6.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Nebist Khalitova, born in 1959;
2) Ms Zarema Almurzayeva, born in 1971;
3) Ms Zalina Chapayeva, born in 1982; and
4) Mr Maulat Achkhanov, born in 1929.
The first applicant lives in the village of Raduzhnoe. The second, third and fourth applicants live in the village of Pobedinskoe. The two villages are located a short distance one from another in the Groznenskiy District of the Chechen Republic. 7.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Ali Uspayev and the mother of Mr Amir Magomedov. The second applicant is the sister of Mr Aslan Dokayev. Aslan Dokayev was married to the third applicant. The fourth applicant is the father of Mr Rustam Achkhanov. 8.  On the night of 18 July 2001 the first applicant, her son and husband were sleeping in their house in Raduzhnoe. At about 5 a.m. around thirty unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke into it. The men did not identify themselves. They had Slavic features and spoke Russian without an accent. 9.  The first applicant looked out of the window and saw the armed men dragging Amir Magomedov, who had his legs in a plaster cast because of a previous trauma, to the gates. Ali Uspayev was lying on the ground in the courtyard with his arms handcuffed behind his back. Then one of the armed men hit the first applicant with a rifle butt and she lost consciousness. Having recovered a few minutes later, she saw that everyone had left the house. 10.  According to her neighbours who witnessed the events, the armed men loaded Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev into one of two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) parked next to the first applicant’s house and drove away. Outside the village the two vehicles were joined by two more APCs.
(b)  Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov 11. On the morning of 18 July 2001 Rustam Achkhanov was driving his VAZ 2106 car. He was accompanied by his acquaintance, Aslan Dokayev. 12.  At about 6 a.m., when they reached the village of Raduzhnoe, unidentified armed men in four APCs without registration numbers opened fire in the direction of the VAZ 2106 car. Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov got out of the car and started running. The armed men continued shooting, wounded Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov and loaded them into one of the APCs. Then they took the music player and some other valuable items from the VAZ 2106 car, poured petrol over it and then set it on fire. The car blew up. The four APCs drove away. 13.  The second, third and fourth applicants did not see their relatives being taken away and obtained the description of the events from inhabitants of Raduzhnoe. 14.  On 18 July 2001 units of the federal troops and the Internal Troops of the Russian Ministry of the Interior carried out a special operation in the village of Pobedinskoe with a view to arresting members of illegal armed groups and prosecuting them in accordance with the law in force. The servicemen of the Internal Troops had a right to carry and use arms when ensuring peace and order. Residents of the Chechen Republic were advised by officials to abstain from using cars or other vehicles at night because of the unlawful activities of illegal armed groups and the counter-attacks of federal troops. 15.  At about 5 a.m. on 18 July 2001 Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov were travelling in a VAZ 2106 car in the direction of the village of Pobedinskoe. At some point near the bridge on the Alkhanchurskiy canal servicemen participating in the counter-terrorism campaign flagged down the VAZ 2106 car. The servicemen intended to check the identities of those travelling in the car. Rustam Achkhanov stopped the car within seventy metres of the servicemen; Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov left the car and started running. The servicemen fired warning shots in the air. The two men ignored the shots and continued running in the direction of civilians’ houses in the village of Raduzhnoe. Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov escaped the scene and their whereabouts were not established. The servicemen examined the VAZ 2106 car and the surrounding area. They found a RPG-26 hand-held grenade launcher («ручной гранатомет РПГ-26 «Муха»») lying next to the car and two shells for a RPG-7 hand-held grenade launcher («ручной гранатомет РПГ-7») in the car boot. 16.  At about 5 a.m. on 18 July 2001 unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms abducted Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev in the village of Raduzhnoe. The whereabouts of the two men were not established. 17.  On 18 July 2001, shortly after Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov were taken away, the second applicant discovered that Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev had been abducted as well. She was also told that the four APCs had headed to Solenaya Balka area where the 21st brigade of the Russian federal troops (“the Sophrino brigade”) was stationed. The second applicant immediately communicated that information to the military commander’s office of the Groznenskiy District, the Groznenskiy district department of the interior and the prosecutor’s office of the Groznenskiy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”). Some officials visited the headquarters of the Sophrino brigade and were informed that its officers had not been implicated in the abductions. 18.  On 18 July 2001 officials from a prosecutor’s office visited the first applicant and questioned her about the circumstances of the abduction of her son and husband. 19.  After 18 July 2001 the applicants repeatedly contacted various official bodies, both in person and in writing. In particular, they applied to prosecutors’ offices at different levels, the Administration of the Chechen Republic, the Russian State Duma and the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms. The applicants retained copies of some of these complaints and submitted them to the Court. The official bodies forwarded the majority of the complaints to the various prosecutors’ offices for investigation. 20.  On 18 July 2001 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the murder of Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov under Article 105 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated murder). The case file was given the number 19109. 21.  On 20 July 2001 the investigation file in case no. 19109 was forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”). It appears that the case was then assigned the number 14/33/0405-01. 22.  On 1 August 2001 the second applicant wrote to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic describing in detail the circumstances of the abduction of Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov and asking for help in establishing their whereabouts. 23.  On 2 August 2001 the unit prosecutor’s office summoned the second applicant for an interview. 24.  On 13 August 2001 the unit prosecutor’s office transferred the investigation file in case no. 14/33/0405-01 to the military prosecutor’s office of the North Caucasian Circuit (“the circuit prosecutor’s office”). 25.  On 16 August 2001 the unit prosecutor’s office sent a request to the temporary department of the interior of the Staropromyslovskiy District (“the VOVD”), which stated that on 18 July 2001 a group of servicemen commanded by an officer of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) had shot Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov during an attempt to escape arrest and that their corpses had been transported by the APCs. The VOVD was instructed to verify whether the bodies of Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov were among any unidentified corpses. 26.  On 29 November 2001 the district prosecutor’s office forwarded the second and fourth applicants’ complaints to the unit prosecutor’s office. 27.  On 30 November 2001 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the fourth applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office. 28.  On 14 December 2001 the unit prosecutor’s office forwarded the fourth applicant’s letter to the circuit prosecutor’s office to be included in the investigation file in case no. 14/33/0405-01. 29.  On 18 June 2002 the circuit prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 14/00/0019-01 for failure to identify the perpetrators. 30.  On 13 November 2002 the second applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic that there had been no progress in the investigation in case no. 14/33/0405-01 and asked for assistance in establishing her brother’s whereabouts. 31.  On 17 July 2003 the district prosecutor’s office issued the third applicant with a progress report on case no. 19109 which stated that the investigation had been opened on 18 July 2001 and that on 20 July 2001 the investigation file had been transferred to the unit prosecutor’s office. 32.  On 18 September 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the third applicant that the investigation file in case no. 14/33/0405-01 had been transferred to the circuit prosecutor’s office on 13 August 2001. 33.  On 10 November 2003 the second applicant requested the circuit prosecutor’s office to update her on progress in the investigation in case no. 14/33/0405-01 and to send her a copy of the latest decision. 34.  On 7 February 2004 the second applicant again wrote to the circuit prosecutor’s office repeating her request of 10 November 2003. 35.  On 5 March 2004 the circuit prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”) and invited the second applicant to send any further queries to the UGA prosecutor’s office or the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 36.  