6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. He is a professional politician who has held in the past the posts of Nizhniy Novgorod governor, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Energy. He later became one of the best-known opposition leaders, a founder of the political party the Union of Right Forces, and subsequently of the political movement Solidarnost. 7.  On 10 December 2010 eight individuals, none of whom are applicants in the present case, submitted notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of Moscow. They indicated, in particular, that a meeting would be held from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. on Triumfalnaya Square, Moscow. They estimated that about 1,500 people would take part in the event. The notice stated that the proposed demonstration was intended “to demand respect for the constitutional right to peaceful demonstration and assembly guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation”. The organisers indicated, inter alia, that it would not be necessary to divert the traffic. 8.  On 22 December 2010 the Moscow Government’s Department for Liaison with Security Authorities informed the organisers that the event had been approved by the deputy mayor of Moscow. The number of participants had been limited to 1,000, and a particular sector of Triumfalnaya Square had been designated for the event: “in the area between the First and the Second Brestskaya Streets, opposite the Pekin Hotel and the adjacent road leading to the Tchaikovsky Concert Hall”. 9.  In the meantime, on 16 December 2010 another group of three individuals, none of whom are applicants in the present case, submitted notice of an alternative public demonstration to the mayor of Moscow, at the same time and place as the authorised event and with the same title. It appears that this second public demonstration was not authorised, but on 22 December 2010 a number of alternatives as to the time and place were offered to the organisers. Moreover, none of its organisers could go to the venue on 31 December 2010 because two of them had been arrested earlier on the same day; the third had been abroad. 10.  The authorised meeting began at 6 p.m. on 31 December 2010 at Triumfalnaya Square, as planned. According to the applicant, the perimeter of the square was cordoned off and was guarded by the riot police. The only access to the meeting venue was at Tverskaya Street. The applicant claimed that he had arrived at the meeting with his daughter; he had parked his car at Tverskaya Street and they had entered Triumfalnaya Square from Tverskaya Street through the only opening in the cordon. 11.  During the meeting the applicant addressed the participants with a speech in which he criticised the criminal conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovskiy, the former owner of the Yukos oil company, and Platon Lebedev, his associate. He also condemned the corruption in the State administration. He chanted the slogans “The authorities to resign!”, “Putin to resign!”, “Happy New Year without Putin!” 12.  At the end of the meeting the applicant, accompanied by his daughter, headed across Triumfalnaya Square towards Tverskaya Street. At the exit he saw the riot police arresting one of the participants in the demonstration. Shortly afterwards the applicant was also arrested and put into a police vehicle. 13.  The parties disagreed as to the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest. 14.  The applicant claimed that on the way to his car his passage had been obstructed by police officers and he and his daughter had found themselves in a crowd. They heard the police instruction over a loudspeaker calling for people to stay calm and to pass through. The applicant saw two people being arrested and put in police vans, and then he was arrested too, without any warning or explanation. The applicant claimed that he had not disobeyed or resisted the police; on the contrary, he had followed their instructions “to pass through”. He had been arrested by an officer who had been wearing a fur hat, an indication of his higher rank, as opposed to the crash helmets worn by the riot police troops guarding the cordon. 15.  The applicant alleged that there existed at least three video recordings of his arrest, including the events immediately leading up to it; they had been produced by two media channels and one independent photographer, Mr T. He also maintained that there existed an official video of the public demonstration and the ensuing arrests, which had allegedly been shot by the police and kept at the Moscow Department of the Interior. 16.  According to the Government, at the end of the meeting the applicant had headed towards Tverskaya Street and had begun calling passers-by to take part in another, unauthorised, meeting while shouting out anti-government slogans. They alleged that two police officers, Sergeant X and Private Y, had warned the applicant; they had ordered him to stop agitating the crowd and to return to the authorised meeting. They further contended that the applicant had ignored the warning and had continued shouting out the slogans and disobeying the police. Confronted with this behaviour, X and Y arrested him. 17.  At 7 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the police station of the Tverskoy District Department of the Interior. At 7.10 p.m. Private Y drew up a report stating that the applicant had been escorted to the police station “in order to draw up the administrative material”. Also at 7.10 p.m., the on-duty police officer drew up a report on the applicant’s administrative arrest under Article 27.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, stating, like the other report, that he had been arrested “in order to draw up the administrative material”. The applicant signed both reports, indicating his disagreement with their content. 18.  Both X and Y produced identical duty reports stating, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“... on 31 December 2010 at 18.30 Boris Yefimovich Nemtsov was apprehended [because] he had disobeyed a lawful order of the police in connection with [X and Y] performing [their] duty of maintaining public order and safeguarding the public. He (Nemtsov) stood at 31 Tverskaya Street and began to shout “Down with Putin!”, “Russia without Putin!” as well as insults to President Medvedev, catching people’s attention and calling them to come to the Mayakovskiy monument for a meeting. [X and Y] approached Nemtsov, introduced themselves and warned him that it was unacceptable to hold a meeting at Triumfalnaya Square. They invited him to proceed to the authorised event that was taking place between the First and the Second Brestskaya Streets, opposite the Pekin Hotel. Nemtsov did not react and continued to shout out slogans and call people to hold a meeting. Nemtsov deliberately refused to comply with the lawful orders to cease his actions breaching public order, and continued them ostentatiously. To prevent him from organising an unauthorised meeting at Triumfalnaya Square and to prevent the unlawful acts, he was invited to enter a police van. In response to [these] lawful orders to enter the police van, Nemtsov began to break loose. He pushed us away and shouted insults to us: “Down with the police state!”, “Free-for-all cops!”, attempting to cause mayhem among the citizens surrounding him. By doing so he demonstrated his refusal to carry out the lawful order of the police and prevented them from carrying out their duty, thus committing an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences”. 19.  At 7.30 p.m. X and Y made witness statements, essentially copying the text of their duty reports. 20.  At the same time the district police inspector drew up a report on the administrative offence, stating that the applicant had disobeyed a lawful order of the police in breach of Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant signed that report with the remark “100% lies”. 21.  On the same day the head of the same police station issued a decision to transfer the administrative case file to the Justice of the Peace. 22.  On the same day at about 7.15 p.m. the NTV television channel reported on the series of arrests following the demonstration at Triumfalnaya Square. Police Colonel B. commented on the applicant’s arrest, stating that he had been arrested for instigating an unauthorised meeting. 23.  The applicant remained in detention at the police station until 2 January 2011, pending the determination of the charges against him. 24.  The applicant described the conditions of his detention at the police station as extremely poor. He was detained in a solitary cell measuring 1.5 by 3 metres, with a concrete floor, without windows and with very bleak artificial lighting, which was insufficient for reading. The cell was not equipped with ventilation or furniture, except for a narrow wooden bench without a mattress or any bedding. The walls in the cell had been coated with “shuba”, a sort of abrasive concrete lining. The cell was not equipped with a lavatory or wash basin. The applicant had been obliged to call the wardens to take him to the lavatory when they were available. He was not provided with food or drink; he received only the food and drinking water that was passed to him by his family. 25.  The Government submitted that from 31 December 2010 to 10 a.m. on 2 January 2011 the applicant had been detained in an administrative‑detention cell measuring 5.6 sq. m equipped with artificial lighting and mandatory ventilation. They claimed that the applicant had been provided with drinking water and food, as well as with a sleeping place and bedding, but had refused to take them because he had received everything necessary from his family and friends. 26.  On 1 January 2011 two members of a public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited the police station to check the conditions of the applicant’s detention. Their report stated that the applicant had been detained in a cell without a window, which was poorly lit, lacked ventilation and had no sanitary facilities, sleeping place, mattress or bedding. They found that the cell was not adequate for a two-day confinement and noted that the applicant had not been receiving hot food. 27.  On 2 January 2011, following his conviction for an administrative offence, the applicant was transferred to another detention facility until 15 January 2011. 28.  The applicant claimed that the poor conditions of detention had had a negative impact on his health. He submitted a medical certificate indicating that between 3 and 12 January 2011 he had sought medical assistance every day. 29.  On 2 January 2011 the Justice of the Peace of circuit no. 369 of Tverskoy District of Moscow scheduled the hearing of the applicant’s case to take place on the same day. 30.  At 11.30 a.m. the applicant was brought before the Justice of the Peace, who examined the charges. 31.  