5.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1964 respectively. They live in Oslo. The first applicant is a musician and the second applicant is an actress. They are both known to the public in Norway. 6.  On 20 August 2005, the applicants married in a private ceremony which took place outdoors on an islet in the municipality of Tjøme in the Oslo fjord, approximately 100 km south of the capital. 7.  Subsequently, the weekly magazine Se og Hør, hereafter “the magazine”, published a two-page article about the wedding, accompanied by six photographs. One photograph showed the bride, her father and her bridesmaids arriving at the islet in a small rowing boat; another showed the bride being brought to the groom by her father on the islet, surrounded by people; and yet another photograph showed the bride and the groom returning to the mainland on foot by crossing the lake on stepping stones. In the last photograph, the bride was barefoot with her wedding dress raised above her knees to avoid getting the dress wet. There was also a photograph of a couple and their baby who were wedding guests. Finally, there were two old photographs: one of the applicants framed in a heart and one of the second applicant and the applicants’ young son attending a musical festival one month earlier. 8.  The article described the ceremony, the applicants and some of the guests. It stated, inter alia, that the ceremony was touching; that several guests could not hold back their tears when the bride arrived at the islet and a male voice choir starting singing the song “To live is to love”; and that a party took place after the ceremony in the garden of a named guest house. It also stated that the applicants’ manager had informed the magazine that the applicants did not wish to comment on their wedding. 9.  The applicants brought compensation proceedings against the magazine before Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) and invoked, among other things, the right to respect for private life under section 390 of the Penal Code and Article 8 of the Convention. It was not in dispute that the magazine was not invited to the wedding and that the photographs were taken without the applicants’ knowledge approximately 250 meters from the islet. 10.  By judgment of 22 November 2006 the Oslo District Court found for the applicants and ordered the magazine to pay them each 50,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK). In addition, the editor responsible was ordered to pay each applicant NOK 15,000 and the journalist and the photographer were ordered to pay each applicant NOK 5,000. 11.  The magazine appealed to the Borgarting High Court (lagmannsrett), which by judgment of 13 February 2008 upheld the judgment. 12.  The magazine appealed to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett), which by judgment of 2 September 2008 found against the applicants, by three votes to two. 13.  Mr Justice U. gave the following reasons, which in the main were endorsed by the two other members of the majority:
“I have concluded that the appeal should be allowed.
(34) In recent years the Supreme Court has considered legal questions relating to violation of privacy in the judgments Rt-2007-687 (Big Brother) and Rt-2008-489 (Plata). My argument is based mainly on these judgments. As follows from the judgments, section 3-6 of the Damages Act concerning redress for violation of privacy must be read in conjunction with section 390 of the Penal Code. The provision in section 3-6 refers, at any rate primarily, to violation of section 390. In my view, there is no need to consider whether, as contended by [the applicants], there may be cases that are covered in principle by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights but not by "privacy" under section 390 of the Penal Code. Nor will I examine whether this is a discussion of terminology or of facts.
(35) I have already described the content of the article. There is no doubt that the case concerns information ‒ which I am using as a general term to refer to both text and pictures ‒ that taken as a whole is relevant to the issue of privacy. There is no reason for me to evaluate individual elements on the basis of whether or not they impinge on the concept of privacy. The article as a whole contains information about the couple and their child in addition to information about the wedding. The relationships within the family and between the family and their friends are clearly of a personal nature.
(36) Thus the question under consideration is whether a violation of privacy took place, cf. section 390 of the Penal Code. There would have been no question of violation of privacy if consent to publication had been obtained, cf. paragraph 62 of the judgment in the Big Brother case. In this case it has been clearly established that the couple had not been informed beforehand that there were plans to publicise the wedding, nor were they asked for their consent. However, the journalist, Mr S, contacted [the first applicant’s] manager on Monday, immediately before the article went to press. The manager said that the couple did not wish to comment on the wedding. A little later the same day Se og Hør was contacted and informed that the couple did not consent to publication, but the reply was that the magazine was already in the press. It has thus been clearly established that the article was published without the couple’s consent. I would add that I see nothing in the article indicating that the couple had given the magazine permission to report on the wedding in return for payment. On the contrary, the article stated at the end that the two celebrities did not wish to comment.
(37) The next question is whether the article was unlawful. This question must be decided on the basis of an overall evaluation of the article, cf. paragraph 64 of the Big Brother judgment with further references. In my assessment of legality I also refer to the Big Brother judgment, citing, as was done in the Plata judgment, paragraphs 57 and 58:
‘... When the penal provision applies to violation of privacy, this necessarily implies that the issue that arises is that of legality. This again implies that the publication must be assessed as a whole, in the actual context and situation, where protection of privacy must be weighed against freedom of expression, cf. Bratholm og Matningsdal, Part Three, 1998, page 222, of the Penal Code and comments, and further references.
... The European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated into internal Norwegian law in the Human Rights Act. Both Article 8 relating to respect for private and family life and Article 10 relating to the right to freedom of expression are central to the present case. The principles that must be weighed in this case are similar to those that must be weighed under section 3-6, first paragraph, of the Damages Act and section 390 of the Penal Code, and in the present situation these provisions should be interpreted in such a way that their content is in compliance with Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’
(38) Reference is also made in paragraph 72 of the Big Brother judgment to the summing up by the European Court of Human Rights in the von Hannover judgment:
‘... The conclusion must naturally be read in conjunction with the rest of the judgment. The issue throughout is the balancing of the right to privacy against the principle of freedom of expression. The central issue with respect to protection of privacy is therefore whether the published article contributes to a debate of public interest. In other words, the particular importance of protection under Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention lies in the relevance of the information in question to public debate. With respect to publication of details referring exclusively to an individual’s private life, and particularly to the private relationship between two persons who do not occupy positions in politics or in society, this is clearly outside the area that the provisions relating to freedom of expression are intended to regulate.’
(39) Both [applicants] are well-known figures, but neither of them has had a prominent role either in the public administration or in any other public body. Thus the provisions of Article 10 have no particular weight with respect to the magazine article in question, which clearly has a purely entertainment value. In the assessment of legality, protection under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention is the most relevant principle to be weighed.
(40) I will now examine the circumstances in the present case in relation to the issue of legality. As mentioned above, an overall assessment of the magazine article shows that it concerns the subjects’ private life, and the question is whether in spite of this there are grounds for saying that it does not constitute a violation of privacy. A wedding is a very personal act. At the same time it also has a public side. A wedding is a public affirmation that two persons intend to live together, and has legal consequences in many different sectors of society. Thus information about a wedding does not in itself involve a violation of privacy if it is given in a neutral form and based on a reliable source, cf. paragraph 80 of the Big Brother judgment.
(41) The judgment of the Court of Human Rights in the case of von Hannover and the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Big Brother case have premises that seem to go far in support of protection against the use of pictures and texts concerning an individual’s private life. It is therefore necessary to examine the facts on which the judgments were based. Paragraph 49 of the von Hannover case concerns a series of photographs of the aggrieved party. In its evaluation of the application of the law in the case at hand, the court stated in paragraphs 68 and 69:
‘... The Court finds another point to be of importance: even though, strictly speaking, the present application concerns only the publication of the photos and articles by various German magazines, the context in which these photos were taken ‒ without the applicant’s knowledge or consent and the harassment endured by many public figures in their daily lives cannot be fully disregarded (see paragraph 59 above). In the present case this point is illustrated in particularly striking fashion by the photos taken of the applicant at the Monte Carlo Beach Club tripping over an obstacle and falling down ... It appears that these photos were taken secretly at a distance of several hundred metres, probably from a neighbouring house, whereas journalists’ and photographers’ access to the club was strictly regulated ...
... The Court reiterates the fundamental importance of protecting private life from the point of view of the development of every human being’s personality. That protection ‒ as stated above ‒ extends beyond the private family circle and also includes a social dimension. The Court considers that anyone, even if they are known to the general public, must be able to enjoy a “legitimate expectation” of protection of and respect for their private life ...’
(42) Paragraph 59 states:
‘Furthermore, photos appearing in the tabloid press are often taken in a climate of continual harassment which induces in the person concerned a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution.’
(43) Thus the way in which the photos were published and the constant photographing ‒ often by photographers who followed her around ‒ constituted harassment of the aggrieved party and also an invasion of privacy. The situation was similar to some extent in the Big Brother case. Se og Hør ran several articles featuring photos taken from different sources together with speculation and gossip. The magazine also described the relationship between the parties during their life together, which was an invasion of their private life as a couple.
(44) The right to protection of privacy is no weaker for well-known cultural personalities than it is for others, despite the fact that their photos are published in magazines and newspapers and on the internet in connection with their professional lives. It could be said that in the case of such individuals it is even more important to ensure that their private lives and personal relationships are protected.