On 8 March 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s letter to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic and mentioned that the investigation file in case no. 34/33/0405-01 had been transferred to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic on 19 February 2003. A copy of the letter was sent to the second applicant. 37.  On 26 March 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the fourth applicant’s complaint to the unit prosecutor’s office. 38.  On 26 April 2004 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic that an inquiry had not established that federal servicemen were implicated in the kidnapping of Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov, and forwarded the results of the inquiry. 39.  On 27 April 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the second applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office. 40.  On 1 June 2004 the second and fourth applicants requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform them of progress in case no. 34/33/0405-01 and to grant them victim status. 41.  On an unspecified date in June 2004 the first, second and fourth applicants visited the district prosecutor’s office and were served with a copy of the decision to suspend the investigation of 18 June 2002. 42.  On 7 July 2004 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the fourth applicant that the investigation file in case no. 19109 had been forwarded to the circuit prosecutor’s office. 43.  In a letter of 7 September 2004 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the Committee on the Constitutional Rights of Nationals of the Chechen Republic and the fourth applicant that the inquiry had established that federal servicemen had not been involved in the kidnapping of Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov and that the file had been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 44.  On 30 September 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the second applicant that it had instructed the district prosecutor’s office to reinvigorate the investigation, to take requisite measures to solve the crime and to examine the feasibility of the transfer of the file to a military prosecutor’s office. The second applicant was invited to send further queries to the district prosecutor’s office. 45.  On 12 October 2004 the fourth applicant complained to the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office of Russia that there had been no effective investigation into his son’s disappearance. 46.  On 29 October 2004 the second, third and fourth applicants requested the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to inform them which prosecutor’s office was in charge of the investigation and to report on its results. 47.  On 9 November 2004 the second, third and fourth applicants complained to the district prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic that they had not been given any information about the investigation into their relatives’ deaths and requested that they be informed immediately of the outcome of the investigation. 48.  On 9 November 2004 the district prosecutor’s office forwarded the investigation file in case no. 19109 into the murder of Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov and the kidnapping of Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. The cover letter stated that “the investigation [had] established that the crimes had been committed by servicemen of military unit no. 3499”. The prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic was also asked to consider forwarding the file to the UGA prosecutor’s office. 49.  On 31 December 2004 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the first, second and fourth applicants that the investigation in case no. 14/33/04-05 D had been commenced on 18 July 2001 and that the investigation file had been forwarded to the circuit prosecutor’s office on 13 August 2001 and had not been returned to the unit prosecutor’s office. 50.  On 31 March 2005 the fourth applicant wrote to the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office of Russia complaining of the abduction and disappearance of his son and Aslan Dakayev. In reply, on 11 April 2005, he was informed that the complaint had been forwarded to the UGA prosecutor’s office. 51.  It appears that the investigation into the disappearance and death of the applicants’ relatives has not been completed to date. 52.  On 18 July 2001 the district prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the murder of Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov under Article 105 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated murder). The case was assigned the number 19109. Later the case file was transferred to the unit prosecutor’s office to verify the hypothesis of the involvement of servicemen of the Internal Troops in the crime and assigned the number 14/33/0405-01. 53.  On 13 August 2001 the case was transferred to the circuit prosecutor’s office and assigned the number 14/00/0019-01. 54.  In February 2003 the case was returned to the district prosecutor’s office under the number 19109 because the involvement of the servicemen of the Internal Troops in the crime had not been proven. 55.  On 3 November 2004 the district prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev’s disappearance following their abduction by unknown persons under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case was assigned the number 34113 and then joined to case no. 19109. 56.  On 8 November 2004 case no. 19109 was transferred pursuant to the jurisdiction rules to the UGA prosecutor’s office and then accepted for processing by the unit prosecutor’s office under the number 34/33/0405-01. On the same date the investigation was suspended for failure to identify those responsible. 57.  On 19 January 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 8 November 2004 and resumed the investigation in case no. 34/33/0405‑01. 58.  The circumstances in which Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov were shot at were uncertain. Witnesses claimed that Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov had either been wounded or killed by servicemen and that their bodies had then been put in the APCs. The servicemen who had been present at the scene of the incident denied the allegations and stated that they had fired warning shots in the air to stop Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov who had been trying to run away. 59.  The APCs used in the special operation were examined in the course of the investigation. No traces of blood were found on them. 60.  The bullets and cartridges found at the scene of the incident had not been fired from the servicemen’s weapons. 61.  The investigation failed to prove the involvement of federal servicemen in the crime or to establish the whereabouts of the missing men. The criminal proceedings related to the disappearance of Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov in case no. 34/33/0405-01 have been pending before a military prosecutor’s office. 62.  Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose any documents from the investigation files in cases nos. 19109, 14/00/0019-01 and 34/33/0405-01, except for a copy of the decision of 19 January 2005 by the unit prosecutor’s office. They stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the files contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in criminal proceedings. 63.  On 7 March 2004 the fourth applicant lodged with the Military Court of the North Caucasus Circuit (“the circuit court”) a complaint concerning the disappearance of Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov and that there had been no effective investigation. 64.  On 15 March 2004 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the circuit court about the disappearance of Amir Magomedov, Ali Uspayev, Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov, also alleging an ineffective investigation, 65.  On 2 April 2004 the circuit court forwarded the fourth applicant’s complaint to the Military Court of the Grozny Garrison (“the Grozny court”) for examination on the merits. 66.  On 6 May 2004 the Grozny court returned the complaint about “the decision of the [circuit] prosecutor’s office to suspend investigation in case no. 14/33/0405-01” to the second applicant for lack of jurisdiction. It explained that the complaint should be lodged with a district court of general jurisdiction. 67.  On 1 June 2004 the Grozny court informed the fourth applicant that a hearing of his complaint would be held on 4 June 2004. 68.  On 4 June 2004 the Grozny court, relying on the rules of territorial jurisdiction, decided to forward the fourth applicant’s complaint to the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison (“the Rostov court”). 69.  On 8 July 2004 the Rostov court summoned the fourth applicant to attend a hearing of 9 July 2004 to clarify his claims. 70.  On 2 August 2004 the Rostov court informed the fourth applicant that it had requested the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to report on the location of the case file and the progress in the investigation. 71.  On 30 July 2004 the first, second and fourth applicants lodged a complaint with the Rostov court that the investigative authorities had taken no action and requested that the decision to suspend the investigation of 18 June 2002 be quashed. 72.  On 8 September 2004 the Rostov court summoned the first, second and fourth applicants to attend a hearing scheduled for 10 September 2004. 73.  