In the courtroom the applicant discovered that there was no seat for him and he remained standing during the hearing, which lasted for over five hours. The parties disagreed as to the reasons why the applicant had remained standing. According to the applicant, the Justice of the Peace had ordered him to stand. The Government contested that allegation and claimed that the Justice of the Peace had repeatedly asked if anyone in the audience could give their seat to the applicant, but the applicant and his counsel had objected and insisted that he remain standing. 32.  The applicant claimed that standing throughout the trial had been humiliating and physically difficult, especially after having spent two days in detention in poor conditions. He also alleged that it had prevented him from participating effectively in the proceedings because he could only address the judge in writing and had been obliged to write his submissions while standing up. This had further aggravated his fatigue and hampered the conduct of his defence. 33.  The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed that he had been detained for no reason other than political oppression. He contested the content of the police reports, in particular the statement that the police had given him a warning or an order which he could have disobeyed. 34.  At the hearing the applicant lodged a number of motions. He requested in particular that the court admit as evidence the video footage of his arrest broadcast by two media channels. He also requested that the recording made by Mr T., an independent photographer, be admitted as evidence (see paragraph 15 above). 35.  The applicant also requested that the court obtain from the prosecution the video recording made by the Moscow police at the scene of the public demonstration. 36.  The applicant further requested that the court call and cross-examine Police Colonel B. about the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest, which he had commented on in the media (see paragraph 22 above). 37.  The Justice of the Peace dismissed the applicant’s request to admit the video recordings on the grounds that the provenance of the recordings was not supported by evidence. The court also refused to order that the video recording made by the police be admitted as evidence, stating that the applicant’s request was not “specific enough” and that the applicant had failed to prove the existence of any such recordings. Lastly, the court refused to call and examine Police Colonel B. as a witness, having considered that request irrelevant. 38.  At the applicant’s request the court called and examined thirteen witnesses who had been at the scene of the authorised demonstration. They testified that they had heard the applicant addressing the meeting and that after his speech he had said farewell and left; he had not made any calls to go on to another meeting. Six of those witnesses testified that they had left the meeting at the same time as the applicant and had witnessed his arrest. They explained that the exit from the meeting had been blocked by the riot police and the crowd had begun to build up because those who wanted to leave Triumfalnaya Square could not do so. When the applicant arrived at the cordon the police surrounded him so as to separate him from others wanting to leave the meeting, and arrested him. Eight witnesses stated that the applicant had not been shouting any slogans and had not been acting against the police orders before being surrounded and arrested. One of those witnesses, M.T., stated that she had heard the applicant asking the riot police why the exit had been blocked. She had also heard him shouting that Article 31 of the Constitution guaranteed the freedom of assembly, but he had not shouted any calls or obscenities. The remaining witnesses had not seen the actual arrest. In particular, the applicant’s daughter and her friend testified that they had been walking back to the car with the applicant and talking about the plans for New Year’s eve, and when they had arrived at the police cordon they had lost sight of the applicant in the crowd; one or two minutes later they had called him on his mobile phone and had found out that he had been arrested. 39.  The court called and examined two policemen, sergeant X and private Y, who had signed the reports stating that they had arrested the applicant because he had disobeyed their orders. They testified that on 31 December 2010 they had been on duty maintaining public order at Triumfalnaya Square. They had seen the applicant at 31 Tverskaya Street. He had been shouting anti-government slogans and calling people around him to hold an unauthorised meeting. They had approached the applicant and requested him to stop agitating outside the authorised meeting; they had asked him to return to the place allocated for the meeting and to speak there. The applicant had not reacted to their requests, so they had asked him to proceed to the police van. The applicant had disobeyed that order and had been arrested; he had put up resistance while being arrested. 40.  On the same day the Justice of the Peace found that the applicant had disobeyed the police orders to stop chanting anti-government slogans and had resisted lawful arrest. The Justice of the Peace based her findings on the witness statements of X and Y, their written reports of 31 December 2010, their written statements of the same date, the report on the administrative arrest of the same date, the notice of the public demonstration of 16 December 2010 and the reply of 22 December 2010 indicating that it had not been authorised (it appears that this reference concerned the events described in paragraph 9 above). The Justice of the Peace dismissed the applicant’s testimony on the grounds that as a defendant, he would have sought to exonerate himself from administrative liability. She also dismissed the testimonies of seven eyewitnesses on the grounds that they had contradicted the policemen’s testimonies and because those witnesses had been acquainted with the applicant, had taken part in the same demonstration and therefore must have been biased towards the applicant. The testimonies of the remaining six witnesses were dismissed as irrelevant. 41.  The applicant was found guilty of having disobeyed a lawful order of the police, in breach of Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. He was sentenced to fifteen days’ administrative detention. 42.  On 3 January 2011 the applicant wrote an appeal against the judgment and submitted it to the detention facility administration unit. It appears that despite his counsel’s numerous attempts to lodge the appeal directly with the court, it was not accepted before 9 January 2011. On 11 January 2011 his counsel submitted a supplement to the points of appeal. 43.  In his appeal the applicant claimed that his arrest and conviction for the administrative offence had been in breach of the domestic law and in violation of the Convention. He alleged that his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly had been violated. He contested the findings of fact made by the first instance as regards his conduct after he had left the meeting. He challenged, in particular, the court’s refusal to admit the photographic and video materials as evidence or to obtain the footage of the demonstration shot by the police. In addition, he complained about the manner in which the first-instance hearing had been conducted. In particular, he alleged that the Justice of the Peace had ordered him to stand throughout the hearing, which had been humiliating and had made it difficult to participate in the proceedings. The applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention at the police station from 31 December 2010 to 2 January 2011. 44.  On 12 January 2011 the Tverskoy District Court examined the appeal. At the applicant’s request the court kept the verbatim records of the hearing. 45.  During the appeal hearing the applicant complained of the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest and the poor conditions of his detention at the police station. He asked the court to declare the acts of the police who had detained him for over forty hours before bringing him before a court unlawful. 46.  As regards the merits of the administrative charges, the applicant reiterated before the appeal instance his requests that the court admit three video recordings of his arrest as evidence and that it obtain the video recording made by the Moscow police. He also requested that two photographs of his arrest be admitted as evidence. He asked the court to call and examine photographers T. and V. as witnesses and to cross-examine police officers X and Y again. The court granted the requests to admit one video recording and two photographs as evidence, and decided to call and examine photographer T. as a witness, but rejected all the other requests. 47.  Photographer T. testified at the hearing that he had gone to the meeting to film it and had been waiting for the applicant at the exit from the meeting because he had wanted to interview him. When the applicant approached the exit a big group of policemen rushed over to block his way and there had been a minute’s pause when a crowd began to build up against the cordon, blocking the passage. Then one person was arrested, and about thirty seconds later someone else, and then the applicant. T. saw the applicant’s arrest as he was filming it from a distance of about five or six metres. He was separated from the applicant by several rows of people, of which two rows consisted of policemen. The recording began a few minutes before the arrest and continued without any interruption until the applicant had been put in the police van. He specified that the applicant had not put up any resistance to the officers arresting him. He identified on the photograph the officer wearing a fur hat, who had arrested the applicant, and explained that that person had taken the applicant out of the crowd and then passed him on to another policeman in order to put the applicant into the police van. He also stated that the applicant had not shouted any slogans or insults. The applicant had repeated “Easy, easy” to the policemen while being escorted to the van. T. also testified that the applicant had been standing throughout the first-instance hearing, while his counsel had been sitting on a chair. 48.  The court watched the video recording made by T. However, it decided not to take cognisance of T.’s testimonies, his recording or the photograph, on the following grounds:
“... the footage begins with the image of a large number of people gathered at 31 Tverskaya Street in Moscow, with Mr Nemtsov at the centre. A policeman addresses the citizens through a loudspeaker with a request to disperse and not to block the passage, but Mr Nemtsov remains standing in one place addressing the gathered citizens. The video operator is at such a distance from the applicant that he is separated from him by several rows of people, including the gathered citizens and the riot police, and it is impossible to understand what these citizens and the applicant are saying. Subsequently the recording of the applicant is interrupted as the camera points away onto the policemen putting the first arrested person, and then another one, into the police vans. Only afterwards does the video recording show the applicant being led to a police van by policemen, and he puts up no resistance at this moment of the footage.