(45) A wedding is a very significant personal experience for the bridal couple, an experience that includes their families, friends and other persons close to them. The wedding ceremony and celebrations are therefore clearly part of private and family life and thus in principle should be protected. However, in my opinion this consideration is only one aspect of the case.
(46) As mentioned above, a neutral description of two individuals’ wedding is not unlawful.
(47) Neither the text nor the photos in the disputed magazine article contain anything unfavourable to the couple. The article contains no criticism, nor is there anything in the content that could weaken their reputations.
(48) Furthermore, although the couple’s relationships with close friends are part of their private life, I cannot see that in this context the naming of a few of the participants constitutes a violation. Nor is it particularly unusual to write that the ceremony was “moving, and several of the guests couldn’t hold back their tears when a men’s choir sang ...”.
(49) The article contains no photos of the actual wedding ceremony. It is therefore not possible for me to have any views on whether such photos, including close-ups, would have to be regarded in a different light from those featured in the article. Photos in such a situation would clearly have more personal significance than photos showing the bridal couple arriving at or leaving the place where the marriage took place.
(50) I shall now examine more closely the way the wedding was conducted. The bride arrived at the islet in a rowing boat, with six bridesmaids on board. There she was greeted by her future husband and by a men’s choir singing a hymn. After the ceremony the bride and groom had to step from rock to rock in order to reach the shore, which the bride accomplished in bare feet. As pointed out in paragraph 50 of the von Hannover judgment, the concept of private life is comprehensive, and includes ‘a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of ‘private life’. However, a certain amount of weight must be given to the fact that the wedding was organised in a very unusual way, and took place in an area that is accessible to the public under the Outdoor Recreation Act and that is easily visible. As already mentioned, the photos do not show the most personal part of the wedding, the actual marriage ceremony.
(51) As mentioned above, the photos were taken of a wedding in a place accessible to the public. It can be assumed that even in August there are large numbers of people on Tjøme, which is one of the most popular locations for holiday cottages and recreation in Norway. Furthermore, many of the arrangements were such as to attract attention from third parties, for example the arrival of the bride in an open boat and the presence of a men’s choir singing a hymn on the islet. The arrangements were also spectacular in themselves. In spite of the fact that all individuals, including celebrities, are entitled to protection against being photographed even in public places, I consider that this must be taken into account in the assessment of legality.
(52) The photos were taken from a headland about 200-250 metres from the islet where the ceremony was being held, and a 300- to 400-millimetre zoom lens was used. For the bridal couple, however, the situation would not have been any better if the photography had taken place somewhere closer, or from a place where the photographer and journalist could have been seen by the wedding party. This could have disturbed the whole wedding. Nor was the photographing in the nature of a breach of confidence, as it would have been if for example any of the participants had published personal photos taken during or in connection with the wedding. The situation would also have been different if the photos had been taken of events taking place in a closed area where the subjects had reason to believe that they were unobserved, cf. paragraph 68, second sub-paragraph, of the von Hannover judgment.
(53) The article contained a photo of [the second applicant] together with the couple’s under-age child. During the proceedings the focus has been on the photos related to the wedding, and it has not been contended that the use of the photo of the under-age child puts the case in a different light. The photo had previously been published in Aftenposten, and it has not been contended that consent was lacking on that occasion. For these reasons I shall not examine the particular questions raised by the use of a photo of an under-age child without the necessary consent of the parents.
(54) Thus it must be concluded that the article did not involve unlawful violation of privacy.
(55) [The applicants] have contended as an alternative that the photos were used in a way that conflicts with the provisions of section 45c of the Copyright Act relating to the right to control the use of one’s image. In my view these provisions should also be read with the reservation that there could be a conflict of principles and in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Convention. The conclusion would then be the same as that of my principal assessment.
(56) The Court therefore allows the appeal. However, the case raises difficult and uncertain legal questions, clarification of which is in the public interest, cf. section 20-2, third paragraph, a, of the Code of Civil Procedure. No award of costs should therefore be made.” 14.  Mr Justice T. gave the following reasons which in the main were endorsed by the other member of the minority:
“(58) I am substantially in agreement with the first-voting judge’s general interpretation of section 3-6 of the Damages Act and section 390 of the Penal Code. However, when weighing the right to privacy against the principle of freedom of expression in this specific case, I have arrived at a different conclusion, since I consider that in the present case the appellants have violated the right to privacy under section 390 of the Penal Code.
(59) I will first examine whether the subject of the article in Se og Hør can be considered to be ‘a personal matter’ in the meaning of section 390.
(60) I agree with the first-voting judge that information that a marriage has been contracted between two named individuals can be published without being in conflict with the provisions of section 390 of the Penal Code. However, this is not the issue in the present case. The article in Se og Hør also describes in words and pictures details of the arrangements in connection with the wedding ceremony.
(61) Weddings have always been a subject of general interest in the sense that those close to the bridal couple consider them important and wish to participate. It is also usual for the couple to wish to share the event with others. For these reasons there should in principle be no reason why the press should not report a wedding ceremony that takes place in full public view, and where no special arrangements have been made to indicate that the ceremony is private.
(62) However, today it is not unusual for the couple to wish to share their wedding and its arrangements only with those closest to them, and often to give the event a personal touch. They are entitled to protect themselves from publicity in such cases as well, and this includes withholding permission for the press to publish the event. In my view the desire to hold a private wedding should be respected in the sense that the wedding ceremony should be regarded as a personal matter within the meaning of section 390.
(63) A private wedding ceremony may take different forms. For example, a wedding held in a private home provides a clear signal to third parties that the marriage is a personal matter that may not be reported in the form published by Se og Hør without the bridal couple’s prior consent.
(64) In my view all the relevant circumstances indicate that in the present case the wedding was a private event. The wedding party was held at a hotel on Tjøme, which in this context is clearly a private area. The islet where the events reported by Se og Hør, and the marriage itself, took place is a relatively short walk away and directly linked with the hotel’s property. In my opinion the fact that there is a general right of public access to the islet under the Outdoor Recreation Act does not prevent this part of the wedding from also being of a clearly private nature. It follows from the von Hannover judgment that protection of privacy also applies to places to which the public has access. Furthermore, consent to the use of the islet had been obtained from the landowner. Thus the arrangement as a whole indicated that the couple wished to restrict the wedding to themselves and their guests. From this perspective the event must be considered to be a personal matter within the meaning of section 390.
(65) For these reasons I consider that Se og Hør published in words and pictures a number of details relating to a personal matter. Firstly, the magazine published details of the arrangements for the ceremony, which have been described more fully by the first-voting judge. I regard these as the personal touch that the bridal couple had wished to give their wedding and that in my view underlines the private nature of the wedding. Secondly, the article included a description of the guests and the couple’s families, together with the names of well-known figures. In this connection the names of guests with children were also given, and pictures were shown of the children and their parents.
(66) Like the first-voting judge, I consider that it has been clearly demonstrated that the opposite parties’ consent had not been obtained.
(67) The next question is whether the publication is legal and justified despite the fact that the subject of the article is a personal matter. It follows from paragraph 72 of Rt-2007-687 that the main question to be weighed is whether ‘the article contributes to a debate of public interest. In other words, the particular importance of the principle of protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights lies in the sphere of public debate’. I agree with the first-voting judge that this wording cannot be interpreted in such a way that it does not rule out that the publication of personal matters is justified in cases where it does not contribute to public debate. However, when matters of a personal nature such as those in question here are published, they must have at least a minimum of public interest if the invasion of privacy is to be considered legitimate. In the present case the publication was a celebrity article written for the sole purpose of entertainment. Although the desire to entertain is in itself legitimate, its nature does not justify overriding the affected parties’ desire to protect their privacy. In this connection I place special emphasis on the fact that getting married is a very significant occasion in a person’s life, and that therefore the activities celebrating it ‒ the marriage ceremony and the wedding party ‒ will for most people be one of the most important events of their lives, and will often be associated with strong emotions.
(68) The fact that the opposite parties are well-known cultural figures in Norway has no bearing on the assessment. Well-known persons also have the right to respect for personal matters of the kind we are dealing with here. I find support for this view both in Rt-2007-687, cf. paragraph 74, and in the von Hannover judgment ..., cf. paragraph 67.
(69) Although this has not influenced my view of the case, I would also like to comment on Se og Hør’s use of a zoom lens. The zoom lens enabled the journalist and the photographer to take close-up pictures of the bridal couple and their guests that make it look as if they were actually at the event themselves, when in fact they were hidden from those who were being observed. It seems likely that the reason for using this technique was that the journalist and photographer were aware that the bridal couple would have reacted to their presence on the islet and this might have resulted in the marriage ceremony being moved inside the hotel. Using a zoom lens because of the personal and private nature of the event resembles the use of a hidden camera, which is a factor that also weighs against the appellants.