On 22 November 2004 the fourth applicant was summoned to attend a hearing of the Rostov court on 24 December 2004. In reply the first, second and fourth applicants agreed to have the case examined in their absence and asked to be informed of the eventual outcome of the hearing. 74.  On 18 May 2004 the Grozny court received a complaint by the fourth applicant dated 15 March 2004 about the decision to suspend the investigation into the kidnapping of his son Rustam Achkhanov. In his complaint the fourth applicant reported the following. On 18 July 2001 the car in which Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov had been riding had been fired at by servicemen in the village of Raduzhnoe. Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov had been wounded and taken away to an unknown destination. On the same date servicemen had kidnapped Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev. 75.  The Grozny court accepted the complaint, scheduled a hearing for 4 June 2004 and notified the fourth applicant accordingly. The latter failed to attend the hearing. On 4 June 2004 the Grozny court was informed that the investigation was pending before the circuit prosecutor’s office and transferred the fourth applicant’s complaint to the Rostov court pursuant to procedural rules. 76.  On 9 July 2004 the Rostov court accepted the fourth applicant’s complaint for processing. The fourth applicant was notified accordingly and replied that he could not attend a hearing on a particular date. 77.  The Rostov court requested the case file from the circuit prosecutor’s office. It was revealed that on 22 November 2002 the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office had been ordered to transfer the case file to the UGA prosecutor’s office. Following an additional inquiry that had not proven the involvement of servicemen in the kidnappings of 18 July 2001 in the village of Raduzhnoe the case file was transferred to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic on 19 February 2003. On 27 February 2003 the case file was sent to the district prosecutor’s office. On 25 August 2004 the case was sent to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. On 19 November 2004 it was transferred to the UGA prosecutor’s office. 78.  On 30 August 2004 the Rostov court received a complaint by the first, second and fourth applicants challenging the decision of 18 June 2001 to suspend the investigation concerning their missing relatives. 79.  On 19 January 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the Rostov court of the following. On 30 September 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic had quashed the decision of 18 June 2002. On 8 November 2004 the district prosecutor’s office had again suspended the proceedings. On 19 January 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office had quashed the decision of 8 November 2004 and resumed the investigation concerning both the presumed killing and the kidnapping of 18 July 2001. 80.  On 20 January 2005 the Rostov court examined the materials before it and dismissed the applicants’ complaint for the reason that the contested decision had already been quashed. On 24 January 2005 the first, second and fourth applicants were sent copies of the Rostov court’s decision. 81.  The decision of 20 January 2005 was not appealed against.


5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 12 October 2005 the applicant was arrested and charged with assisting the President of a commercial bank in extorting a bribe from a company in order to give it a loan. 8.   On 16 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice no.29/13 (also known as Prison no. 13, former Prison no. 3) in Chişinău. 9.  On 3 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court prolonged the applicant's detention for a period of twenty days. The court found that
“... the criminal investigation is in its final phase; the final charges are to be submitted and the accused is to have access to the file. Taking into account the serious nature of the crime of which he is accused, the damaging effect of the deed and that, once aware of the contents of the file, the applicant could influence witnesses, destroy evidence and abscond from law enforcement authorities and the court, the court considers justified the prosecutor's request for prolonging the period of detention and rejects the lawyer's request for bail.”
On 9 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 10.  The applicant made a separate complaint regarding the initial period of his detention, until 3 February 2006 (the case of Ţurcan and Ţurcan v. Moldova, application no. 39835/05). In the present application, he relies on the events subsequent to that date. 11.  On 20 February 2006 the case file was submitted to the trial court. On 6 March 2006 the first hearing took place, during which the applicant submitted a habeas corpus request. He relied on Article 186 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 15 below) and on the cases of Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000‑III) and Ječius v. Lithuania (no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000‑IX), and claimed that, following the referral of the case to the trial court on 20 February 2006, his detention did not have a legal basis. He also complained about the inhuman conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13 and referred to the findings of the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in respect of that remand centre. 12.  The Buiucani District Court rejected his request because
“[the applicant is] accused of a serious crime and the court does not find at the present time any ground for changing or annulling the preventive measures”. 13.  On 28 September 2006 the Buiucani District Court accepted the applicant's request for release, relying on new relevant circumstances of the case, namely that most evidence had already been examined in court or recorded by the prosecution and that the applicant's health had worsened, and surgery was needed. On 31 October 2006 the same court gave the applicant permission to undergo medical treatment abroad.


4.  The applicant’s late husband was employed by Elektron AD, a company based in Belgrade (“the company”). From 1995 to 1998 he was deployed on certain projects in Russia, for which work, apart from his salary, he had the right to claim an allowance calculated in United States dollars (USD). 5.  On 18 June 1998 the Commercial Court in Belgrade instituted insolvency proceedings in respect of the company. 6.  On an unspecified date thereafter Mr Adamović lodged a pecuniary claim within the insolvency proceedings for salary arrears, deployment allowance, and various social security contributions. On 4 May 2000 the Commercial Court rejected his claim and instructed him to initiate a regular civil suit and request determination of his claim (radi utvrđivanja osporenih potraživanja). 7.  On 22 June 2000 Mr Adamović, as instructed, lodged a separate civil claim. 8.  On 18 November 2002 the Commercial Court rejected the part of Mr Adamović’s request regarding the salaries, as it was considered to have been withdrawn, while the request for deployment allowance was partly granted. By virtue of this judgment the company was ordered to pay him USD 4,258.60 towards the unpaid allowances, together with the social security contributions due and statutory interest, plus 44,750 Yugoslav dinars (YUM) for legal costs. 9.  On 16 April 2003 and 23 October 2003 respectively the District Court and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 18 November 2002. The judgment of the Supreme Court was served on the applicant after 13 February 2004. 10.  On an unspecified date thereafter, the said judgment having become final, it was acknowledged within the insolvency proceedings. 11.  On 10 September 2003 the costs awarded in the civil proceedings were paid, while on 5 November 2003 the interest calculated on the costs was also paid. 12.  On about a dozen occasions between 15 July 2003 and 10 September 2007 the company paid the applicant various smaller amounts in “hardship assistance” (solidarna pomoć), to help cover certain medical bills. The total of all these sums amounted to an equivalent of less than USD 3,000. These amounts, however, were not specified as being intended to constitute partial payment of the debt, but as assistance to the applicant’s family because of the applicant’s late husband’s illness. 13.  On 28 May 2008 the Commercial Court issued a decision ordering payment of 50% of the guaranteed salary to all the former employees of the company for the period from 1 March 1997 to 18 June 1998. On 5 June 2008 the applicant received a payment under this head of 91,532 Serbian dinars (RSD, about USD 1,800 at the relevant time). 14.  Before the insolvency proceedings the debtor company was entirely socially owned. It has remained registered as fully socially owned in the relevant public registries throughout the insolvency proceedings. 15.  On 29 September 2008 the company was put up for auction, in accordance with the provisions of the applicable law (see paragraph 19 below). Following several unsuccessful auction attempts, on 5 February 2010 the Commercial Court authorised the sale of the company to a third private party. The purchase price has been added to the company’s assets. 16.  On 23 February 2010 the Commercial Court in Belgrade terminated the insolvency proceedings against the company, however continuing with insolvency action against the bankruptcy estate. On 7 October 2011 the Commercial Court authorised payment of certain sums to some of the former employees of the company, but the applicant was not placed on the list for payment.