In this respect, and taking into account that the footage does not show Mr Nemtsov’s actions immediately before his placement in the police van, the video and the accompanying audio do not depict Mr Nemtsov addressing the citizens before he was detained. The court concludes that the submitted footage does not refute the testimonies of the policemen, and [T.’s] testimony cannot refute them either because he observed only those actions of Mr Nemtsov that appear on the footage.
...
The photographs submitted during the appeal hearing that depict Mr Nemtsov surrounded by policemen, one of whom is supporting his arm, cannot be considered by the court as refuting the event of the offence or the evidence, including the testimonies of [X and Y], because of the absence of information on the exact time of its taking, or on its connection with the place ... ” 49.  On the same day the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. It found, in particular, on the basis of the testimonies and reports of X and Y, that the applicant had indeed been guilty of having disobeyed a lawful order of the police. It upheld the reasoning of the first-instance court whereby it rejected the testimonies of thirteen witnesses called at the applicant’s request. As regards the testimonies of X and Y, on the other hand, it found no reason to mistrust them because they had had no personal interest in the outcome of the applicant’s case. 50.  In its appeal decision the court addressed the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending the first-instance trial and considered that there had been no breach:
“... after the report on the administrative offence had been drawn up, the information necessary for establishing the circumstances of the committed offence was collected, including the explanations of [X and Y], the notice of the place of the public demonstration of 31 December 2010, the [mayor’s] reply to that notice, as well as the personal characteristics of the person in relation to whom the administrative offence report had been drawn up. A ruling was made by the Justice of the Peace of 2 September 2010 convicting the applicant of an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Therefore the applicant’s detention during less than 48 hours was not in breach of Article 27.5 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences.” 51.  As regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention between 31 December 2010 and 2 January 2011, the court found that his complaints had been outside the scope of the current proceedings, holding that another type of legal action should have been brought by the applicant to challenge those acts. The court did not specify what procedure the applicant should have followed as an avenue for those complaints. 52.  On 31 March 2011 the applicant lodged before the Tverskoy District Court a complaint under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He challenged his initial arrest and complained of the poor conditions of detention for over forty hours. 53.  On 4 April 2011 the court refused to accept the applicant’s action, holding that the questions concerning the lawfulness of the police acts had to be examined in the relevant administrative proceedings, but could not be dealt with in civil proceedings. 54.  On 14 April 2011 the applicant appealed against the refusal to accept his complaint. The Moscow City Court dismissed his appeal on 22 July 2011. It relied, in particular, on Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009 by the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and held, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“... the courts may not examine complaints lodged under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure against acts or inaction connected with the application of the Code of Administrative Offences, Chapter 30 of which provides for the procedure for challenging them; or acts or inaction for which the Code of Administrative Offences does not provide for a procedure by which they may be challenged. Acts or inaction that are inseparable from the administrative case may not be subject to a separate challenge (evidence in the case, [including] reports on the application of precautionary measures to secure the course of justice in the administrative case). In this case the arguments against the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence or the application of a precautionary measure to secure the course of justice may be put forward during the hearing of the administrative case or in points of appeal against the judgment or ruling on the administrative case. However, if the proceedings in the administrative case are terminated, the acts committed in the course of these proceedings, if they entailed a breach of an individual’s or a legal person’s rights or freedoms, or hindered the exercise of their rights and freedoms, or imposed an obligation after the proceedings had been terminated, [they] may be challenged under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the same procedure one may challenge the acts of officials if no administrative file has been opened.” 55.  The applicant also attempted to challenge the acts of the judiciary involved in his case before the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow. His attempts were, however, unsuccessful.


5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Budaörs. 6.  On 2 January 2008 the applicant, a journalist, published an article in a column entitled “Opinion” of a national daily paper. The subject of the article was the quality of a well-known Hungarian wine variety, a product of T. Zrt, a State-owned corporation, which was, in the applicant’s view, bad and its popularity with Hungarian consumers unjustified. The article contained the following passage:
“On nine out of ten occasions, it is a product of T. Zrt, available below 1,000 [Hungarian forints] per bottle, that represents the world’s best wine region, the Hungarian National Pride and Treasure... [and that could make me cry]. Not only because of the taste – although that alone would easily be enough for an abundant cry: sour, blunt and over-oxidised stuff, bad-quality ingredients collected from all kinds of leftovers, grey mould plus a bit of sugar from Szerencs, musty barrel – but because we are still there ...: hundreds of thousands of Hungarians drink [this] shit with pride, even devotion... our long-suffering people are made to eat (drink) it and pay for it at least twice ([because we are talking about a] State-owned company); it is being explained diligently, using the most jerk-like demagogy from both left and right, that this is national treasure, this is how it is supposed to be made, out of the money of all of us, and this is very, very good, and we even need to be happy about it with a solemn face. This is how the inhabitants (subjects) of the country are being humiliated by the skunk regime through half a litre of alcoholised drink.
And once again, I would remind everybody of how people were whining back then, saying that foreigners were coming to destroy [T.], buy up the market and make everything multinational and alien-hearted; and then it turned out that those foreigners made gorgeous wine, just like some lucky, resolute and very talented Hungarian family wineries, that they tried to make [T.] world-famous again, because this was their business interest (profit, ugh!); while we as a community are trying to destroy their achievements using State money, lest something finally could be a success. ...” 7.  T. Zrt filed a criminal complaint against the applicant. On 2 June 2009 the Budapest II/III District Court convicted him of defamation (rágalmazás). The court held that the criticism expressed in the applicant’s article went beyond the boundaries of journalistic opinion and amounted to stating a fact susceptible of harming the reputation of the producer of the wine variety in question. The court refrained from imposing a sentence for a probationary period of one year. 8.  On appeal, on 5 November 2009 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this judgment, holding that the incriminated statement was a value judgment and that therefore the applicant was to be convicted for libel (becsületsértés) under section 180(1)b of the Criminal Code. The court held that although the applicant was entitled to express his opinion about the wine in question, by characterising it as “shit” – an expression unduly insulting – he had infringed the producer’s right to a good reputation. The court reduced the sanction to a reprimand. 9.  On 10 May 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence.


5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the Orenburg Region. 6.  In April 2003 the applicant, a retired military officer, sued the Military Department of the Orenburg Region for an increase of his pension and compensation for pecuniary damage. 7.  On 16 April 2003 the Totskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region allowed the applicant's action and awarded him 20,989.90 Russian roubles (RUR). 8.  On 11 June 2003 the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings. 9.  On 12 August 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds. It advised the applicant to apply to the Orenburg regional department of the Ministry of Finance. 10.  By letter of 10 October 2003, the Orenburg regional department advised the applicant to apply to head office of the Ministry of Finance. 11.  On 25 December 2003 the Ministry of Finance refused to pay the award and referred the applicant back to the bailiffs. 12.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant resubmitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. On 15 March 2004 the bailiffs again discontinued enforcement because the debtor had no available funds. 13.  On 10 March 2005 the Military Department transferred the amount due into the applicant's bank account. 14.  On 16 May 2005 a prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the head of the Military Department for his failure to enforce the judgment, finding that he had not acted with intent.


