  On 21 July 2003 the Basmannyj District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim without consideration on the merits. Referring to Ruling no. 1-P, adopted by the Constitutional Court on 25 January 2001 (see paragraph 18 below), the District Court noted that current laws did not determine the grounds or procedure for adjudicating a claim for damages on account of failure by the courts to comply with statutory time-limits. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“According to Article 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the rules of civil procedure in federal courts of general jurisdiction are determined by the Russian Constitution, the Judicial System Act, the Code of Civil Procedure and other federal laws.
The law has not determined the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over civil claims for compensation for damage incurred in civil proceedings in cases where a dispute has not been heard on the merits as a consequence of unlawful acts (or failure to act) of a court (a judge), including breach of a reasonable-time guarantee.
Pursuant to Article 134 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judge shall dismiss a statement of claim if the claim is subject to examination not in civil proceedings but in another judicial procedure.” 15.  On 10 March 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 21 July 2003 on appeal, finding as follows:
“In dismissing the claim with reference to Ruling no. 1-P of 25 January 2001 of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the court came to the correct conclusion that its examination by a district court of general jurisdiction would only be possible if a federal law determined that the district court of general jurisdiction had territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over such claims.
At the present time, however, neither the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation nor any other federal law ... determines the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over claims concerning compensation for damage caused by judicial acts not touching upon the merits of the case.”


6.  The first applicant, Mr Mihaylov, was born in 1926. He passed away in 2003. His heirs, the second applicant, Mrs Mihaylova, and her two children, Ms Valentina Mihaylova and Mr Stefan Mihaylov, stated that they wished to pursue the application. The applicants were born respectively in 1931, 1956 and 1962, and live in Sofia. 7.  In 1985 the first two applicants purchased from the Sofia municipality a three-room apartment of 88 square metres. The apartment was located in a three-storey building in the centre of Sofia. It had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and for several years afterwards. 8.  Several months after the adoption of the Restitution Law in 1992, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the first and second applicants, seeking the nullification of the applicants’ title and the restoration of their property.. 9.  The proceedings ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 13 December 2002. The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and ordered them to vacate the apartment. This finding was based on two grounds: 1) the area where the apartment was located had been earmarked for construction of buildings of more than three storeys, according to the building plan of Sofia, and the relevant legislation prohibited the sale of apartments in three-storey buildings located in such areas; and 2) the 1985 sale contract had not been signed by the mayor but by his deputy. 10.  The applicants vacated the apartment on 30 December 2002. 11.  After the final judgment in their case, the applicants had the opportunity to obtain compensation from the State in the form of compensation bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity. 12.  In May 2006 the second applicant was granted the tenancy of a one-room municipal apartment.