6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Smolensk region. 7.  On 22 December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Subsequently he was committed to stand trial by the Glinkovskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region. The trial was fixed for 22 July 2003. 8.  In the morning of 22 July 2003 the applicant had a talk with legal-aid counsel appointed to represent him. He was dissatisfied with the result of that discussion and so refused counsel's services in writing. 9.  The first witness on the stand was the applicant's sister. The applicant had an altercation with her and the judge ordered that he be escorted out of the room. 10.  The applicant was brought back into the courtroom to make his final submissions. After that the judge declared the trial at an end and announced that the verdict would be handed down on 24 July 2003. 11.  On 24 July 2003 the judge delivered the judgment, finding the applicant guilty of murder and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment in a high-security colony. 12.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant filed grounds of appeal. He submitted, in particular, that the entire trial had been conducted in his absence, that he had not been represented and, as a consequence, had not been able to defend himself. He asked that his case be re-heard and that a different legal-aid lawyer be appointed to represent him before the appeal court. 13.  On 11 November 2003 the Smolensk Regional Court held the appeal hearing. The applicant was present but not represented, as he had requested. The Regional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the conviction had been lawful and justified. In the Regional Court's view, there had been no violation of the applicant's right to defend himself because he had voluntarily refused the services of legal-aid counsel before the trial. 14.  On 15 June 2004 the Fokinskiy District Court of Bryansk reviewed the applicant's conviction in the light of recent amendments to the Russian Criminal Code and held that the applicant should serve a prison sentence in a colony with less strict conditions of detention. 15.  On 27 December 2006 the Presidium of the Smolensk Regional Court quashed by way of supervisory review the appeal judgment of 11 November 2003. The Presidium found that the applicant's right to legal representation had been infringed in the appeal proceedings and remitted the case for fresh examination by the appeal court. 16.  On 23 January 2007 the judicial authorities asked the President of the Smolensk Regional Bar Association to appoint counsel to represent the applicant in the proceedings before the appeal court. 17.  On 29 January 2007 the applicant's case was assigned to Ms D. as counsel. The applicant was informed accordingly. 18.  On 31 January 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court scheduled the appeal hearing for 13 February 2007. On the same day Ms D. studied the applicant's case file. 19.  On 6 February 2007 the applicant informed the Regional Court of his decision not to participate in the appeal hearing. In his motion he further questioned the effectiveness of his legal representation referring to the state-appointed lawyer's failure to meet him to prepare his defence. 20.  On 13 February 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court examined the case and upheld the applicant's conviction. Ms D. was present. She did not file any grounds of appeal and appeared to make oral submissions to the court on the basis of the grounds of appeal originally filed by the applicant. The applicant did not attend. The appeal court noted, inter alia, that the trial judge's decision to remove the applicant, who had disturbed order in the courtroom and made threats to persons present there, had been lawful and justified. 21.  On the same day the Smolensk Regional Court granted Ms D.'s request for the payment of her legal fees in the amount of 2,200 roubles and ordered the applicant to pay those expenses.


4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kyiv. 5.  In 1986, while being employed by the Municipal Cargo Department of the Ministry of Automobile Transport (Київське міське управління вантажного автомобільного транспорту), the applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the Chernobyl disaster site. Subsequently the applicant was employed by “A.T.E.”, an automobile transportation company. 6.  On 30 March 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Radyansky District Court of Kyiv (Радянський районний суд м. Києва)[1] against the Municipal Department of Automobile Transport (Київське міське територіальне виробниче об’єднання автомобільного транспорту) claiming compensation for health damage sustained in Chernobyl. On 10 January 1995 the court decided to leave the applicant’s claims without consideration for having been lodged against an improper defendant. On 15 March 1995 the Kyiv City Court (Київський міський суд)[2] quashed this ruling and remitted the case for an examination to the first-instance court. 7.  On 14 July 1995 the first-instance court found in part for the applicant. On 27 September 1995 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 8.  On 28 February 1997 the first-instance court found against the applicant. On 9 April 1997 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 9.  On 19 September 1997 the first-instance court found in part for the applicant. This judgment became final. 10.  On an unspecified date the Kyiv Department of Justice (Управління юстиції в м. Києві) initiated an investigation into the absence of the verbatim record of the hearing of 19 September 1997 from the case-file. In January 1998 they informed the applicant that contrary to the requirements of applicable law the verbatim record had never been finalised. 11.  On numerous occasions the applicant sought the issuance of the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 19 September 1997. However, he was informed by the Department of Justice that the writ could not be issued due to the investigation. 12.  On 6 April 1998 the Kyiv City Court quashed the judgment of 19 September 1997 upon the supervisory protest of its President lodged under the extraordinary review procedure and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 13.  On 2 October 1998 the court replaced the defendant in the case by the “A.T.E.”. 14.  On 23 October 1998 the first-instance court found against the applicant. 15.  On 18 November 1998 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment following the applicant’s appeal in cassation and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 16.  On 3 February 1999 the Radyansky Court decided to transfer the case to the Starokyivsky District Court of Kyiv (Старокиївський районний суд м. Києва). On 14 April 1999 the Kyiv City Court, upon the protest of its Vice-President, quashed this ruling under the extraordinary review procedure and remitted the case back to the Radyansky Court. 17.  On 8 June 1999 the Radyansky Court replaced the defendant in the case by the Kyiv City Department of the Social Security Fund. 18.  On 15 July 1999 the Radyansky Court ordered the Kyiv City Bureau of Court Experts (Київський науково-дослідний інститут судових експертиз) to carry out an assessment of the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant. 19.  On 25 May 2000 the Bureau delivered its assessment to the court. 20.  On 8 June 2000 the Radyansky Court found in part for the applicant. The applicant appealed in cassation. 21.  On 26 July 2000 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment in part concerning the payment of court fees and remitted this part of the case for a fresh consideration. 22.  On 24 April 2001 the Kyiv City Court upon the protest of its Vice-President quashed the rulings of 8 June and 26 July 2000 under the extraordinary review procedure and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration. 23.  In November 2001 the defendant in the case was replaced by the “A.T.E.” and the Municipal Chernobyl Affairs Department (Управління у справах захисту населення від наслідків аварії на Чорнобильській АЕС Київської міської державної адміністрації). 24.  On 18 April 2002 the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him a lump sum in compensation from the Chernobyl Affairs Department. Both parties appealed. 25.  On 18 June 2002 the Kyiv City Court upheld this judgment. The applicant appealed in cassation. According to the law in force at the material time, the cassation appeal was filed with the first-instance court, which was to verify its compliance with procedural rules. 26.  On 26 November 2002, after the applicant rectified procedural shortcomings of his cassation appeal, the first-instance court transferred it to the Supreme Court. 27.  On 5 March 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. 28.  The applicant also submitted a large number of other court decisions adopted in different cases against his former employers and various State bodies in 1994-2001.