9.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Warsaw.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 10.  On 1 May 1983 the applicant, following clashes with the police during anticommunist demonstrations, was put by the police in their van and beaten. He was seriously injured. On 17 May 1983 he was discharged from hospital. A brain injury, post-traumatic epilepsy and permanent brain damage were diagnosed. Since then he has remained under permanent care in a psychiatric clinic. 11.  By a judgment of 24 June 1986, the Warsaw Regional Court granted the applicant compensation for damage to his health and held that a monthly supplementary pension be paid by the police – the State Treasury. The court observed that the applicant had lost the capacity to work and was disabled in the so-called second degree (an intermediate degree of disability). 12.  On 11 April 1990 the applicant was granted the first degree status of disability (serious disability). 13.  In 1990 the monthly supplementary pension was increased to 100 PLN as a result of a settlement between the parties. 14.  On 27 February 1993 the applicant's father lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court, in which he requested an increase in his son's monthly pension. On 8 March 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court remitted the case to the Warsaw District Court. Subsequently, six hearings were held in the case. On 15 September 1993 the court held a hearing. The defendant's lawyer asked for an adjournment in order to reach a friendly settlement. 15.  On 12 November 1993 the court held a hearing. The applicant increased the amount of the claim. The court decided to request certain information from the applicant's former employer. On 19 November 1993 the court obtained the requested information. 16.  On 23 November 1993 the court held a hearing. The applicant increased the amount of the claim. The court decided to request the psychiatric clinic for some additional information on the applicant's health. On 13 December 1993 the applicant's lawyer specified the claim. He requested the court to appoint an expert to give a report on the applicant's health. 17.  On 17 December 1993 the next hearing was held. It was decided to request the psychiatric clinic to expedite the preparation of the requested documents. 18.  On 27 January 1994 the court held its next hearing and interviewed witnesses. The applicant further specified the claim. 19.  On 6 May 1994 a hearing was held. The defendant contested the amount of the applicant's claim. The court decided to request the applicant's former employer to submit certain information. On 24 May 1994 the applicant increased his claim. Taking into account the value of the claim, on 25 May 1994 the applicant requested the court to remit the case to the Regional Court. On 23 June 1994 the Warsaw District Court remitted the case to the Warsaw Regional Court, as the latter had become competent following the increase of the applicant's claim. Subsequently, on 25 November 1994 and 21 December 1994 the defendant and the applicant submitted pleadings to the court. 20.  In January 1995 the applicant requested the court not to schedule any hearings in the period from 1 until 18 March 1995. In February 1995 the applicant requested the court not to schedule any hearings from 1 until 15 April 1995. On 19 April 1995 the applicant increased the claim. 21.  On 28 April 1995 the parties asked for an adjournment in order to reach an out-of-court settlement. Their negotiations subsequently failed. By pleadings of 18 May, 20 June, 20 July, 21 August, 22 September, 10 October and 21 November 1995 the applicant further specified his claim. On 14 November 1995 the court requested the applicant's former employer to submit certain documents. The documents were submitted on 21 November 1995. 22.  On 1 December 1995 the hearing was adjourned to give the applicant two weeks to submit his comments on the documents received by the court on 21 November. On 1 December 1995, 2 January 1996 and 22 January 1996 the applicant specified his claim.
On 23 February 1996 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the length of the proceedings. On 15 April 1996 he was informed that the case had been placed under the administrative supervision of the President of the Warsaw Regional Court. 23.  On 9 September 1996 the applicant lodged a motion with the Warsaw Regional Court challenging the presiding judge for an alleged lack of impartiality. This motion was dismissed on 18 September 1996. 24.  On 29 January 1997 the court received requested information from the applicant's former employer. On 5 February 1997 the expert submitted a report ordered by the court in November 1996. On 13 February 1997 the applicant's lawyer requested the court not to schedule any hearings in March 1997. 25.  On 17 February 1997 the court requested the parties to submit their comments on the expert report within the fourteen days' time-limit. On 26 February 1997 the defendant informed the court that he agreed with the conclusions of the report. On 11 March 1997 the court once more requested the applicant to submit his comments. Apparently, further questions were put to the expert. On 7 November 1997 the expert submitted to the court the supplementary report. On 1 December 1997 the applicant lodged his objections against the report. 26.  On 9 January 1998 the court held a hearing. The applicant requested the court to appoint a new expert. He once more challenged the expert opinion. The court refused and closed the hearings in the case. 27.  On 12 January 1998 the applicant increased and modified his claim to a very significant extent. 28.  On 16 January 1998 the court accordingly re-opened the proceedings. The court also gave an interlocutory decision that a certain sum be paid monthly to the applicant in order to secure his claim. 29.  On 4 March 1998 the applicant submitted motions as to the evidence to be taken. On 24 March 1998 the applicant submitted a new proposal for calculating the amount of the pension. On 8 April the defendant opposed that new proposal. On 24 July 1998 the applicant increased his claim. 30.  On 5 August 1998 the court held a hearing. 31.  By a judgment of 14 August 1998 the applicant's claim was partly dismissed and partly allowed. The judgment was served on the applicant three months later. The applicant appealed. By an order of 2 December 1998, he was requested to submit certain copies of documents for his appeal. This order was left by the postman at the applicant's door. Later, the post office returned it to the court marked “apartment closed”. 32.  On 29 December 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the applicant' s appeal for failure to comply with its order of 2 December 1998. On 5 January 1999 the applicant complained to the Warsaw Appeal Court. On 11 January 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal remitted the case to the Warsaw Regional Court and ordered the court to clarify whether the applicant wished to challenge the decision of 29 December 1998, or to lodge a request in order to reinstate the time-limit for submitting the requested documents. 33.  On 14 January 1999 the applicant appealed against the decision of 29 December 1998. 34.  On 26 January 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay a court fee of 50 PLN for the procedural appeal, which the applicant did on the next day. 35.  On 5 February 1999 the applicant received an order dated 2 February 1999 summoning him to pay 50 PLN in court fees. The applicant requested a meeting with the President of the Civil Section on 8 February 1999 in order to clarify what the court fee was for. The meeting did not take place as the President was absent on the date which had been fixed. The President apologised in a letter of 24 February 1999. 36.  On 12 February and 29 March 1999 the applicant specified his claim. 37.  By a decision of 29 April 1999, the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 29 December 1998 and rejected his appeal on the merits of the case for failure to comply with the procedural requirements. The court informed the applicant that he could lodge a request to reinstate the time-limit for submitting the documents requested by the court. 38.  On 16 June 1999 the applicant requested the court to appoint a lawyer under the legal aid scheme with a view to lodging a cassation appeal against the decision of 29 April 1999. He lodged also a “personal” cassation appeal. On 22 June 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed this request, but the lawyer was not appointed until 13 August 1999. 39.  In the meantime, on 5 August 1999 the Court of Appeal rejected the cassation appeal against the decision of 29 December 1998 for not having been presented by a lawyer as required by law.
On 20 August 1999 the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against the decision of 5 August 1999 with the Supreme Court in order to reinstate the time-limit for lodging the cassation appeal. The cassation appeal itself was submitted to the Supreme Court on 30 August 1999. 40.  By a decision of 7 December 1999, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 5 August 1999 for having been reached without due consideration to the applicant's pending legal aid application. 41.  On 31 January, 4 and 15 May 2000 the applicant specified the claim. 42.  On 25 May 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal reinstated the time-limit for lodging the cassation appeal against the procedural decisions of 29 December 1998 and of 29 April 1999. 43.  On 3 October 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 29 December 1998 and 29 April 1999 for procedural defects. 44.  On 12 January 2001 the applicant increased his claim. 45.  By a letter of 16 February 2001, the Warsaw Court of Appeal informed the applicant that the next hearing in the appellate proceedings would be held on 16 March 2001. 46.  On 29 March 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the judgment of 14 August 1998. The judgment was served on the applicant on 8 June 2001. 47.  On 2 July 2001 the applicant's lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 20 December 2001 the court rejected the cassation appeal, considering that it had not been shown that arguable grounds existed which would justify the examination of the appeal.