(70) For these reasons I am of the opinion that the article in Se og Hør cannot be justified on the basis of an assessment of legality, and that the opposite parties are entitled to redress for pain and suffering from the appellants. With regard to the amount of redress, the opposite parties have demanded that the amount decided by the Court of Appeal should be maintained. I have no objections to the amounts decided on. Since I know that I am in the minority, I will not formulate a final conclusion.”


7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  The applicant was born in New Zealand and at all material times was domiciled there. In 1966 he came to the United Kingdom to attend flying courses and at the same time engaged in other occupations of an engineering or building contractor variety, trading under the name “King Enterprises Engineering & Hardware Co”. The applicant met Miss J. and between April 1973 and October 1991 they purchased properties together. 9.  From the 1970s onwards, the applicant's tax returns were incomplete and late, in some cases by several years. From February 1982, the Inland Revenue began investigating a number of guesthouse businesses in London which were associated with the applicant and/or his partner Miss J. of which no mention had been made in the applicant's tax returns. 10.  In December 1985 the General Commissioners of taxes served two notices on the applicant requiring him to provide details of the acquisition of one of the guesthouses and to produce his business records. At a meeting on 21 November 1986, the applicant states that he was informed that the Revenue would be seeking penalties as part of any settlement. 11.  From this time the applicant was involved in frequent discussions and correspondence with the Revenue about his affairs. The Government stated that the Revenue held some 38 meetings with the applicant and/or his accountant between September 1986 and July 1991. 12.  In June 1987 the Revenue requested a statement of assets and liabilities from the applicant. The applicant states that he objected to disclosing all his assets since due to his non-domicile status his overseas assets were of no relevance. When he had not provided the statement by November 1987, the applicant was interviewed by the Inspector of taxes and on 21 November 1987 the “Hansard statement” was read to him. The statement, revised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time, sets out the practice of the Inland Revenue in cases in which criminal proceedings may be contemplated and outlines the factors taken into account by the Revenue when deciding whether to prosecute. 13.  In April 1988 the General Commissioners served a notice requiring the applicant to give details of all transfers of property and cash and of his bank accounts. The notices included a warning about the financial penalty which could be imposed for non-compliance. 14.  On 18 January 1989 the applicant signed a “Statement of Personal Assets and Liabilities and Business Interests” as at 1 September 1986. He states that this was after the Special Commissioners had refused to require him to disclose his overseas assets. The same month, the Revenue issued tax assessments against the applicant for the tax years 1972/3 to 1986/7. The assessments were for income tax on guesthouse profits and bank interest which had not been declared by the applicant in his tax returns. The total claimed was in excess of 620,000 pounds sterling (GBP). For the tax years more than six years prior to the assessments being made, the Revenue could only raise assessments which were to make good a loss of tax due to the neglect or wilful default of the applicant. 15.  The applicant appealed against the assessments. Initial hearings during early 1989 before the General Commissioners were adjourned on the application of the applicant or Miss J. On 24 August 1989, at the Revenue's application, the appeals were transferred to the Special Commissioners of Taxes. A hearing of one week was scheduled for November 1990. On the date set for the hearing of his appeal, the applicant applied for judicial review of the refusal of the Special Commissioners to hold a preliminary hearing at his request. The appeal was adjourned as a result. After the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review, the appeals were relisted. 16.  The appeals were heard over eighteen days between May and September 1991. The Commissioners initially indicated that they were not prepared to sit one day a week for the convenience of the applicant, but after the Revenue had opened the case it was decided that, exceptionally, the hearings should be arranged to ensure that the applicant and Miss J. were able to attend. The applicant's main submissions were that he had no beneficial interest in three of the guesthouses in respect of which assessments had been made and that certain funds used to purchase property had been a loan from his father. 17.  On 18 November 1991 the Special Commissioners issued their written decision. Some of the assessments were reduced to nil or discharged, but the appeals were dismissed in substance, the Commissioners finding that (for those years for which it was necessary) the purpose of the assessments had been to make good a loss of tax which was due to the applicant's wilful default or neglect. They found that the applicant had traded as a guesthouse proprietor and had derived profits from the trade. The applicant's evidence was described as “irregular in quality” and his claim that he was in partnership with other members of the family, including his infant children was found to be “a complete sham”. The revised assessments amounted to approximately GBP 120,000. 18.  In or about the end of December 1991 the applicant applied for the Special Commissioners to state a case by way of appeal to the High Court against the 1991 Commissioners' decision, on the basis that they had erred in law, there being no evidence on which they could reach their determinations. The Special Commissioners drafted the case for the High Court in July 1992 and the applicant lodged his appeal on 17 August 1992. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 26 November 1993. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's further appeal in October 1995. 19.  Meanwhile, in December 1991 the General Commissioners issued a determination under section 88 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 that interest was payable on the assessments from specified dates on which the tax ought to have been paid, to the date of payment. The applicant appealed against the determination. 20.  On 17 October 1994 the Revenue issued penalty determinations, assessed at 80% of the tax lost (the maximum penalty then being 100% of the lost tax, plus GBP 50). The penalties amounted to over GBP 50,000. The applicant appealed against the penalty determinations. 21.  In April 1995 the General Commissioners agreed that the interest and penalty appeals should be transferred to the Special Commissioners. At about the same time, the Revenue discovered the existence of a further property, Roundwood Lodge, which had been purchased in 1983 and which was in the applicant's name. The Revenue took the view that the property had been purchased with funds from the profits of the applicant's business and the funds were therefore taxable. In April 1996 further assessments to income tax were therefore issued on guesthouse profits for the years from 1977/78 to 1985/86. The applicant appealed against the further assessments and the matter was later transferred to the Special Commissioners to be consolidated with other appeals. 22.  Meanwhile, on March 1996 the applicant suffered a stroke which he states affected his memory and his ability to cope with pressure. In August 1996 he wrote to the Revenue to ask that the “matters in hand” be adjourned to enable him to concentrate on his recovery. He appeared before the General Commissioners on 24 October 1996 when his request for further time for preparation of various matters was granted. 23.  Meanwhile, despite reminders from the Inland Revenue on 6 June 1996 and 14 November 1996, the clerk to the General Commissioners did not write to the clerk of the Special Commissioners requesting a transfer until 3 March 1997. Despite further reminders in March, April and May 1997, he failed also to request a transfer of appeals against further assessments made in April 1996. The General Commissioners asked the clerk to request a transfer of these appeals on 24 October 1996. 24.  On 6 March 1997 the Special Commissioners agreed to accept jurisdiction and issued requests for information about the status of various appeals. In September 1997 the appeals were consolidated. 25.  In February 1998 there was a preliminary hearing of the appeals against, (i) the December 1991 determination of interest, (ii) the 1994 penalty determination and (iii) the further assessments raised in 1996. The substantive hearing began in May 1998 and was heard over seventeen days between then and April 1999. The applicant represented himself. During the hearing he applied for a copy of the notes made by the 1991 Commissioners. When the application was refused he sought permission to judicially review the decision, which was also refused. 26.  On 23 March 2000 the Special Commissioners dismissed the appeals. They held, inter alia, that they were bound by the factual findings of the 1991 Commissioners on the issue of neglect/wilful default for the years in respect of which such findings had been required. For the later years, in respect of which no determinations had been made by the 1991 Commissioners, they found wilful default and neglect on the part of the applicant (which was necessary to uphold the penalty determination). They also found that the capital statement he had prepared in 1991 was not truthful. As the amount of tax due was correctly determined by the 1991 Commissioners, the interest determination was also correct. The 80% penalties were appropriate. They allowed his appeal against the further (1996) assessments in part, by allowing some reduction in the amount claimed, but found that the applicant had been the owner of Roundwood Lodge and had purchased it with his own funds. 27.  In May 2001 Mr Justice Jacob dismissed the appeals against the findings of the 2000 Commissioners. As regarded the applicant's complaints raised about the procedures under Article 6, he found that the system of imposition of penalties for fraudulent or negligent delivery of incorrect returns or statements was “criminal” for the purposes of the Convention. He noted that the system was plainly punitive and deterrent, and the potential fine was very substantial and dependent on the culpability of the taxpayer, rather than being an administrative matter. The amount of the fine imposed also depended on the degree of culpability as mitigation, essentially a criminal matter, was more where the taxpayer was less culpable. The judge agreed with the applicant that the proceedings began in 1987 when the Hansard warning was given and considered whether the length of the proceedings was unreasonable. The judge noted that the applicant made no complaint of delay up to the 1991 decision and that some of the subsequent delay had been caused by or contributed to by the applicant, inter alia, in the way in which 16 hearing days were spread over nearly a year and due to problems arising from his illness. However, he observed that nothing happened for a two year period when the case was referred to the Special Commissioners, notwithstanding reminders from the Inland Revenue. In conclusion the judge said:
“The decision of the 1991 Commissioners was released on 18 November 1991. Mr King waited some 5 weeks before asking for a case stated (appeal by way of cases stated was the procedure then). There was then an 8 month delay before that was produced (delay not of Mr King's making). The appeal was launched on 17 August 1992. Judgment was given on 14 January 1994. The Revenue delayed making a penalty determination until 17 October 1994. Whilst it is understandable, and at least not unreasonable, for the Revenue to wait until the hearing of the first appeal, it makes no sense for them to have waited some 9 months thereafter. The possibility of a determination was simply left hanging. Meanwhile the parties' attention was focused on other things, namely Mr King's further appeal to the Court of Appeal and, more significantly so far as Mr King's contribution to delay was concerned, the Revenue's discovery of the purchase in 1983 by Mr King of the substantial property, Roundwood Lodge. This led to further assessments and appeals therefrom which, it was decided fairly early on, should be heard with the interest and penalty appeals. ...