4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv. 5.  On 24 February 2002 the applicant was travelling on a tram and was approached by Mr G. and Mr S., ticket inspectors employed by the Kyivpastrans municipal enterprise (“the transport company”). As subsequently established by domestic authorities in the indictment and in the judgment convicting S. (see paragraphs 31 and 34 below), there was a disagreement between the applicant and the inspectors as to whether he had a valid ticket. They insisted that the applicant pay a fine for travelling without a ticket, while he insisted that he had broken no rules. The applicant was asked to get off the tram. It was then agreed that the applicant would accompany the inspectors to a tram depot to resolve the dispute. While they were on their way to the depot S. kicked the applicant. In response the applicant sprayed the inspectors with tear gas from a can he had on him. S. then kicked the applicant in the left knee, causing a fracture. A struggle between the applicant and S. ensued. G. and S. then left the scene. The applicant could not stand up or walk following the knee fracture, he was helped to the nearby tram stop by the bystanders who called an ambulance for him. According to the applicant, he has been receiving treatment for his injury until early 2005. 6.  On 26 February 2002 the applicant made a statement to the police describing the circumstances of the incident. In particular, he stated that on the day of the incident he had been approached by two ticket inspectors who questioned the validity of his ticket, suggesting that he appeared too old to be using a student ticket. While they insisted that he pay a fine he insisted his ticket was in order. He volunteered to go with them to a police station to resolve the dispute. In response they suggested that they go to the tram depot instead and he agreed. On the way to the depot he was kicked from behind. He turned round and sprayed the inspectors with tear gas, and was kicked in the knee. He stated that he did not know the names of the inspectors but could identify them by sight. 7.  On 4 March 2002 a police investigator of the Svyatoshynskyy District Police Department (“the District Police Department”) refused to institute criminal proceedings into the incident. The investigator noted that the ticket inspector on duty on the tram line in question at the relevant time was identified as S. He went on to note that S. could not be contacted for an interview since he was said to be on sick leave from work and was not found at his home address. The investigator also noted that the gravity of the applicant’s injuries could only be evaluated after completion of the applicant’s treatment. 8.  On 5 March 2002 a forensic medical expert diagnosed the applicant with a knee fracture and classified this as bodily injuries of medium gravity. 9.  On 18 December 2002 the Svyatoshynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) quashed the decision of 4 March 2002 and instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of deliberate infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity. On the same day the District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant about this decision, also informing him that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the investigator who made the decision of 4 March 2002. According to the applicant, he first learned about the decision of 4 March 2002 from this letter from the District Prosecutor’s Office. 10.  On 24 December 2002 another investigator of the District Police Department commenced the investigation. 11.  On 28 December 2002 the investigator recognised the applicant as an aggrieved party in the criminal proceedings. On the same day the applicant was interviewed in this capacity. 12.  On 4 April 2003 the investigator sent a letter to the transport company enquiring whether S. had been working at the relevant time as a ticket inspector and asking the company to identify who S. had been working with on the day of the incident. In April 2003 the company responded that S. had indeed been working as an inspector at the relevant time, that G. had accompanied him on the day of the incident, and that S. had been dismissed on 16 June 2002 for absenteeism. 13.  On 9 April 2003 the applicant, in the course of a photo identification, identified S. as the person who had assaulted him. 14.  According to the Government, on 18 April 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrator. 15.  On 18 September 2003 the investigation was resumed. 16.  On 9 October 2003, in the course of a photo identification, the applicant identified G. as the person who, together with S., participated in the incident. 17.  On 14 October 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrator. 18.  On 31 August 2004 the District Police Department informed the applicant that the investigation in his case was pending. 19.  On 2 February 2005 the District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 14 October 2003 to suspend the investigation, finding that possible perpetrators had in fact been identified. 20.  On 20 February 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrator. 21.  On 5 April 2005 the investigator resumed the investigation, initiated criminal proceedings against S. and G., and joined the newly initiated proceedings with the existing case file. 22.  On 14 April 2005 the investigator charged S. with infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity, committed in conspiracy with G. The investigator placed S. and G. on the list of wanted persons, and suspended the investigation as the whereabouts of the accused were unknown. 23.  On 20 February and 4 May 2006 the investigator decided to resume the investigation, and on 22 February and 4 May 2006 respectively to suspend it again. 24.  On 10 June 2006 the investigation was resumed. 25.  On 12 June 2006 a face-to-face confrontation was conducted between G. and the applicant, and the applicant was interviewed separately. The applicant stated that S. had kicked him on the knee. While he was not certain that G. had assaulted him, he was assuming that it was G. who had kicked him in the back on 24 February 2002. 26.  On 14 June 2006 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings against G. for lack of corpus delicti in his actions. He relied on the testimony of G., who denied assaulting the applicant, and the testimony of the applicant to the effect that it was S. and not G. who had assaulted him. On the same day he suspended the remaining part of the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrator. 27.  According to the Government, on 24 September 2007 S. was arrested. On the same day the investigation was resumed and the charges were announced to S. 28.  On 25 September 2007 a face-to-face confrontation was conducted between S. as the accused and the applicant as the aggrieved party. 29.  On 20 October 2007 the investigator charged S. with infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity. 30.  According to the Government, on an unspecified date, upon completion of the pre-trial investigation in S.’s case, the applicant was offered an opportunity to study the case file but refused it. According to the applicant, he was not informed about the completion of the investigation or any of the subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings. 31.  On 29 October 2007 the District Prosecutor’s Office approved the bill of indictment indicting S. for infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity. 32.  On 9 November 2007 the Svyatoshynskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the trial court”) held a preliminary hearing in S.’s case, in which S., his lawyer and a prosecutor participated. The record of the hearing states that the applicant was not present at the hearing. 33.  On 20 November 2007 the trial court examined the case on the merits in the presence of S., his lawyer and the prosecutor and in the absence of the applicant. The trial court, after obtaining favourable opinions from all parties present, ruled that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the applicant and witness G. who, the court stated, “had been duly notified about the hearing”. The court further ruled that, should their presence prove necessary, measures would be taken to ensure the applicant’s and G.’s appearance. In the course of the hearing the court heard a statement from S.. S. did not contest the charges and admitted his guilt. The court ruled that in view of S.’s confession and admission of guilt there was no call to examine any other evidence. 34.  On the same day the trial court convicted S. as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years with probation. In sentencing S. the court took into account that S. had admitted his guilt and expressed remorse, the fact that he had no prior convictions, was employed and had positive references from his then-current place of employment. 35.  According to the information submitted by the Government, the domestic case file in S.’s case does not contain any copies of summonses or notices sent to the applicant in the course of examination of the case by the trial court or any documents indicating that such summonses or notices were sent. 36.  On 7 February 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Holosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv, against the transport company, seeking damages for the unlawful actions of its employees. 37.  On 15 November 2005 the court rejected his claim on the ground that he had not proved that he had been injured by the employees of the defendant in the performance of their duties. The court noted that the applicant had failed to explain why the individuals identified by him had not yet been charged or convicted, and that the criminal case in connection with the incident was still under investigation. 38.  On 24 January 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. 39.  On 30 November 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, upheld the decisions of 15 November 2005 and 24 January 2006.