5.  The applicants are:
1) Mr Usman Karimov, born in 1949,
2) Ms Rikhant Karimova, born in 1957,
3) Ms Luiza Karimova, born in 1978 and
4) Ms Seda Amayeva, born in 1985. 6.  The applicants are Russian nationals. The first applicant lives in Grozny, Chechnya, and the other three applicants live in the village of Proletarskoye (also known as Proletarskiy), in Grozny district, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“the SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. 7.  The first and the second applicants are the parents of Arbi Karimov, who was born in 1981. The third applicant is his sister and the fourth applicant is his wife. 8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 9.  At the material time the applicants lived in Proletarskoye, in Grozny district, Chechnya. The settlement was under the full control of Russian federal forces and the area was under a curfew. Russian military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. 10.  On the night of 11 January 2003 (in the submitted documents the date is also referred to as 12 January 2003) the applicants and Arbi Karimov were sleeping in their house at 32 Belostotskaya Street. At about 2 a.m. a group of military vehicles arrived at the street. A Ural military lorry and two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) parked next to the house of the applicants’ neighbours I. Two other APCs and another Ural military vehicle with Russian military servicemen in it drove up to the applicants’ yard. One APC drove through the gates and a group of about twenty armed masked men in helmets broke down the entrance door and rushed into the applicants’ house. 11.  The noise woke the first applicant and he approached the servicemen. They hit him and took him into the kitchen. There they forced the first applicant down on to the floor and two of the servicemen put their feet on him to keep him on the floor. The intruders dispersed the family members into different rooms, pointed their guns at them, and ordered them to lie face down. When the second applicant asked the servicemen what was going on she was ordered to be quiet. 12.  The intruders neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants heard them using the code name “Vityaz” among themselves. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen. 13.  The servicemen put handcuffs on the first applicant and on his son Arbi Karimov. The fourth applicant and her husband Arbi Karimov were placed together in the living room. Every time Arbi Karimov tried to move the serviceman on guard kicked him in the torso. After that the servicemen took Arbi Karimov outside; they did not allow him to put on warm clothing. 14.  A few minutes later the servicemen took the first applicant outside where he saw his son in the Ural military vehicle. The first applicant heard Arbi Karimov saying to the servicemen: “Why are you taking my father? He is an elderly man”. After that the officers talked among themselves and released the first applicant. Having spent about twenty minutes outside, the first applicant was taken back into the house. On his way into the house the first applicant saw that his son had been taken out of the Ural vehicle and put into one of the APCs. In the house the servicemen took off the first applicant’s handcuffs. They ordered the applicants to stay inside, threatening to shoot them and blow up the house if the applicants attempted to go outside. 15.  Having taken away Arbi Karimov the servicemen started searching the applicants’ house. There was no electricity and the servicemen used torches. The servicemen took a number of items of the applicants’ property, including a couch, pillows, bed linen and fabrics. They also took a number of personal documents, including the first applicant’s passport and his pensioner’s identity card, and the passports of the fourth applicant, Arbi Karimov and the first applicant’s other son Umar Karimov (brother of Arbi Karimov). The applicants’ belongings were loaded into the military vehicles, which was witnessed by a number of the applicants’ neighbours. 16.  After the vehicles left the house, the applicants immediately followed them. On the outskirts of the village the vehicles stopped and the servicemen opened fire in the applicants’ direction. The vehicles spent about twenty minutes there and drove away in the direction of the route to the Staropromyslovskiy district of Chechnya. 17.  The description of the events of the night of 11 January 2003 is based on two hand-drawn maps of the premises, on accounts provided by the applicants and their neighbours to the applicants’ representatives: on an account by the fourth applicant on 26 September 2005 ; on an account (undated) by witness Ms Um.; on an account (undated) by witness Ms Im.; on an account (undated) by witness Mr B.; and on an article published in the August-September 2003 issue of the magazine Zashchita prav i svobod cheloveka (Защита прав и свобод человека). 18.  In the morning of 11 January 2003 the applicants started their search for Arbi Karimov. They spoke to a number of local residents who lived close to the route to the Staropromyslovskiy district. The residents confirmed that on the night of 11 January 2003 they had seen that some of the military vehicles had driven in the direction of Grozny while others had left in the direction of the area called Solyenaya Balka, in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Chechnya. 19.  On the same day the applicants found out that Russian military forces had also detained two other residents of their village, who had not been seen since. In addition, on the same morning, at the place where the vehicles had halted for twenty minutes on the night of 11 January 2003, residents of Proletarskoye found the mutilated corpse of Mr R. S., who had been abducted on 6 January 2003 in Grozny. It appears that the local authorities conducted a crime scene investigation there. 20.  On an unspecified date in January 2003 the applicants complained about Arbi Karimov’s abduction to the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross (the Red Cross) in Grozny. On 26 May 2003 representatives of the organisation visited the applicants and showed them a letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. The letter stated that on an unspecified date an illegal bandit group had been discovered in Proletarskoye and in connection with this the Russian law enforcement agencies had conducted a special operation in the village on 12 January 2003. As a result of the operation Mr I. and Mr Umar Karimov had been killed while resisting arrest. Out of fear for their personal safety, the Red Cross representatives refused to provide the applicants with a photocopy of the letter, but they allowed them to make a handwritten copy of it. 21.  Upon receiving the information provided in the letter, the applicants complained about their relative’s abduction to a number of local authorities. About two weeks later, on an unspecified date, around 4 a.m., a group of armed military men arrived at the applicants’ house in military UAZ vehicles. They told the applicants that they were conducting an identity check. This time the servicemen did not detain anybody and did not take anything. 22.  Some time later the applicants received a letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 stating that the authorities’ letter to the Red Cross had incorrectly stated the names of those killed during the operation of 12 January 2003. 23.  About three months after receiving the letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 the second applicant wrote to a number of local law enforcement agencies. In her letters she complained about the abduction of her son Arbi Karimov and pointed out that the passport of her other son, Umar Karimov, had been taken away by Russian military servicemen during the abduction. 24.  After that, on 30 December 2003, at about 6 a.m. a group of military men in four military UAZ vehicles again arrived at the applicants’ house for an identity check. They did not detain anyone and did not take anything from the house. 25.  The applicants also contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the President of the Russian Federation, the Envoy of the President of the Russian Federation for Ensuring Human Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic (the Envoy), the Chechen administration, military commanders’ offices and prosecutors’ offices at different levels, describing in detail the circumstances of their relative’s abduction and asking for help in establishing his whereabouts. The applicants retained copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to the Court. 26. The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. According to their observations of 22 July 2008, “In connection with the abduction by unidentified persons of A.U. Karimov on 11 January 2003 in the settlement of Proletarskoye in Grozny district, the Grozny district prosecutor’s office initiated criminal case no. 42009 under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping).” 27.  On 11 January 2003 the applicants complained about the abduction of Arbi Karimov to the Grozny district department of the interior (the Grozny ROVD), to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office (the district prosecutor’s office), and to the Grozny district military commander’s office (the district military commander’s office). 28.  Between 11 and 14 January 2003 the applicants complained about Arbi Karimov’s abduction to the Envoy, stating that their relative had been taken away by military servicemen who had arrived in APCs and Ural vehicles and that the abductors also had taken away valuables and family members’ passports. On 15 January 2003 the Envoy forwarded the applicants’ complaint to the Chechnya prosecutor. 29.  On 14 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Arbi Karimov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given number 42009 (in the submitted documents the number is also referred to as 42099). 30.  On 17 and 21 January 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaints about her son’s abduction by armed men in APCs to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 31.  On 17 January 2003 the head of the administration of the village of Proletarskoye complained to the Grozny ROVD about the abduction of Arbi Karimov by masked federal servicemen. 32.  On 24 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that on an unspecified date they had instituted an investigation into the abduction of Arbi Karimov and that the case file had been given the number 42009. The letter also stated that the investigators were aware of the fact that Arbi Karimov’s abductors had also taken away the passports of the first and the fourth applicants and of their relative Umar Karimov. 