It seems that but for Mr King's concealment of Roundwood Lodge, the two other appeals would have been heard earlier than 1998. It is not possible to be precise as to how much delay was caused by the introduction of this factor into the case, but it is far from insignificant. Naturally it prolonged the hearing itself, but on top of that I think a fair estimate of its effect is that it delayed the penalty and interest appeals for about three years.
... The result of all this is that there was delay through no fault of Mr King of, say, five years from the date of the 1991 decision. Is that too much? Marginally, but only just, I think not. He was not thereby prejudiced. ... He merely had to pay the penalty later. But for the complication of Roundwood Lodge, however, I think the time to determination of the penalty appeals would have been inconsistent with Article 6 (1). In future cases it is highly desirable that such appeals (and penalty determinations) are put on a fast track. So far as I can see they were treated in the same way as other determinations and appeals, but it should be appreciated that more is at stake in the case of penalties. Serious consideration should be given to penalty determination being made earlier - in appropriate cases along with the assessments giving rise to the penalties. ... I see no reason why the 1991 Commissioners could not have dealt with a penalty determination appeal if such a determination had been made at the same time as the 1989 determinations or shortly thereafter.” 28.  The judge found in addition that the case was a serious one in which penalties were appropriate and the figure of 80% was not too high. So far as the further assessments were concerned, the reasoning of the Commissioners was detailed and convincing. The applicant had given misleading information to the Revenue and to the 1991 Commissioners and the further assessments had been to make good a loss of tax attributable to the applicant's wilful default or neglect. There was no error of law and no reason to overturn the decision. 29.  The applicant applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Permission was refused on paper in July 2001 and at a hearing on 3 October 2001. 30.  On the question of delay, the Court of Appeal said,
“The delays which occurred in relation to the penalty determination must be seen in the context of what has plainly been an extended campaign by the applicant in disputing his liabilities to the Revenue and in deferring the date on which those liabilities have to be satisfied. Moreover, I find ... the greatest difficulty in seeing how the applicant could be prejudiced simply by the fact that the penalty might have been imposed earlier.” 31.  The court was not persuaded that an appeal on that basis would have any prospect of success. Although by the time of the appeal a medical report had been provided to the effect that the applicant's memory had been significantly impaired as a result of his stroke, the author was unable to date the onset of the memory loss or its duration. The report did not take the applicant's case as to prejudice any further.


5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Chelyabinsk. 6.  In 1995 the applicant's vehicle was damaged in a road traffic accident. On 25 June 1997 he sued a private company in charge of road maintenance for damages. He alleged that the accident had been caused by its failure to clean up the road. The examination of the matter was stayed pending the payment of the court fee by the applicant. The proceedings were resumed on 13 October 1997. 7.  On 29 October 1997 the Sovetskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk granted a request by the respondent company to adjourn the proceedings pending the criminal investigation into the road traffic accident. The proceedings were resumed on 27 April 1998. 8.  On 25 May 1998 the representative of the respondent company failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned. 9.  On 4 and 16 June and 5 October 1998 the District Court adjourned the court hearing as the applicant modified his claims. 10.  On 9 October 1998 the District Court granted a request by the respondent company for an expert report to determine the value of the applicant's vehicle and stayed the proceedings. The respondent company failed to pay the expert's fee and the case file was returned to the court. 11.  On 27 January and 11 March 1999 the District Court adjourned the hearing, granting the respondent company's requests to study the case file. 12.  Between 4 November 1999 and 13 April 2000 the proceedings were adjourned pending the criminal investigation further to requests by the respondent company and the applicant. 13.  On 1 December 2000 the District Court adjourned the hearing further to a request by the respondent company to summon new witnesses. 14.  On 20 March 2001 the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing pending the criminal investigation. 15.  On 27 September 2001 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. On 15 November 2001 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination. The Regional Court noted that the District Court had failed to properly establish the circumstances of the road traffic accident and to determine the responsibility of all the parties involved. 16.  On 4 February 2002 the District Court adjourned the preparatory hearing owing to the parties' failure to appear. The preparatory hearing was subsequently held on 13 March 2002. 17.  On 27 May and 6 November 2002 the District Court granted the applicant's request and adjourned the hearing pending the criminal investigation. 18.  On 2 February 2004 the applicant asked the court to resume the hearing of the matter. On 2 March 2004 the District Court annulled its own decision of 6 November 2002 and resumed the proceedings. 19.  On 19 March 2004 the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing in order to modify his claims. 20.  On 13 May 2004 the applicant submitted the modified claims and asked the court to summon certain witnesses. 21.  On 17 June 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims in full. On 9 December 2004 the Regional Court quashed that judgment and granted the applicant's claim in part. The court based its findings, inter alia, on the materials in the criminal investigation file, such as the crime-scene investigation and forensic expert reports.


4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Lovas. 5.  The Veszprém County Administrative Office rejected the request of the applicant, a real-estate developer, for a building permit to construct a three-flat condominium. The Office was of the view that the project was irreconcilable with the planned location, the historical neighbourhood of Veszprém town. 6.  On 21 June 2001 the applicant challenged this decision in court. 7.  On 25 March 2003 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed the administrative decision and remitted the case to the administrative authorities. 8.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 2 March 2007 the applicant’s request was again dismissed. 9.  On 18 April 2007 the applicant renewed its action. 10.  On 31 October 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the action, holding that the administrative decisions had been given in compliance with the law. 11.  On 25 February 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed, on the merits, the applicant’s petition for review (service: 14 April 2009).