4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul. 5.  On 5 April 1996 the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant, on the basis of which he was arrested and taken into custody on 12 April 1996 by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters. Upon his arrest, the applicant signed an arrest report acknowledging the warrant and the authorities’ intention to transfer him to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. 6.  On 12 April 1996 a house search report was drafted by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters which indicated that the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of affiliation to the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation, and of having committed homicide. The report was signed by three police officers and the applicant. 7.  After being held for two days in the Istanbul police headquarters, the applicant was transferred to Diyarbakır, where he was held in the custody of the gendarmerie until 25 April 1996. 8.  On 22 April 1996 the applicant was questioned by officers from the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command, where he was requested to provide information regarding his affiliation to the PKK and his involvement in the killing of a certain B.C. The applicant stated that he was a member of the PKK and that he had killed B.C. in compliance with orders he had received from that organisation. 9.  On 25 April 1996 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, where he alleged that he was not involved in the activities of the PKK. The applicant further contended that in 1992 he had killed B.C. in his village as he had suspected that his partner had had a relationship with him. The applicant stated that the murder was not linked to any terrorist activity. The statements that he had made at the gendarmerie command were read to him. The applicant denied having made them. Furthermore the statements of three other suspects, Ş.B., Ş.C. and S.B., who maintained that the applicant was a member of the PKK, were also read to him. The applicant rejected these statements, claiming that these persons were relatives of B.C. 10.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before a single judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. He reiterated the statements which he had made before the public prosecutor. Following his questioning, the judge remanded the applicant in custody, holding that there were strong indications that he had committed the offence defined in Article 125 of the former Criminal Code, namely carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. 11.  On 10 May 1996 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and six other persons. The applicant was charged under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code, and with killing B.C. 12.  On 14 May 1996 the First Division of the Diyarbakır State Security Court held a hearing and ordered the applicant’s continued detention on remand in view of the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the case file. 13.  On 19 August 1996 the applicant made statements before the first‑instance court, denying the charges against him. 14.  Between 19 August 1996 and 29 December 1997, the first-instance court postponed the hearings as it was awaiting information and documents from the Lice public prosecutor’s office. 15.  On 29 December 1997 the State Security Court requested the Lice gendarmerie command to provide information concerning the killing of B.C. The court subsequently postponed the hearings until 24 December 1998 on account of the failure of the gendarmerie command to submit the relevant information. 16.  On 22 November 1999 the First Division of the Diyarbakır State Security Court requested the Third Division of the same court to submit a copy of the file in the case brought against Ş.B., Ş.C. and S.B. Between 22 November 1999 and 4 September 2001, the trial court postponed the hearings as the Third Division failed to submit a copy of the case file. 17.  During the trial, the Diyarbakır State Security Court held forty-five hearings. At the end of every hearing the first-instance court considered the applicant’s detention during judicial proceedings, either of its own motion or at the applicant’s request. It ordered the applicant’s continued detention pending trial, having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence. 18.  On 26 March 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 448 of the Criminal Code of homicide and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The court found no convincing evidence that the offence committed by the applicant was linked to terrorist activities. The court ordered the applicant’s release from prison in view of the length of his detention during judicial proceedings. 19.  On 4 July 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 26 March 2002 because the applicant had been unable to examine three witnesses against him during the trial. The case was subsequently remitted to the First Division of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 20.  On 12 August 2002 the first-instance court requested the Istanbul State Security Court to obtain submissions from the applicant on the statements of the witnesses. Between 12 August 2002 and 14 July 2003, the State Security Court held six more hearings whilst awaiting the applicant’s submissions. 21.  On 14 July 2003 the first-instance court convicted the applicant once more of homicide and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 22.  On 8 April 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.


5.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1950 and 1949 respectively and live in Chişinău. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  All the applicants worked for the Ministry of Transport and Communications (“the employer”). They were promoted in 1997 but their salaries were not increased accordingly in the years 1997-98. When the employer refused to increase their salaries, the applicants initiated court proceedings. 8.  On 4 December 2000 the Centru District Court awarded 5,074 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 469 euros (EUR) at the time) to the first applicant and MDL 5,280 (the equivalent of EUR 488 at the time) to the second applicant. On 26 December 2000 the same court awarded MDL 5,388 (the equivalent of EUR 498 at the time) to the third applicant. No appeals were lodged and the judgments became final and enforceable 15 days later. 9.  The applicants complained to a number of State authorities, asking for assistance in having the judgments in their favour enforced. They received a number of replies, including that of the Ministry of Justice of 24 May 2001, which readdressed the complaint to the Centru District Court, requesting it to take “all measures provided by the law”. On 31 May 2001 the vice-president of that court informed the first applicant that the enforcement warrant had been sent to the State Treasury and that enforcement was impossible owing to the lack of money in the employer's account. A number of other authorities, including the Centru District Court, the Ministry of Justice, the President's Office and the Human Rights Centre were asked by the applicants to assist in ensuring the enforcement of the judgment. These complaints were either forwarded to the employer or to the court, with instructions to ensure the enforcement of the judgment. The applicants were informed of the lack of money in the employer's debt settlement account, which had been frozen for enforcement purposes, and that the budget had not been modified to provide for the enforcement of the judgment. The applicants were also informed that 70 similar judgments against the employer were awaiting enforcement. 10.  The applicants submitted to the Court a copy of a Government decision of 17 January 2002, which ordered the Ministry of Finance to allocate to the employer MDL 483,700 from the Government reserve fund, to cover reorganisation expenses. That money was to be returned to the reserve fund from the employer's 2002 budget. In another Government decision, dated 5 June 2002, the employer was allowed to buy an apartment in Chişinău for its Minister, funded by the development fund. 11.  The domestic court fined the employer several times during 2002 for failing to enforce its judgments. 12.  In September 2002 the enforcement warrants were partly enforced. The first applicant received MDL 3,940, the second applicant received MDL 4,145 and the third applicant received MDL 4,172. The remainder (equivalent to EUR 67, EUR 82 and EUR 91 respectively) was withheld as income tax. 13.  The applicants brought a new action for compensation for the pecuniary damage caused by inflation and for non-pecuniary damage, which they left to the court's discretion. 14.  By its final judgments of 4 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice found that the judgments in the applicants' favour had been belatedly enforced, and awarded MDL 5,074 (the equivalent of EUR 334 at the time) to the first applicant and MDL 6,715 (the equivalent of EUR 402 at the time) to the third applicant in compensation for the effect of inflation on the value of the 2000 award. The court did not deal with the applicants' request for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 7 May 2004 the second applicant's request for compensation was accepted by the Buiucani District Court, which awarded him MDL 6,579 (the equivalent of EUR 474 at the time). 15.   The award of 4 February 2004 was enforced on 4 May 2004. In February 2005 the first and third applicants received MDL 1,755 (EUR 107) each from the employer in compensation for the delay in enforcing this new award.