33.  On 31 January 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 34.  On 2 February 2003 the second applicant complained to the Chechnya department of the interior (the Chechnya MVD). In her letter she stated that her son had been abducted by Russian military servicemen who had arrived in APCs. She pointed out that the servicemen had taken valuables from their house along with identity documents of her family members. She complained that her son had been taken away in his underwear and that the servicemen had ill-treated family members. The applicant requested the authorities to inform her about the following: who had control over the Russian military forces in Chechnya; what was the difference between the “sweeping” operations conducted by representatives of the federal forces and nightly pinpoint raids; if those who had abducted her son had been bandits or Chechen rebel fighters, why were these men equipped with APCs and why after the completion of their operation did they leave openly in the direction of the checkpoints of the Russian military forces and finally why did the abductors fail to inform the relatives of the abducted persons about their relatives’ subsequent whereabouts. 35.  On 4 April 2003 the second applicant again complained to the Chechnya MVD. In her letter she stated that her son had been abducted by Russian military servicemen who had arrived in APCs and a military Ural vehicle. The applicant also complained that the authorities had failed to establish her son’s whereabouts. 36.  On 5 April and 12 May 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Alignment Group (the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA) forwarded the second applicant’s complaints about the abduction of Arbi Karimov to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 37.  On 9 April 2003 the Chechnya MVD forwarded the applicants’ complaint to the Grozny ROVD. 38.  On 25 April 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about her son’s abduction to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 39.  On 28 April 2003 the Chechnya department of the Federal Security Service (the Chechnya FSB) informed the second applicant that they had no information concerning the whereabouts of Arbi Karimov; that his name was not on the authorities’ wanted list and he was not under suspicion of having committed a crime. 40.  On 22 May 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about the abduction of Arbi Karimov to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. The letter stated that her complaint did not provide any grounds to suspect the involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction. 41.  On 29 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that on 14 January 2003 they had instituted an investigation into the abduction of Arbi Karimov and that later the investigation had been suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The letter stated that the examination of the criminal case file had established that the authorities had failed to take all possible investigative measures and in connection with this the investigation in the case had been resumed on an unspecified date. 42.  On 3 June 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the investigation in criminal case no. 42009 had been suspended on 14 March 2003 for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. On 29 May 2003 the investigation had been resumed owing to the necessity to take additional investigative measures. 43.  On 17 June 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the second applicant that her complaint had failed to provide any information indicating the involvement of Russian military servicemen in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. 44.  On 19 June 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that they had already provided responses to her requests concerning the search for Arbi Karimov. 45.  On 30 June 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about her son’s abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. The letter stated that the examination of the applicant’s complaint had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the crime. 46.  On 5 July 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA forwarded the second applicant’s request concerning the search for her son to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 47.  On 15, on 30 July and 21 October 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaints about her son’s abduction to the investigators. The first letter stated that the applicant had received the information concerning her son’s murder from the local headquarters of the Red Cross. 48.  On 24 July, 5 and 20 August and 19 September 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the second applicant that the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 had examined her complaints and that this exanimation had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. 49.  On 2 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that her complaint to the Prosecutor General had been included in the criminal case file. 50.  On 20 August 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicant that the examination of her complaint had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. 51.  On 25 August and 2 September 2003 the Departments of Correction of the Ministry of Justice in the Volgograd and Rostov regions informed the second applicant that they had no information concerning the whereabouts of Arbi Karimov. 52.  On 23 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that her complaint about the abduction of Arbi Karimov had been included in the criminal case file. 53.  On 13 October 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA forwarded the second applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 for examination. 54.  On 14 October 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about the abduction of Arbi Karimov by armed men in APCs and a Ural military vehicle to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 55.  On 22 October 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the operational search measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Arbi Karimov and the perpetrators of the crime were under way. 56.  On 21 November 2003 the Ministry of Defence informed the second applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of the North-Caucasus Military Circuit for examination. 57.  On 1 December 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that on an unspecified date they had instructed the district prosecutor’s office to resume the investigation in the criminal case and take all necessary measures aimed at establishing the perpetrators. 58.  On 5 December 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the North-Caucasus Military Circuit forwarded the second applicant’s letter concerning the search for her son to the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA. 59.  On 8 January 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the second applicant that the examination of her complaint had not established any involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. The letter also stated that the office did not have any information concerning his death. 60.  On 13 February 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the district prosecutor’s office had been investigating her son’s disappearance. 61.  On 14 February 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the second applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. The letter also stated the following:
“... earlier an assistant of the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 Major I.S. provided the response to the information request of the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross stating that A. Karimov had been killed during a special operation while resisting police officers. However, this information statement of Mr I.S. was not confirmed.
You are requested to conduct an inquiry and inform us and the applicant about the grounds for the response given to the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning the death of A. Karimov.” 62.  On 24 February 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the second applicant that the information provided by them to the Red Cross about the killing of Arbi Karimov was incorrect. This information had been provided along with information concerning other missing persons, in a table format, and this table must have contained a mistake. The letter also stated that the examination of the applicant’s previous complaints had demonstrated that the Russian military forces had not been involved in the abduction of her son. 63.  On 27 March and 9 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA forwarded the second applicant’s complaints about her son’s abduction to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 64.  On 8 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 forwarded the second applicant’s complaint about the search for her son to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. The letter stated that it had been established that the Russian military servicemen had not been involved in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. 65.  On 16 April 2004 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA. 66.  On 15 May 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the second applicant that her complaint did not contain any indication of involvement of the Russian military forces in the abduction of Arbi Karimov. The letter also stated that, upon examination of the information provided to the Red Cross about the killing of her son, it had been established that this information was incorrect. 67.  On 20 September 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the second applicant that the examination of her previous complaints had established that the Russian military forces had not participated in the abduction of Arbi Karimov and that her complaints had been forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. According to the letter, the district prosecutor’s office had been taking measures to establish identity of the perpetrators. 68.  On 4 February 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that
“... as a result of the examination of the criminal case file it has been established that the case was initiated on 14 January 2003 under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code in connection with the abduction at about 3 a.m. on 11 January 2003 in Proletarskoye in Grozny district of A.U. Karimov, Sh. Isayev and I.S. Magayev by unidentified military servicemen....