7.  The applicants in case no. 15441/05 are:
1) Ms Malayka (also spelled as Malika) Adamovna Basayeva, born in 1956,
2) Ms Nura Basayeva, born in 1937,
3) Ms Limon Lechayevna Basayeva, born in 1979,
4) Ms Kheda Lechayevna Basayeva, born in 1990,
5) Mr Khasan Khavazhovich Basayev, born in 2002,
6) Mr Khoza Salmanovich Basayev, born in 1960,
The applicants in case no. 20731/04 are:
7) Ms Tatyana Aliyevna Dikayeva, born in 1969,
8) Mr Ali Dautovich Dikayev, born in 1932,
9) Ms Dagman Osmanovna Dautmirzayeva (also known as Dikayeva), born in 1977,
10) Ms Makka Dikayeva, born in 1997, and
11) Ms Madina Dikayeva, born in 1999. 8.  The applicants live in Martan-Chu, in Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. Prior to her death in December 2005 the second applicant also lived there. Applicants one to six are relatives of Mr Lecha Basayev, who was born in 1955. The first applicant is his wife; the second applicant was his mother; the third and the fourth applicants are his daughters; the fifth applicant is his grandson and the sixth applicant is his brother. The applicants from seven to eleven are the relatives of Mr Lema Dikayev, who was born in 1965. The seventh applicant is his sister; the eighth applicant is his father; the ninth applicant is his wife; the tenth and eleventh applicants are his daughters. At the material time Lema Dikayev had a second-degree disability; he had sutures in his abdominal area which had been put in 1996. 9.  At the material time Martan-Chu was under the full control of the 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 5-6 July 2002 the applicants, their relatives and Lecha Basayev were sleeping in their house in Bazarnaya Street in the village of Martan-Chu, Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. The applicants' house had several interconnected bedrooms. The fifth applicant, who was just a few months old at the time, was sleeping in one room; the first and the fourth applicants were sleeping in the second bedroom and Lecha Basayev was sleeping in the third bedroom. It rained that night. 11.  At about 1.30 a.m. the first applicant woke up and heard someone banging on the door. When she approached the door, a group of about ten armed masked men with flashlights and in camouflage uniforms broke into the house and asked in Russian: “Where is Lecha Basayev?” The intruders dispersed into different rooms. They ordered the first applicant to lie down on the bed. The men pointed their machine guns at the first and the fourth applicants. 12.  The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke unaccented Russian. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen. The servicemen ransacked the house. When the first applicant tried to ask for explanations, she was ordered to shut up. During the search one of the servicemen asked the first applicant: “Did you go to visit anyone by car two or three days ago?” She answered that they had not been anywhere. Then he told her: “We know that. We know everything”. 13.  About five minutes later the servicemen took Lecha Basayev outside. They walked through the first and the fourth applicants' bedroom. The first applicant saw that her husband had his clothes on. A few minutes later the first and the fourth applicants heard the sound of adhesive tape. 14.  Having spent eight or ten minutes in the applicants' house, prior to leaving, the servicemen ordered the applicants to stay inside: “We will be watching the house, so if you dare to go outside, we will shoot you”. After that the servicemen left with Lecha Basayev. 15.  As soon as the servicemen left, the first applicant went outside. She did not see anyone in the yard. Approximately 50 metres from the house she saw a big group of military servicemen walking in the direction of the village centre. 16.  At about 2 a.m. the first applicant returned to the house. A few minutes later she informed the sixth applicant, who lived nearby, about the abduction of his brother, Lecha Basayev. The sixth applicant asked her to stay at home until the end of the curfew. 17.  Early in the morning on 6 July 2002 the first applicant followed the footprints left by the servicemen's boots. They were clearly visible on the wet ground. The traces ended on the paved road which led to the village centre. The first applicants assumed that if the military servicemen had come to their house on foot, they must have walked from the local military commander's office. 18.  After that, early in the same morning, the sixth applicant and the first applicant's son went to the head of the village administration. He told them that he would go to Urus-Martan and would find out who had taken Lecha Basayev away. 19.  Next, at about 7 a.m. on the same morning, the sixth applicant and the first applicant's son went to the house of Mr M., the head of the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD). There they met the seventh and eighth applicants, who informed them that on the very same night Russian military servicemen had beaten and taken away their relative, Lema Dikayev. According to the seventh applicant, the military servicemen had arrived at their house in two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and a military URAL lorry which had been parked next to the building of the village administration. The seventh and eighth applicants told the sixth applicant that the head of the ROVD was still sleeping, so the sixth applicant and his relative returned home. 20.  Later on the same morning the second applicant went to the head of the ROVD. The latter promised to her that he would find out who had apprehended Lecha Basayev. 21.  Before noon on 6 July 2002 the first applicant went to the ROVD, where in front of the building she met the seventh and eighth applicants and other villagers whose relatives had been detained in Martan-Chu the night before. 22.  Some time later  the applicants' fellow villager, who worked at the material time for the local police and whose name the applicants did not disclose, told the applicants that in the morning of 6 July 2002 he had seen Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev in the building of the ROVD. According to the witness, Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev had been sitting in the corridor with their hands tied behind their backs; their eyes and mouths had been taped over with adhesive tape. Four other residents of the village had also been detained at the ROVD: three members of Mr Az.'s family and Mr B. These four men had been released on the afternoon of 6 July 2002. 23.  In support of their statements, the applicants of Lecha Basayev's family submitted the following accounts: an account by the first applicant dated 5 February 2004; an account by the seventh applicant dated 9 February 2002; an account by the sixth applicant dated 9 February 2004; an account by Mrs Kh. D. dated 9 February 2002 and an account by the fourth applicant dated 12 February 2004.
b)  Abduction of Lema Dikayev and subsequent events 24.  On the night of 5-6 July 2002 the applicants, Lema Dikayev and his mother, Mrs Dikayeva, were sleeping in their family house at 24 Pionerskaya Street, Martan-Chu. At about 2.00 a.m. on 6 July 2002 twelve armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks broke into the house. The men did not identify themselves. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen as they spoke unaccented Russian. The servicemen pointed their guns at the Dikayevs and ordered them to stay in their beds. They searched the house without producing any warrant. 25.  After the search the servicemen took Lema Dikayev out of his bedroom to the corridor, kicked him and beat him with rifle butts. The applicants were kept in their bedrooms, but through the open doors they could see and hear the servicemen beating their relative. The ninth applicant saw the intruders beating her husband and ordering him to open his mouth. The applicants saw him bleeding. They concluded that it was the result of the abdominal sutures' splitting open. When the seventh applicant asked the servicemen where they intended to take Lema, one of them replied to her in Russian that they would see him the next day in the ROVD. 26.  The servicemen blindfolded Lema Dikayev and taped his mouth with adhesive tape. They put clothing and shoes on him and tied his arms behind his back. After that they locked the applicants and Mrs Dikayeva in the bedrooms and took Lema Dikayev outside. After Lema Dikayev's beating spots of blood were left on the floor of the corridor. 27.  The seventh applicant managed to go outside and followed the servicemen. She noticed APCs and a URAL lorry parked about 200 metres from the house. The servicemen wiped the blood from Lema Dikayev, loaded him into one of the APCs and drove away. The applicant returned home and let her relatives out. 28.  In the afternoon of 6 July 2002 the servicemen returned to the Dikayevs' house and searched it. They did not produce any search warrant. 29.  On 6 July 2002 the applicants and their relatives went to the ROVD to obtain information about Lema Dikayev. One of the police officers told them that he had seen Lema in the ROVD building sitting on the floor in the hallway with his arms tied behind his back and his mouth taped over with adhesive tape. The seventh applicant and Mr T.Sh. visited Mr M., the head of the ROVD, and told him that Lema Dikayev had been seen on the ROVD premises. The officer promised to help and invited the seventh applicant to make complaints to the prosecutor's office and the ROVD. 30.  On the same date the seventh applicant contacted, both in person and in writing, the district prosecutor's office, the ROVD, the Urus-Martan district military commander's office (the district military commander's office) and the local administration, complaining that her brother had been abducted. 31.  On the evening of 6 July 2002 the officers from the ROVD told the applicants that Lema Dikayev was not detained in the ROVD building. 32.  On 8 July 2002 Russian servicemen again visited the Dikayevs, told them that they were searching for weapons and carried out another search. Then they threatened to set the house on fire. The seventh applicant ran to the head of the ROVD, Mr M., and asked him to help her. Mr M. contacted someone on a portable radio and ordered the servicemen not to set the house on fire. The servicemen obeyed. When they were leaving the house, one of the officers, who introduced himself as Georgiy, told the eighth applicant that the servicemen had acted under the orders of Mr G., the Urus-Martan district military commander. 33.  On same date, 8 July 2002, an official of the local administration told the seventh applicant that her brother was being detained on the premises of the district military commander's office. After that the seventh applicant visited the military commander, Mr G., who confirmed that Lema Dikayev was detained in their office. Mr G. also told the applicant that her brother had been implicated in the murder of Mr Kh.T., an officer of a law-enforcement agency. The seventh applicant suggested that if that was the case then Lema Dikayev should have been committed to trial. Mr G. replied that it was useless to try Chechens. 34.  On an unspecified date in August 2003 the seventh applicant visited the head of the ROVD, Mr M., who told her that if she was patient for at least a year her brother would return home. When the applicant asked Mr M. whether he had any information concerning Lema Dikayev's fate, he said that he risked being killed if he replied. 35.  The applicants continued their search for Lema Dikayev and contacted the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”), prosecutors' offices at different levels, the Chechnya administration and the Russian President. 36.  In support of their statements the applicants of Lema Dikayev's family submitted the following accounts: a statement by the ninth applicant dated 28 March 2003; two statements by the seventh applicant dated 29 March 2003 and 9 February 2004 and a hand-drawn map of the applicants' house. 37.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. According to their submission, “at about 2 a.m. on 6 July 2002 unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms and masks kidnapped from their houses situated in Bazarnaya Street in Martan-Chu in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya Mr Lecha Salmanovich Basayev and Mr Lema Aliyevich Dikayev and took them away to an unknown destination”. 38.  On 9 July 2002 the first applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor's office (the district prosecutor's office) about the abduction of Lecha Basayev. The applicant did not retain a copy of her complaint. 39.  On 1 August 2002 the eighth applicant wrote to the district military commander's office and the district prosecutor's office describing in detail the circumstances of Lema Dikayev's abduction and asking for assistance in establishing his whereabouts. 