5.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1947 respectively and live in Hódmezővásárhely. 6.  On 26 August 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants, a married couple and both archaeologists. On 5 July 1995 a bill of indictment was preferred and the applicants were charged with several counts of aggravated embezzlement, punishable in the circumstances by up to three years of imprisonment. The alleged offences concerned the alienation of numerous artefacts retrieved by the applicants. 7.  After a remittal, on 21 May 1998 the Békéscsaba District Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to one year of imprisonment, suspended for two years. On 7 January 1999 the Békés County Regional Court upheld this judgment. The review bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the final judgment on 7 March 2000. The courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of experts and the testimony of witnesses and the parties and recognised the lapse of time from the commission of the offences as a mitigating factor. After the lapse of the two-year period of suspension on 7 January 2001, the applicants became exempted (mentesülés) from all legal consequences of their conviction. 8.  On 5 September 2001 the applicants nevertheless requested a retrial. On 9 July 2002 the Békés County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, ordered the retrial. 9.  In the resumed proceedings, after a remittal, the Gyula District Court held two oral hearings and dismissed the applicants' retrial motion on 15 September 2004. The court relied on documentary evidence, the opinions of several newly appointed experts as well as the testimony of witnesses and the defendants. The main question of taking evidence was whether the items embezzled by the applicants – that is, archaeological findings – had commercial value for the purposes of the offence of embezzlement. 10.  The applicants appealed seeking acquittal. The Békés County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 26 January 2005, without holding an oral hearing. 11.  The applicants lodged a petition for review. On 1 June 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as inadmissible, without an examination on the merits, since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.


5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Chişinău. 6.  At the time of the events the applicant was the head of a private high school (V.) and acting head of the Industrial and Construction College (C., a State-funded institution). In 2004 a criminal investigation was opened into fraudulent acts and abuse of power allegedly committed by the applicant. He was accused of having accepted money from two students for their studies at V. and failing to disclose those payments in the school’s accounts. 7.  On 24 September 2004 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on the basis of a warrant issued by the Centru District Court that day. On 30 September 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision, finding there was no reason to believe that the applicant would abscond or interfere with the investigation, noting that he had a fixed address, a family and an under-age child, and that he had undertaken to appear before the investigation authorities whenever summoned. He was released on the same day. 8.  On 20 November 2006 the Grigoriopol District Court sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment for fraud. He was acquitted of all the other charges mainly owing to a lack of evidence that he had illegally accepted money from the students. On the same day he was arrested and placed in prison no. 13 in Chișinău. 9.  On 8 February 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partly quashed the first-instance court’s judgment. The court found that the applicant had been negligent in admitting two new students to V. and accepting tuition fees from them, even though by order of 25 December 2003, the Ministry of Education had suspended V’s licence and the applicant had been ordered to transfer all pupils to other educational institutions. The applicant was thus convicted under Article 329 (1) of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 19 below) and his custodial sentence was reduced by the appellate court to eight months. 10.  In an appeal on points of law, the applicant argued that he could not be convicted of a violation of Article 329 (1) of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 19 below) because two elements of the crime set out therein had not been met, namely that it had to have been committed by a “public official” and that the damage caused as a result had to be “large-scale”. Firstly, the conviction had been based on his alleged wrongdoing as head of V. As the head of a private institution, he could not be considered a public official (persoană cu funcţii de răspundere), a notion expressly defined in Article 123 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 19 below). He could not therefore be accused of negligence in carrying out any official duties by accepting pupils to study in his private school.
Secondly, the value of the alleged damage caused (3,020 Moldovan lei (MDL)) was less than the minimum MDL 10,000 required under Article 329 for large-scale damage, as defined in Articles 64 and 126 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 19 below).
Finally, the applicant argued that he had admitted new pupils to his school because he had challenged the Ministry of Justice’s order of 25 December 2003 in court, which in his opinion meant that the order had been suspended and thus had no legal effect pending the outcome of the litigation. 11.  On 28 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice partly quashed the lower court’s judgment. The court dealt with the applicant’s arguments raised in his appeal on points of law as follows:
“As concerns [the applicant’s] arguments that he must be acquitted under Article 329 (1) of the Criminal Code because the elements of the crime were not present in his actions, these [arguments] are unsubstantiated and are contradicted by the material evidence; the accused’s refusal to admit liability should not necessarily lead to his acquittal since there is pertinent and conclusive evidence which corroborates as a whole and proves with certainty his guilt in having committed the crime: contract no. ... of enrolling S.N. as a student ... concluded between L.G. and the head of [V.]; receipts for [cashing of] MDL 2,000 lei on 30 August 2004 and of MDL 1,000 and MDL 20 on 6 July 2004; [Ministry of Education] order of 25 December 2003 suspending the activity of the private education institutions founded by [V.].”