as a result of the investigation of this criminal case, ....on 17 January 2005 the investigator decided to suspend the investigation...for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. ..” 69.  On 7 June 2005 the second applicant complained to a number of State authorities, including the Minister of the Interior and the Prosecutor General. She complained that the investigators had failed to conduct an effective and thorough investigation into the abduction of her son. In her letters she described in detail the circumstances of Arbi Karimov’s abduction. In particular, she stated that he had been abducted by Russian military servicemen; that the servicemen had seized a number of items of family property and identity documents; that they had threatened to blow up the applicants’ house; that two other residents of the village had been abducted by the same group of servicemen; that the morning after the abduction local residents had found a corpse which had been left behind by the servicemen; that the authorities had failed to take any meaningful investigative steps; that on 15 January 2003 one of the abducted men had been released and he had told her that he had been detained on the premises of the 21st division of the Russian federal troops, “Sofrino”, in the area known as Solyenaya Balka, Chechnya; that she had informed the investigators about it, but that the latter had failed to take any measures to verify the information; that in May 2003 she had been told at the local headquarters of the Red Cross that the military prosecutor’s office had informed the organisation that Arbi Karimov had been killed while resisting arrest on 12 January 2003; and that the investigators had failed to question employees of the military prosecutor’s office and the Red Cross about this information. The applicant expressed her opinion that the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative measures was unlawful. She requested the authorities to resume the investigation in the criminal case and to conduct it in a thorough and effective manner. It does not appear that the applicant received any response from the authorities. 70.  According to the Government, on 12 January 2003 the investigation conducted a crime scene examination at the applicants’ house. As a result a photograph of A. Karimov was collected; no damage to the house gates or to other property was referred to in the record of the examination. 71.  On 31 January 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. According to her statement, at about 2 a.m. on 11 January 2003 several APCs and a Ural vehicle had arrived at her house, breaking one of the gates. Her husband had woken up from the noise and opened the entrance door. Then a group of unidentified armed men in blue camouflage uniform, bullet-proof vests and masks had rushed into the house. They had forced all the family members on to the floor and searched the house. After that they had handcuffed her son Arbi Karimov and without letting him get dressed had taken him and his father into the yard and forced them into the Ural vehicle. Then the intruders had released her husband, but had taken away her son Arbi. During the search the men had taken family belongings (kitchen utensils, male underwear), passports and documents for the family car. The abductors had used four APCs and four Ural vehicles, as well as several UAZ and GAZ (“Gazel”) vehicles. All the registration numbers were covered with mud. According to the applicant, on 16-17 January 2003 she had complained about her son’s abduction to the International Committee of the Red Cross. From the organisation’s response, in which they had referred to a letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102, she had found out that Arbi Karimov had been eliminated during a special operation. 72.  On 11 September 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the investigators that they had not provided the Red Cross with information concerning the detention of Arbi Karimov. 73.  On an unspecified date the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the investigators that a representative of the Red Cross had been provided with incorrect information concerning the death of Arbi Karimov. Upon examination of the relevant documentation no information pertaining to this was found. 74.  On an unspecified date the investigators requested the Red Cross to provide a copy of the letter from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 concerning the death of Arbi Karimov. According to the Government, the organisation refused to provide the document. 75.  According to the Government, the investigation questioned a number of witnesses. On unspecified dates members of the Karimov family, Mr U. Karimov, Ms Kh. Imadayeva, Ms L.Karimova and Ms S. Amayeva had provided the investigators with statements similar to the one given by the second applicant. 76.  On an unspecified date the investigators additionally questioned the third applicant, who stated that during the events her brother Arbi Karimov had tried to hide under the bed, but three armed masked men in helmets and blue camouflage uniform had dragged him out and taken him into the yard. These men were speaking Russian. The abductors had taken a number of items of property from the house: three video cassettes, audio cassettes, a car radio/cassette player, female underwear, passports, an axe, soap, shoe polish, footwear, perfume, a grindstone and some items of clothing. A few minutes after the abductors’ departure she had heard shooting coming from the outskirts of the settlement. 77.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour, Mr I.B., who stated that at about 2.30 a.m. on 11 January 2003 he had been woken by the noise of vehicles. From the window he had seen an APC and a khaki Ural vehicle and heard people talking among themselves in Russian. Twenty minutes later the vehicles had left and he had gone outside. His neighbours had told him that these men had taken away Arbi Karimov and a number of items of property from the house. 78.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned an employee of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Grozny, Mr R.I., who stated that relatives of Arbi Karimov had applied to the organisation with requests for assistance in the search for their relatives. According to the witness, he had informed the main office of the Red Cross in Nalchik about it, and their employees had forwarded information requests to a number of law enforcement agencies. Responses had been provided to those requests, but the witness did not remember their contents. 79. According to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigators also requested information about the disappearance from various State authorities, including a number of district departments of the interior in Chechnya and other units of the Ministry of the Interior, the Grozny department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB), various military commanders’ offices in Chechnya, the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102, the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA, a number of penitentiary institutions in Chechnya and the neighbouring regions, the prosecutors’ officers of various levels, various detention centres in the Northern Caucasus and the archives of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit. According to the responses received from these agencies, they did not have any information about Arbi Karimov’s arrest and detention. 80.  According to the response received by the investigators on an unspecified date from the Grozny ROVD, they did not detain Arbi Karimov, he had not been placed in a detention centre, his corpse had not been found, he had not applied for medical assistance and no criminal proceedings had been initiated against him. 81.  On unspecified dates the investigators forwarded requests for assistance in searching for Arbi Karimov to the Chechnya FSB and the Grozny ROVD, asking them to take operational search measures. According to the information received from these agencies, Arbi Karimov’s brother, U.U. Karimov, was a member of illegal armed groups. 82.  The Government further submitted that on 10 and 11 January 2003 no special operations had been conducted in the settlement of Proletarskoye in the Grozny district, Chechnya and that representatives of the State had not detained Arbi Karimov. 83.  According to the Government, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions, and has so far failed to identify the perpetrators of Arbi Karimov’s abduction. However, operational search measures were being taken to establish the whereabouts of Arbi Karimov and identify the perpetrators. The progress of the investigation was being supervised by the Investigations Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office. 84.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents of criminal case no. 42009. The Government 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 file contained personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.


5.  The applicant, a limited liability company with its seat in Vienna, is the owner of the daily newspaper Der Standard. 6.  In its issue of 14 May 2004 Der Standard published an article in the domestic politics section under the heading “Gossip mongering” (“Kolportiert”). The article, which was entitled “A society rumour” (“Ein bürgerliches Gerücht”) commented on certain rumours relating to the marriage of Mr Klestil, the then Federal President. The article also appeared on the website of Der Standard. It read as follows:
“If the stories circulating between the outlying district of Döbling and the city centre are to be believed, there is only one topic of conversation at the moment among the so‑called upper crust of Viennese society: the marriage of the departing presidential couple Thomas Klestil and Margot Klestil-Löffler [bold print in the original]. Rumour has it that not only is he about to leave office, but she is about to leave him. The latter claim has of course set tongues wagging furiously in bourgeois – and not-so-bourgeois – circles. People here like nothing better than to be able to express outrage about one of their own.
In addition to the allegedly less-than-blissful domestic situation on the Hohe Warte [the Federal President’s residence], there has been persistent gossip recently about the supposedly close ties between the First Lady, who is her husband’s junior by 22 years, and other political figures. Head of the FPÖ parliamentary group Herbert Scheibner [bold print in the original], for instance, is reported to be close to her (Scheibner has accompanied the presidential couple on a number of foreign trips). Ms Löffler is also said to be well acquainted with the husband of the Canadian ambassador (unsurprisingly, given her post as head of the American department of the Foreign Affairs Ministry).
The fact that the President’s wife took a few days off recently to organise the move from the official residence to the couple’s newly renovated home in Hietzing fuelled further speculation. So much so, in fact, that Klestil – never squeamish about putting his emotions on display – had the following pre-emptive statement published in his information bulletin, News [an Austrian weekly]: ‘Rumours of a separation are nothing but idle gossip’ he said. He added: As of 8 July we will be embarking on a new phase of our life together. Any assertions to the contrary are untrue.