40.   On 2 August 2002 the first applicant complained again to the district prosecutor's office that Lecha Basayev had been abducted. In her letter she stated that he had been abducted by a group of approximately twenty unidentified masked armed men and pointed out that her complaints about it to a number of State authorities had produced no results. 41.  At some point in August 2002 a district police officer visited Lecha Basayev's house and obtained a statement from the fourth applicant concerning the circumstances of Lecha Basayev's abduction. 42.  On 23 August 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor's office (the district prosecutor's office) initiated an investigation into the abduction of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 61117. In the submitted documents it is also referred to under no. 6117. 43.  On 24 August 2002 the first and seventh applicants were granted victim status in the criminal case. 44.  On 12 October 2002 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (the UGA) forwarded the eighth applicant's complaint to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102. 45.  On 23 October 2002 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. 46.  On 20 December 2002 the seventh applicant wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor's office stating that her brother had been taken away by representatives of federal forces and asking for his whereabouts to be established. 47.  On 5 February and 3 April 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on 23 October 2002 the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended. 48.  On 20 February, 22 March, 5 April and 25 June 2003 the prosecutors' offices forwarded the applicants' complaints about their relatives' abduction to the prosecutors' offices of lower levels for examination. 49.  On 21 April 2003 the seventh applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to inform her about the progress of the investigation in the criminal case. 50.  On 22 May 2003 the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicants that as a result of their query it had been established that the military servicemen had not been implicated in the disappearance of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev. 51.  On 17 June 2003 the seventh applicant wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor's office complaining about her brother's abduction and the unauthorised search of their family house. She described in detail the circumstances of Lema Dikayev's abduction and stated that the abductors had beaten him up in the presence of his family members. She requested the authorities to resume the investigation in the criminal case, to establish her brother's whereabouts and to take necessary measures to identify the culprits. 52.  On 9 July 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the seventh applicant's complaint to the investigator and ordered that the investigation in the criminal case be resumed due to its incompleteness. 53.  On 21 August 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed. 54.  On 23 January 2004 the district prosecutor's office again resumed the investigation in the criminal case. 55.  On 30 January 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the seventh applicant about the decision of 23 January 2004 and noted that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 56.  On 31 January 2004 the Chechnya department of the FSB informed the seventh applicant that the FSB did not have any information concerning her brother's whereabouts and fate. 57.  On 14 April 2004 the seventh applicant wrote to the district military commander's office requesting assistance in the search for her brother. She described in detail the circumstances of Lema Dikayev's abduction and stated that the abductors had beaten him in the presence of his family members. 58.  On 4 September 2004 the first applicant again complained to a number of State authorities, including the district prosecutor's office, the ROVD and the Urus-Martan district department of the FSB, about Lecha Basayev's abduction. She stated that her husband had been abducted by a group of servicemen of the Russian federal forces; that she had complained about it to various law enforcement agencies and that none of them had accepted responsibility for the abduction. 59.  On 21 November 2004 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office. In her letter she described the circumstances of her husband's abduction. She expressed her concerns in connection with the absence of any information about Lecha Basayev's whereabouts for more than two years and stated that the authorities had been procrastinating with the investigation. The applicant asked the prosecutor's office to take the following measures: informing her about the progress and the results of the investigation; reopening of the investigation and conducting it in a thorough and effective manner; establishing and questioning of the employees of the local military commander's office; establishing who had used APCs and URAL vehicles in the area on the night of 6 July 2002; questioning of the vehicles' drivers and of the relevant military personnel; collection of documentation reflecting the use of the vehicles; questioning of the military servicemen who had manned the checkpoint in Martan-Chu on the night of 6 July 2002; and transfer of the criminal case, if necessary, to the military prosecutor's office for investigation. 60.  On 21 November 2004 the seventh applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office and stated that her brother Lema Dikayev had been abducted by representatives of law-enforcement agencies who had subjected him to beatings. She further stated that on 6 July 2002 Mr G. G., the district military commander, had informed her that her brother had been detained at the district military commander's office; that after her brother's abduction, unidentified men had twice arrived at their house in the same military vehicles as the ones used during her brother's abduction. The seventh applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to inform her about the progress in the investigation, to resume the proceedings and take basic investigative measures. 61.  On 21 December 2004 the SRJI reiterated the request, describing the circumstances of Lema Dikayev's abduction and stating that he had been subjected to beatings by the abductors. No response was given to either of the requests. 62.  On 10 October and 20 December 2005 and on 19 June 2006 the eighth applicant requested the district prosecutor's office to resume the investigation in the criminal case and provide him with access to the investigation file. No response was given to these requests. 63.  The applicants received no other information relating to the investigation into the abduction of their relatives. 64.  On 1 August 2002 the first and the seventh applicants complained about the abduction of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev to the district prosecutor's office and requested assistance in establishing their whereabouts. 65.  On 23 August 2002 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 61117. 66.  On 24 August 2002 the first and the seventh applicants were granted victim status in the criminal case. The seventh applicant was questioned and stated that on 6 July 2002 she and her relatives were sleeping at home; at about 2 a.m. a group of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had broken into the house. They had gone to the room of her brother Lema Dikayev and taken him outside. Lema Dikayev's father (the eighth applicant) had asked the men where they were taking his son; in response he had been told that Lema Dikayev could be exchanged for a machine gun. According to the applicant, she had followed the intruders and had seen her brother being put into an APC. 67.  On 23 October 2002 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the perpetrators. 68.  On 21 August 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed because not all necessary measures had been taken. The applicants were informed about this decision. 69.  On 21 September 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about this decision. 70.  On 23 January 2004 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed owing to “incompleteness of the conducted investigation”. The applicants were informed about this decision. 71.  On 23 February 2004 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about this decision. 72.  On 8 November 2005 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed. The applicants were informed about this decision. 73.  On 9 November 2005 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case owing to the failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about this decision. 74.  On 20 June 2006 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed. The applicants were informed about this decision. 75.  On 21 June 2006 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about this decision. 76.  On 7 June 2007 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed. The applicants were informed about this decision. 77.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the ninth applicant, who stated that at about 2 a.m. on 6 July 2002 a group of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had broken into her family house, pushed her husband Lema Dikayev off the bed; kicked him and beat him with rifle butts. After that the men had searched the house for about half an hour; then they had taped over Lema Dikayev's mouth, bound his hands and taken him away to an unknown destination. 78.  On an unspecified date the investigators conducted a crime scene examination in Lecha Basayev's house. Nothing was collected from the scene. 79.  On an unspecified date the investigators requested that the ROVD provide them with character references for Lecha Basayev. According to their response, although Lecha Basayev was given good references by his neighbours, on 23 May 2002 he had been sentenced to three years' probation for illegal purchase and storage of explosives and drugs. 80.  On unspecified dates the investigators requested that the ROVD, the Chechnya Department of the FSB, various departments of the Ministry of the Interior in Chechnya, military units and military commanders' offices inform the investigation whether they had arrested Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev or had brought any criminal charges against them. According to the responses, these agencies did not have any information concerning either a special operation conducted on 6 July 2002 or the whereabouts of the missing men. The prosecutors' offices of various levels in Chechnya informed the investigators that the missing men had not been detained by law enforcement agencies; criminal or administrative charges had not been brought against them; neither of the missing men had applied for medical assistance and their corpses had not been found. 81.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Lecha Basayev's son, Mr Kh.B., who stated that at about 2 a.m. on 6 July 2002 he and his family had been sleeping at home when a group of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house. The men had requested his passport. Having checked his passport, the men had asked about the whereabouts of Lecha Basayev, who was sleeping in another room. Some time later the witness had seen that the armed men had taken his father outside. When the witness had gone outside, the armed men had already left. As it had rained that night, the witness was able to see tyre imprints of armoured vehicles on the ground next to the house. The imprints had led in the direction of Urus-Martan. In the morning the witness had found out from his fellow villagers that another resident of Martan-Chu, Lema Dikayev, had also been abducted on the same night. 82.  On an unspecified date the investigators again questioned the first applicant who stated that at about 2 a.m. on 6 July 2002 a group of unidentified armed men had broken into their house. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, had been wearing camouflage uniforms and masks. They had told her to go to another room and started searching the house. Upon completion of the search the men had told her not to follow them. Sometime later the applicant had gone outside and had seen that the armed men were walking with her husband Lecha Basayev towards the centre of Martan-Chu. The applicant had attempted to run after them, but the armed men had told her that they would open fire if she followed them. The men had not used physical force against Lecha Basayev. They had not told the applicant where they were taking her husband, but had promised to release him at some point later. 