The court noted, however, that the lower courts had not taken into consideration the applicant’s mitigating circumstances, such as the fact that he had no previous convictions and was well regarded in society. In the absence of any aggravating circumstances, the lower courts had incorrectly decided to imprison him. The court therefore ordered the applicant to pay a fine instead of giving him a custodial sentence. He was therefore released on the same day, after approximately seven months of detention in prison no. 13. Taking into account the fact that he had already served time in prison, he was dispensed from paying the fine. 12.  The applicant described the conditions in which he had been held for more than seven months in Chişinău Prison no. 13. The prison was situated in a 165-year-old building. He was detained in a cell measuring 26 square metres which he shared with between eleven and fourteen other detainees. The cell was unventilated, the only air coming in from several holes in a net covering the window. The cell was very cold in winter and very hot in summer, the walls and ceiling were damp and the toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. During the first five months of detention, the applicant was not issued with any bedding and had to sleep on a bare mattress. When bedding was finally provided, it was changed very rarely. The cell was never cleaned; his mattress was full of parasitic insects and he could not sleep as a result. The light was too weak in the cell for reading. Showers were only allowed once a week and the shower day did not coincide with the day of the week when fresh bedding was issued, which meant the continuous presence of parasitic insects. Food was inadequate and of poor quality; the portions did not conform to the standard decided upon by the Government, particularly in respect of meat, fish, eggs and dairy products. 13.  The applicant made a total of forty-four complaints to various authorities about the conditions of his detention. He asked, inter alia, for the number of persons in cell no. 75 (in which he was being detained) to be reduced to no more than eight detainees instead of the fourteen who were held there at the time of making the complaint, so as to observe the statutory minimum requirement of 4 square metres of living space per detainee. The applicant also asked for an additional hour of exercise time for all the detainees in his cell in an attempt to improve the overcrowding situation. The applicant made six complaints between 19 March and 15 May 2007 about the lack of ventilation and access to fresh air aggravating the overcrowding. On 25 March 2007 he asked to be transferred to a non-smoking cell because he was subjected to passive smoking, which he argued was “a far more serious punishment than the eight months of imprisonment to which [he] had been sentenced”. On 3 May 2007 he complained about the failure to provide adequate food as required by the relevant Government decisions, claiming, inter alia, that reduced quantities of sugar and bread had been distributed to detainees in his cell. The applicant asked for portion sizes to be checked periodically to ensure they were meeting the statutory minimum. On four occasions between 30 March and 28 May 2007 the applicant complained about the presence of parasitic insects and asked for fresh bedding to coincide with shower day so as to avoid the risk of continued infestation. On 12 May 2007 the applicant asked for various materials in order to carry out repairs to their cell (together with his cell mates), as the ceiling was dark and the paint was peeling off the walls. 14.  The applicant received a total of five letters in response, informing him that he would only be transferred to another category of prison following the final determination of his criminal case. The responses, however, failed to address the majority of his complaints. The applicant stated that on 17 May 2007, after repeatedly complaining about the unventilated space, a window was opened in the corridor opposite his cell, providing more fresh air. On 7 June 2007, in reply to his request to be allowed to use the prison library’s reading room, he was informed by the relevant authorities that prison no. 13 had no such facility. 15.  On 19 February and 26 March 2007 the applicant complained that he was being detained in a closed prison, despite having been sentenced to detention in a semi-open prison where, he submitted, he would have had a right to move freely within the prison area (as opposed to having one hour of exercise time in the closed prison). 16.  On 2 July 2007 the prison doctor examined the applicant and informed him that he had been exposed to the risk of contracting tuberculosis. The doctor referred the applicant to a consultant and an eyesight specialist.


5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Naples. 6.  The applicant is Jewish and a lawyer by profession. On 7 June 2005 he appeared before the Forli investigating judge at a hearing concerning a request for the immediate production of evidence (“incidente probatorio”) in his capacity as representative of one of the two complainants in criminal proceedings against several banks. The investigating judge in charge of the case was prevented from sitting and his replacement invited the parties to choose between two dates for the adjourned hearing – either 13 or 18 October 2005 – already identified by the investigating judge. 7.  The applicant pointed out that both dates coincided with Jewish religious holidays (Yom Kippur and Sukkot respectively) and stated that he would be unable to attend the adjourned hearing because of his religious obligations. He explained that he was a member of the Naples Jewish community, and alleged a breach of sections 4 and 5 of Law no. 101 of 8 March 1989 governing relations between the State and the Union of Italian Jewish communities. 8.  The investigating judge set the hearing down for 13 October 2005. 9.  The same day the applicant lodged an application with the investigating judge in charge of the case to have the hearing adjourned. On 20 June 2005, after examining the application, the judge decided to add it to the case file without ruling on it. 10.  On 11 July 2005 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the investigating judge in charge of the case and his replacement, alleging that they had breached section 2 of Law no. 101 of 1989. The same day he informed the Supreme Council of the Judiciary about the complaint. 11.  At the hearing of 13 October 2005, the investigating judge noted that the applicant was absent for “personal reasons” and asked the parties to express their views on the application for an adjournment made on 7 June. The prosecution and counsel for the defendants objected to the application, arguing in particular that it was not based on any of the statutory grounds for adjournment. However, counsel for the other complainant supported the applicant’s request. 12.  In an order issued the same day the investigating judge rejected the application for an adjournment. He noted at the outset that, under Article 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only the prosecution and counsel for the defendant were required to be present at hearings concerning the immediate production of evidence; the presence of counsel for the complainant was optional. He went on to observe that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not oblige the judge to adjourn a hearing where counsel for the complainant had legitimate reasons for being unable to appear. Lastly, he stressed that a large number of individuals were involved in the proceedings (the defendants, the complainants, court-appointed experts and experts appointed by the parties) and that, “in view of the heavy workload of the office, which would [have meant] adjourning the hearing until 2006, the application, submitted by an individual with no legitimate reason to request an adjournment, ha[d] to be rejected in accordance with the principle that cases should be heard within a reasonable time”. 13.  On 23 January 2006 the Supreme Council of the Judiciary informed the applicant that it was not competent to examine the matter since the applicant’s complaints related to the exercise of judicial activity. 14.  In the meantime, on 9 January 2006, the Ancona public prosecutor’s office had requested that no further action be taken on the applicant’s complaint. The applicant objected to this request on 28 January 2006. 15.  On 21 September 2006 the Ancona investigating judge made an order discontinuing the proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint, noting that the applicant had not objected to the request for no further action submitted by the public prosecutor’s office. 16.  On 19 January 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, complaining of the investigating judge’s failure to take account of the objection he had lodged on 28 January 2006. The Court of Cassation, observing that the failure to take the applicant’s objection into account had probably been due to a registry error, set aside the order of 21 September 2006 and referred the case back to the Ancona District Court. 17.  On 12 February 2008 the applicant and the prosecution attended a hearing before the Ancona investigating judge. On 15 February 2008 the latter issued an order discontinuing the proceedings. He noted that there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the investigating judge in charge of the case or the judge who had replaced him at the hearing of 7 June 2005 had had any intention of infringing the applicant’s right to practise his Jewish faith freely or of offending the applicant’s dignity on account of his religious faith.