Be that as it may, the people are concerned for the well-being of their President. Apparently, the public information desk of the President’s Office has recently had more callers than ever before enquiring about the state of the President’s marriage. And more than a few of the callers made their enquiries in the ultra-refined tones of Schönbrunn.” 7.  The article was accompanied by a picture of Mr Klestil and Mrs Klestil-Löffler, looking in different directions. 8.  On 18 May 2004 Mr Klestil and Mrs Klestil-Löffler brought proceedings under sections 6 and 7 of the Media Act (Mediengesetz) against the applicant company, claiming that the article published in Der Standard of 14 May 2004 reported on their marriage and family life and thus interfered with the strictly personal sphere of their lives. 9.  By judgment of 15 June 2004 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) ordered the applicant company to pay compensation of 5,000 euros (EUR) to the first claimant, Mr Klestil, and EUR 7,000 to the second claimant, Mrs Klestil-Löffler. Furthermore, the court ordered the applicant company to publish its judgment and to reimburse the claimants’ costs. 10.  The Regional Court, referring to section 7 of the Media Act, held that the applicant company had reported on the strictly personal sphere of the claimants’ lives in a manner that was likely to undermine them in public. It analysed the contents of the impugned article as alleging, on the one hand, that Mrs Klestil-Löffler intended to divorce and, on the other hand, that she had close contacts with two men, thus describing her as a double adulteress and Mr Klestil as a deceived husband. In reply to the applicant company’s defence that the article merely reported on a rumour, the Regional Court noted that even the dissemination of a rumour could breach section 7 of the Media Act, if it conveyed the impression that there was some truth in it. 11.  As to the applicant company’s request to take evidence in order to show that the rumour had actually been spread at the time, the court noted that in cases concerning an infringement of the strictly personal sphere of a person’s life, section 7 § 2 of the Media Act excluded the proof of truth (Wahrheitsbeweis), unless the statement at issue was directly related to public life. Such a direct link would exist, for instance, where a publication reported on the state of health of the Federal President which might prevent him from exercising his functions. However, the state of his marriage did not have any bearing on his capacity to exercise his functions nor did it have any other link with public life. 12.  In assessing the amount of compensation, the Regional Court had regard to the fact that Der Standard was a widely read newspaper and to the considerable degree of insult suffered by the claimants. In addition it noted that it was highly uncommon in Austria to report on (true or untrue) details of the private lives of politicians. Having regard to the above considerations and the need to deter other media from making similar publications, a relatively large amount of compensation appeared justified. The difference in the sums awarded was to the fact that the second claimant was described as a double adulteress, while the first claimant was “merely” depicted as a deceived husband. 13.  The applicant company appealed. As a point of law it submitted that the Regional Court had wrongly refused its request for the taking of evidence. In its view the publication was directly related to public life within the meaning of section 7 § 2 of the Media Act. The claimants, being public figures, had made their private life part of their “marketing strategy”. Like no other presidential couple before, they had kept the public informed about their marriage, starting with the first claimant’s divorce from his former wife and his remarriage, to the second claimant. Moreover, the first claimant had relied heavily on family values during his first electoral campaign. He therefore had to accept that the public had an interest in being informed about his private life. 14.  As regards points of fact, the applicant company argued that the Regional Court had wrongly assessed the contents of the article at issue. Read in its proper context, the article did not state that Mrs Klestil-Löffler actually intended to divorce and even less that she was an adulteress. On the contrary the article rather aimed at exposing the idle gossip propagated in certain upper-class circles. It clearly pointed to the absurdity of the rumour by explaining that the allegedly close ties of the second claimant with Mr Scheibner and with the husband of the Canadian ambassador had perfectly unsuspicious reasons. Seen in that light, the article did not even relate to the strictly personal sphere of the presidential couple but made fun of the gossip in bourgeois society. 15.  As regards the sentence the applicant company claimed that the compensation awards were excessive. 16.  While the appeal proceedings were pending, Mr Klestil died. By decision of 2 September 2004 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court discontinued the proceedings as regards Mr Klestil. On 9 December 2004 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), on an appeal brought by Mr Klestil’s estate, quashed the Regional Court’s decision. 17.  By a judgment of 20 January 2005 the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment of 15 June 2004. 18.  It confirmed that in the present case, the proof of truth was excluded by section 7 § 2 of the Media Act. The applicant company’s argument that the claimants were public figures and had exposed their private and marital life to the public eye like no other presidential couple before was not convincing. While the first claimant had relied on his family life and on his then marriage in his first campaign some twelve years ago, his marriage with Mrs Klestil-Löffler had not played a role in his second campaign nor otherwise during his second period in office. Moreover, his second and last period in office had been drawing to a close at the time of the publication. In sum, the Regional Court had rightly found that the publication at issue was not directly related to public life. Consequently, it had rightly refused to take the evidence proposed by the applicant company. 19.  There was no basis for the applicant company’s assertion that the article was aimed at unveiling the hypocrisy of the so called upper crust of Viennese society or that it described the rumours about the claimants’ marriage as absurd. The Regional Court had rightly understood the article’s contents as conveying rumours about the Federal President’s marriage as if there was some truth in them. 20.  Finally, as regards the amounts granted in compensation, the Court of Appeal found that deterring other media from similar publications was not a relevant criterion. Nevertheless the other considerations relied on by the Regional Court justified the compensation awards. 21.  On 11 June 2004 Mr Scheibner brought proceedings under sections 6 and 7 of the Media Act against the applicant company in respect of the electronic version of the article, which had been published on the website of Der Standard and in respect of the print version. He alleged that the passage referring to him contained an untrue statement amounting to defamation. 22.  By judgment of 20 July 2004 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court ordered the applicant company to pay EUR 4,000 to Mr Scheibner as compensation for the publication in the printed version of Der Standard and EUR 2,000 as compensation for the publication on the website. Furthermore, the court ordered the applicant company to publish its judgment and to reimburse the claimant’s costs. 23.  The court, arguing along the same lines as in its judgment of 15 June 2004 (see paragraphs 10-11 above), held that the applicant company had reported on the strictly personal sphere of the claimant’s life in a manner that was likely to undermine him in public. It analysed the contents of the impugned article as alleging that the claimant, Mr Scheibner, who was a married man, had a close relationship with Mrs Klestil-Löffler and therefore described him as an adulterer. Thus, his strictly personal sphere was affected. However, it found that the publication did not amount to defamation within the meaning of Article 111 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). 24.  As to the amount of compensation it considered that the insult as regards Mr Scheibner weighed less heavily than as regards the claimants in the first set of proceedings. In sum, compensation awards of EUR 4,000 as regards the publication in the paper version of Der Standard and EUR 2,000 for the publication on the website, which was less widely read, appeared appropriate. 25.  The applicant company and Mr Scheibner appealed, whereby the applicant company relied on the same grounds as in its appeal in the previous set of proceedings. 26.  On 22 December 2004 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s appeal but partly granted Mr Scheibner’s appeal. It held that the impugned statement also breached Article 6 of the Media Act, since it fulfilled the objective elements of defamation as defined in Article 111 of the Criminal Code. The claimant was accused of adultery, which even in a liberal society was still considered an unlawful and dishonourable act. It considered however, that this had no influence on the amount of compensation to be paid, which was therefore upheld. 27.  As to the applicant company’s appeal, the Court of Appeal again confirmed the Regional Court’s reading of the contents of the article. It added that the placement of the article in the domestic politics section and its presentation including the picture of the presidential couple supported this assessment. Furthermore, the appellate court noted that the applicant company had not argued before the Regional Court that the publication was directly related to public life within the meaning of Article 7 § 2 of the Media Act. 28.  In any case, Mr Scheibner, though a public figure, had a right to respect for the strictly personal sphere of his life. Rumours about an alleged relationship between him and the wife of the Federal President had no link with his public functions and responsibilities and did therefore not justify the reporting at issue. 29.  Once the judgment of the Court of Appeal had become final, Mr Scheibner brought proceedings under the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) requesting an injunction ordering the applicant company to refrain from publishing any statement alleging that he had a relationship with Mrs Klestil-Löffler. 30.  At the hearing of 22 April 2005 before the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht), the applicant company entered into a settlement with Mr Scheibner undertaking to refrain from publishing any such statement. The Commercial Court noted that according to constant case-law, a judgment under section 6 of the Media Act had binding effect in subsequent civil proceedings relating to the same facts. It ordered the applicant company to pay Mr Scheibner’s procedural costs. 31.  The Commercial Court’s judgment was served on the applicant company’s counsel on 25 May 2005. The applicant company did not appeal.