83.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Lecha Basayev's relative, Mrs Kh.D. who stated that at about 2 a.m. on 6 July 2002 a group of ten to fifteen armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house. The witness had got scared and started screaming. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, had told her to be quiet and stay in her room. She had heard Lecha Basayev's voice in the corridor; then she had heard the sound of adhesive tape. After the armed men had left the house she had gone out of her room. The second applicant had told her that the intruders had taken Lecha Basayev away. 84.  It appears that on an unspecified date the investigators again questioned the seventh applicant, who stated that at about 2 a.m. on 6 July 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had broken into their house. The men had immediately proceeded to the room of Lema Dikayev. When the eighth applicant had asked the men where they were taking Lema Dikayev, they replied that if he wanted to see his son he would need to exchange him for a machine gun. After that they had taken Lema outside, put him in an APC and had driven away in an unknown direction. According to the witness, on 8 July 2002 she had spoken to the district military commander who had told her that her brother Lema Dikayev had been detained at the request of the head of the ROVD and the head of the local administration, as they suspected that Lema Dikayev had been involved in the murder of Mr Kh.T. 85.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the ninth applicant, who stated that at about 2 a.m. on 6 July 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house. The men had immediately gone to the room where she and her husband had been sleeping. The men had started beating Lema Dikayev with rifle butts. After that they had ordered the witness to bring her husband's passport. However, then they had stopped her and told her that they would take the documents themselves. After that they had searched the house for about half an hour. Having finished the search the men had covered her husband's eyes and mouth with adhesive tape and bound his hands. They had told the witness that they would release her husband after receiving answers to some questions. The intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, had ordered the family members to stay in the house, threatening to throw a grenade inside if the applicants disobeyed. According to the witness, she had heard the sounds of armoured vehicles parked next to the house. 86.  On 7 June 2007 the district prosecutor's office together with the ROVD and other law enforcement agencies drew up a plan of investigative measures to be taken in criminal case no. 61117. However, the investigators failed to obtain any relevant information with this plan . 87.  On 8 June 2007 the investigators requested that detention centres in various regions of the Northern Caucasus inform them whether Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev were detained on their premises. According to the responses, the missing men had never been detained in any of the detention centres. 88.  On 11 June 2007 the investigators questioned Mr A.Sh., Lema Dikayev's neighbour, who stated that on the night of the abduction at about 2 a.m. he had heard a car engine. He had gone to his gate when an armed masked man in camouflage uniform had appeared in front of him. The man had pointed his machine gun at him and ordered to get inside. According to the witness, at that moment he had seen a group of five to six armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms walk by his house in the direction of Pochtovaya Street. The witness had got scared and gone inside where he stayed until the morning. Early in the morning he had found out from Mrs S.D., Lema Dikayev's relative, that Lema Dikayev and another resident of Martan-Chu, Lecha Basayev, had been abducted that night. 89.  Between 14 and 28 June 2007 the investigators questioned five other residents of Martan-Chu, Mr S.A., Mr A.E., Mr A.Sh., Mr A.A. and Mr B.Sh., each of whom stated that they had found out about the abduction on the morning of 6 July 2002. 90.  On 28 June 2007 the investigators questioned Mr M., who had been the head of the ROVD at the material time. According to the witness, in July 2002 he had been informed that a group of unidentified armed men had abducted two residents of Martan-Chu, Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev. He did not remember that on 6 July 2002 the seventh applicant had told him that on 6 July 2002 her brother Lema Dikayev had been seen detained in the ROVD and that on 8 July 2002 she had requested assistance in the search for her brother. According to the witness, he had not told the applicant that if she was patient for a year, then her brother Lema Dikayev would return home. 91.  On 2 July 2007 the investigators again questioned the seventh applicant, who stated that at about 4 p.m. on 6 July 2002 she had seen a UAZ vehicle and a VAZ-2107 car leaving the premises of the district military commander's office. Some time later that day she had been told that unidentified persons had arrived at her house. When the seventh applicant had returned home, her father, the eighth applicant, informed her that unidentified men in similar vehicles had searched their house looking for weapons. The applicant had concluded that the unidentified men had arrived in the vehicles she had seen at the military commander's office. According to the applicant, next to the building of the local administration she had seen the APCs in which the abductors had taken away her brother. The applicant further stated that on 8 July 2002 she had been in Urus-Martan when someone had informed her that unidentified persons had arrived at her house and were going to set it on fire; one of them had told the eighth applicant that they were acting in accordance with the order issued by the military commander, Mr G. The applicant and her relative Mr V.Sh. had gone to Mr M., the head of the ROVD, and requested him to stop them. The head of the ROVD had contacted someone on a portable radio and after that he had told the applicant that her house would not be burned down. 92.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr A.K., the head of the local administration, who stated that on the dates specified by the seventh applicant no APCs had been parked next to the administration building. 93.  On 3 July 2007 the investigators questioned the applicants' relative Mr V.Sh., who stated that around 8 July 2002 the seventh applicant had asked him to speak to Mr M., the head of the ROVD, as unidentified persons had arrived at her house and were conducting a search. The seventh applicant had not been present during the conversation as she was waiting in the hallway. The head of the ROVD had not contacted anyone by portable radio, but he had promised to help resolve the situation. 94.  It appears that on an unspecified date the investigators again questioned Mr M., the head of the ROVD, who provided a statement similar to the one given by Mr V.Sh. 95.  According to the Government, the investigation in criminal case no. 61117 was suspended and resumed on several occasions. For instance, the investigation was suspended on 7 July 2007 for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators and resumed on 15 August 2007 for additional investigative measures to be taken; then it was suspended on 15 September 2007 and resumed on 4 May 2008 for the same reasons. 96.  On 16 August 2007 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant, who stated that on the night of 6 July 2002 his son Lema Dikayev had been abducted by a group of men in camouflage uniforms and masks who were armed with automatic weapons. That night the witness had not heard any military vehicles. On the morning of 6 July 2002 he had been told that another resident of Martan-Chu, Lecha Basayev, had also been abducted on the same night. In the afternoon of 6 July 2002, a group of armed servicemen without masks had arrived at his house. One of them had told the witness that according to some information in their possession, a machine gun, an automatic rifle and two grenades had been hidden in the household. After that they had searched the roof and found what they were looking for. The same group of men had returned to the house at some point later and had again searched the household. The witness had spoken to one of the servicemen; however, the witness did not remember that this serviceman had told him that the group was acting under the orders of the military commander, Mr G. 97.  On 16 August 2007 the investigators also questioned a resident of Martan-Chu, Mr Yu.I., who stated that at the material time he had been the deputy head of the Martan-Chu village administration. On the morning of 6 July 2002 he had been told that during the night, at about 2 a.m., unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had abducted Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev. One of their relatives had complained about it to the Martan-Chu village administration. According to the witness, he had called the head of the ROVD, Mr M., and requested information about the circumstances of the abduction. The latter had told him that he had not heard about the search of the Dikayevs' house. According to the witness, he had not seen military vehicles on 6 July 2002 and he had not issued any orders to the military commander Mr G. concerning the detention of Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev. 98.  On 6 September 2007 the investigation of the criminal case was transferred from the Urus-Martan district prosecutor's office to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor's office. 99.  On 11 September 2007 the investigators questioned the applicants' neighbour, Mr S.A., who stated that he had found out from his fellow villagers that during the night of 6 July 2002 unidentified armed men had abducted Lecha Basayev and Lema Dikayev. According to the witness, he had not heard any noise which could have been caused by armoured vehicles. 100.  The Government further submitted that the applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation. 101.  In response to requests by the Court the Government disclosed several documents from criminal case no. 61117 stating that the investigation was in progress and therefore disclosure of other 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. The Government submitted copies of the following documents:
1) a procedural decision to institute an investigation into the abduction dated 23 August 2002;
2) two decisions to grant victim status in the criminal case to the first and the seventh applicants dated 24 August 2002;
3) decisions to suspended the criminal investigation dated 23 October 2002, 21 September 2003, 23 February 2004, 9 November 2005, and 21 June 2006;
4) decisions to resume the investigation in the criminal case dated 21 August 2003, 21 January 2004, 8 November 2005, 20 June 2006, and 7 June 2007;
5) the investigators' decisions to take up the criminal case;
6) letters informing the applicants about the suspensions and the resumptions of the investigation in the criminal case.


4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Žalec. 5.  On 21 May 1997 the applicant, employed as a teacher in a music school, instituted proceedings before the Celje Labour Court seeking the annulment of a decision on the classification in a pay grade. 6.  On 1 February 2000 the first hearing was held. 7.  After two more hearings, on 24 March 2000 the first-instance court delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s request. He appealed. 8.  On 7 December 2001 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld his appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. 9.  On 11 June 2002 the first-instance court delivered a judgment rejecting his request. He appealed. 10.  On 26 February 2004 the second instance court rejected his appeal. He lodged an appeal on points of law. 11.  On 11 January 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. He lodged a constitutional complaint. 12.  On 17 March 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as unsubstantiated. The decision was served on the applicant on 21 March 2006. 13.  On 7 September 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Celje Labour Court seeking the annulment of a decision on the classification in a pay grade and requesting for the two proceedings to be joined. 14.  On 10 December 2002 the first hearing was held. The first-instance court rejected the request for joining the proceedings and delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s claim. He appealed. 15.  On 15 April 2004 the Higher Labour and Social Court rejected his appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 May 2004.


5.  Mr Šekerović was born in 1932 and lives in Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ms Pašalić was born in 1926 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia. 6.  Mr Šekerović was granted an old-age pension in 1984 and Ms Pašalić in 1981. 7.  In 1992 they moved from what is today the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Federation”) to what is today the Republika Srpska (each of the Federation and the Republika Srpska being an “Entity”). While they were internally displaced, they received their pensions from the Republika Srpska Pension Fund (“the RS Fund”). 8.  Having returned to the Federation in 2000 and 2001 respectively, the applicants unsuccessfully sought to have their pension entitlements transferred from the RS Fund to the Federation Pension Fund (“the FBH Fund”). Therefore, in 2002 they lodged applications with the Human Rights Chamber, a domestic human-rights body set up by Annex 6 to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 9.  On 10 January 2003 the Human Rights Chamber delivered a landmark decision concerning three applicants, including one of the applicants in the present case (Ms Pašalić) and the applicant in Karanović (cited above), who had been granted pensions in what is today the Federation before the war, who had then moved to what is today the Republika Srpska during the war, and who, for that reason only, continued to receive RS Fund pensions despite their return to the Federation after the war (pursuant to the Pension Agreement, see paragraph 16 below). They were thus treated differently from those who had stayed in what is today the Federation during the war. The Human Rights Chamber considered that difference in treatment to be discriminatory and an obstacle to the return of displaced persons to their pre-war homes (RS Fund pensions were normally lower than FBH Fund pensions, and the cost of living was normally higher in the Federation). Furthermore, it held that the situation complained of had racist connotations (given the nature of the war, the population that had moved from what is today the Federation to what is today the Republika Srpska during the war had primarily been Serbs, and those who had stayed were mostly Bosniacs and Croats). The Human Rights Chamber ordered the Federation: (a) to take all necessary legislative and administrative actions by 10 July 2003 to ensure that the applicants were no longer discriminated against, particularly in comparison to those pensioners who had remained in what is today the Federation during the war; and (b) to compensate the applicants for the difference between their RS Fund pensions and the amount they would have received from the FBH Fund from the date of their application to the Human Rights Chamber until the date of the Federation’s compliance with the order under (a) above. 10.  Having assessed that her pension from the FBH Fund would have been lower than the nominal amount of her pension from the RS Fund, on 22 July 2003 the FBH Fund informed Ms Pašalić that she would not be paid any compensation. The FBH Fund disregarded the fact that, at that time, pensioners in the Republika Srpska, as opposed to those in the Federation, did not receive the nominal amount of their pensions, but only a fraction thereof, owing to fiscal difficulties in that Entity. 11.  Mr Šekerović’s case was still pending when the Human Rights Chamber ceased to exist on 31 December 2003. The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) took over his case and on 27 June 2007 delivered a judgment similar to that in Ms Pašalić’s case. 12.  On 14 December 2007 the FBH Fund decided to pay Mr Šekerović 8,345 convertible marks (BAM)[1] by way of compensation for the difference between the sum which he had received from the RS Fund between 16 April 2002 and 30 November 2007 and the sum which he would have received from the FBH Fund in the same period. It also decided to continue paying any such difference in the future. In March 2008, for example, the applicant received BAM 531 from the RS Fund and BAM 105 from the FBH Fund. 13.  After the Karanović judgment, cited above, the FBH Fund revised its practice and agreed to compensate Ms Pašalić for the difference between the sum which she had actually received from the RS Fund (rather than the nominal amount of her RS Fund pension, see paragraph 10 above) and the sum which she would have received from the FBH Fund in the period after 18 February 2002. In order to determine the amount due, on 23 June and 22 July 2008 the FBH Fund asked the RS Fund to indicate the sums actually paid to Ms Pašalić. The RS Fund failed to respond. On 3 July and 28 August 2008 the FBH Fund sent letters to Ms Pašalić (one to an address in Sarajevo and the other to an address in Belgrade), but they were returned as undeliverable (addressee unknown). In June 2010 the applicant finally provided the necessary information and in July 2010 the FBH Fund paid Ms Pašalić BAM 1,425 (that is, BAM 839 for 2002, BAM 530 for 2003 and BAM 56 for 2004). Since 2005 the applicant had apparently been receiving more from the RS Fund than she would have received from the FBH Fund (in April 2010 she thus received BAM 627 from the RS Fund whereas she would have received BAM 483 from the FBH Fund). 14.  On 13 October 2010 the Constitutional Court held that its decision in Mr Šekerović’s case of 27 June 2007 had not been enforced, because he had not yet been granted an FBH Fund pension (see paragraph 19 below). 15.  According to official figures, the average pension has always been lower in the Republika Srpska than in the Federation. That difference has, however, decreased: while in 2003 the average pension was BAM 133 in the Republika Srpska and BAM 192 in the Federation, in 2009 the figures were BAM 335 in the Republika Srpska and BAM 346 in the Federation. Furthermore, pensioners in the Republika Srpska now receive, as do those in the Federation, the nominal amount of their pensions (until recently, the former, as opposed to the latter, were only receiving a fraction of their nominal pensions owing to fiscal difficulties in that Entity).


5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Zhytomyr. 6.  The applicant was the director of B., a limited liability company. In 2007 and 2008 the company took out bank loans for the purpose of production activities. In April 2009 the company changed the composition of the shareholders and management. The changes were allegedly made on the basis of forged documents. Subsequently, the company failed to repay the loans. The company refused the banks’ requests to repay the debts. The applicant claimed that he was no longer working at the company. 7.  On 30 October 2009 the Prosecutor of Zhytomyr City instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the embezzlement of funds by the managers and owners of company B. and the forgery of documents. 8.  On 25 and 27 November 2009 the investigator of the Zhytomyr Prosecutor’s Office questioned the employees of the banks dealing with the loans to company B., the shareholders and the staff of company B. The witnesses gave details as to the role of the applicant in arranging the loan agreements and in the way the shareholders and management had been changed. One of the former shareholders claimed that his signature had been inserted on loan documents which he had not actually signed. He alleged that the applicant had then calmed him down by explaining that everything would be fine; his signature had been inserted without asking him as nobody had wished to bother him. 9.  On 27 November 2009 the applicant was also questioned. At 10.15 p.m. on 27 November 2009 the investigator of the Zhytomyr Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that he was being arrested and detained for seventy-two hours on suspicion of having committed a crime. The investigator drew up an arrest report specifying that the applicant was being arrested in accordance with Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds that “eyewitnesses had directly identified him as a person who had committed a crime”. 10.  On 28 November 2009 the applicant challenged his arrest and detention before the Bohunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr (“the District Court”). He argued that his arrest and detention had been unlawful, noting that no eyewitness had identified him as a person who had committed any crime; furthermore, the alleged events had taken place a long time ago and there was no risk that he would abscond since he had previously voluntarily appeared before the investigator. 11.  On 30 November 2009 the investigator applied to the District Court with a request to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. On the same day the District Court, relying on Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, found that in order to make a decision on the application of a preventive measure it required more information concerning the applicant’s personality, family status and lifestyle. The court therefore ordered that the investigator produce that information and extended the applicant’s preliminary detention to ten days. 12.  On 7 December 2009 the investigator released the applicant against a written undertaking not to abscond. The investigator noted that the applicant was disabled; he was the breadwinner for three minor children, one of whom was disabled; he had a permanent place of residence; and that there was no information that he would abscond or hinder the proceedings. 13.  On 29 January 2010 the District Court found that the applicant’s arrest had been unlawful because the prosecutor’s office had failed to provide evidence that any eyewitness had identified the applicant as a person who had committed a crime. The court further considered that the applicant’s arrest and his further detention had not been justified and necessary in the circumstances of the case. The prosecutor appealed against that decision. 14.  On 23 February 2010 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision as unfounded, noting that the District Court had not properly examined the witnesses’ statements available in the criminal case file. The case was remitted to the District Court for fresh consideration. 15.  On 15 March 2010 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the witness statements available in the file had identified the applicant as a person who had committed the alleged crimes. The applicant appealed against that decision. 16.  On 7 April 2010 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 15 March 2010, noting that the case file contained the statements of witnesses who had identified the applicant as a person who had committed the alleged crimes. 17.  On 11 May 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible, noting that the decisions of 15 March and 7 April 2010 were not amenable to review by the Supreme Court.