6.  According to the applicant, he is a Russian national, A.L., born in 1972. According to the Government, the applicant is a Chinese national, X.W., born in 1973. He lives in Elista. 7.  On 19 March 2014 the applicant was arrested in St Petersburg on suspicion of murdering a Chinese policeman in 1996. He was in possession of a Russian national passport in the name of A.L., born in 1972 in the Primorskiy region of Russia. 8.  On 21 March 2014 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg ordered the applicant’s detention until 17 April 2014, pending receipt of an official extradition request from the Chinese authorities. The District Court noted that the applicant had been identified by means of photographic comparisons as X.W., a Chinese national born in China in 1973. His name was on Interpol’s list of wanted persons. The Chinese authorities had issued an arrest warrant in his name dated 15 December 2011 from which it was apparent that he was suspected of a criminal offence under Article 232 of the Chinese Criminal Code. That offence was punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment or at least three years’ imprisonment, and the limitation period was twenty years. The limitation period in respect of a comparable criminal offence in the Russian Criminal Code was fifteen years, but this was suspended if the suspect had fled from justice. The court further noted that a Russian national passport in the name of A.L. had apparently been unlawfully obtained by the applicant after he submitted false information to the competent Russian authorities. It was clear that he was not a Russian national but a Chinese national and could be therefore extradited to China. 9.  The Chinese authorities failed to submit an official extradition request within the thirty-day time-limit established by the Bilateral Treaty on Extradition of 26 June 1995. 10.  On 17 April 2014 the St Petersburg Transport Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release. At the same time he noted that it was necessary to start administrative removal proceedings against the applicant on the grounds that his residence in Russia was unlawful. 11.  Despite the release order, the applicant remained in detention. 12.  On 18 April 2014 the St Petersburg transport police drafted a report on the commission by the applicant of an offence under Article 18.8 of the Administrative Offences Code (unlawful residence in Russia of a foreign national, see paragraph 47 below). 13.  On the same day, 18 April 2014, the Smolninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence under Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences and ordered his administrative removal to China. The court took note of a letter dated 21 March 2014 by the Federal Migration Service which showed that it was impossible to establish whether or not the applicant was a Russian national. He had received a Russian national passport in the name of A.L. in 2000 after declaring that he had lost his previous passport, which had been issued in 1988. However, according to the Federal Migration Service, the allegedly lost passport never existed. The court further relied on the extradition case‑file, from which it was apparent that the applicant was in fact a Chinese national, X.W., rather than a Russian national A.L. Being a Chinese national, he was residing in Russia unlawfully without a valid visa or residence permit. The court noted that the applicant was sought by the Chinese authorities on suspicion of murder. He was therefore dangerous and it was necessary to sentence him to administrative removal from Russia. Lastly, the court observed that, although the applicant had a Russian wife, he did not have any children who were minors living in Russia. In such circumstances, and taking into account his dangerousness, the public interest outweighed his personal interest in maintaining his family life in Russia. 14.  The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that his passport as a Russian national had never been cancelled and was therefore still valid. He further argued that his administrative removal was extradition in disguise. The fifteen-year limitation period established by Russian criminal law had expired and he could no longer be lawfully extradited to China. If he was administratively removed to China he would be immediately arrested and very probably subjected to the death penalty. His removal to China would therefore be in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. 15.  On 24 April 2014 the Federal Migration Service found that the applicant was not a Russian national. He had obtained the Russian national passport in the name of A.L. unlawfully. 16.  On 28 August 2014 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the judgment of 18 April 2014, finding that the administrative offence report of 18 April 2014 had been procedurally defective, and remitted the case to the District Court for a new examination. These proceedings were later discontinued. 17.  On 29 August 2014 the Krasnoselskiy District police drafted a new report on the commission by the applicant of an offence under Article 18.8 of the Administrative Offences Code. 18.  On 30 August 2014 the Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg discontinued the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant, finding that the administrative offence report of 29 August 2014 had been procedurally defective. 19.  On 31 August 2104 the applicant was released. His passport, seized upon arrest, was not returned to him. He was served with a decision by the St Petersburg and Leningrad Region Interior Department, dated 29 August 2014, declaring the undesirability of his presence in Russia (the “exclusion order”) which read in its entirety as follows:
“On 27 August 2014 the Interior Ministry of the Russian Federation decided that your presence (residence) in Russia was undesirable in accordance with section 25 of [the Entry and Exit Procedures Act]. You must therefore leave the Russian Federation before 3 September 2014.
If you do not leave before the stated deadline, you will be deported.
In accordance with section 27 of [the Entry and Exit Procedures Act], if a decision declaring the undesirability of an individual’s presence (residence) in the Russian Federation has been issued, that individual may no longer enter the Russian Federation.” 20.  The applicant challenged the exclusion order before the Smolninskiy District Court. He also complained that his passport had been unlawfully seized. He submitted that he could not cross the Russian border without a passport and could not therefore comply with the exclusion order by leaving Russia for another country. In these circumstances, the exclusion order would automatically entail his deportation to China. If he was deported to China he would be immediately arrested and very probably subjected to the death penalty. His deportation would therefore be in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. 21.  On 12 November 2014 the Smolninskiy District Court found that the exclusion order had been lawful. It had been issued by a competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and had been based on sufficient reasons. Given that the applicant was sought by the Chinese authorities on suspicion of murder, had been fined several times in Russia for driving offences and had lived in Russia unlawfully with an unlawfully issued passport, there were sufficient reasons to find that he represented a real threat to public order and security. The court further noted that the applicant did not dispute the above facts. The thrust of his complaint was that his deportation to China would expose him to a risk of being subjected to the death penalty that amounted to inhuman treatment. Those arguments could not, however, serve as grounds for annulling the lawfully adopted exclusion order. The court also held that the applicant’s argument that the exclusion order would automatically entail his deportation to China was unconvincing. Firstly, deportation was not automatic and required a separate administrative decision that could be challenged before a court. Secondly, the applicant had the possibility of avoiding deportation to China by leaving Russia for another country. 22.  The court further held that the seizure of the applicant’s passport in the name of A.L. had been lawful. By the decision of 24 April 2014 the Federal Migration Service had found that that passport had been issued unlawfully and that the applicant was not a Russian national. Those were lawful grounds for seizing a passport. The procedure prescribed by law had been respected. 23.  The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that the domestic law did not require a separate administrative decision on deportation. The exclusion order alone constituted a sufficient legal basis for deportation and his failure to leave Russia before the stated deadline could therefore entail automatic deportation to China. He did not have any remedies with suspensive effect in such a situation. He further reiterated his argument that he could not leave Russia for another country because his passport had been seized by the authorities and he did not have any other identity documents. Lastly, he argued that his deportation to China would amount to a breach of not only Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, but also of Article 8, because he was married to a Russian national. 24.  On 25 February 2015 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 12 November 2014 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. It added that a genetic test had established that the applicant’s genetic profile matched the genetic profiles of X.W.’s parents. There was therefore no doubt that the applicant’s real name was X.W. It further agreed with the District Court that the applicant could avoid deportation to China by leaving Russia for another country using his Chinese passport. 25.  From 18 April to 29 August 2014 the applicant was detained in a detention centre for aliens (Центр для содержания иностранных граждан) located in Krasnoye Selo in St Petersburg.
(a)  The applicant’s description 26.  From 18 to 21 April 2014 the applicant was held in a punishment cell. From 18 to 20 April 2014 he was handcuffed. The cell had no windows and was empty. It had no bunk or chair and the applicant had to stand or remain in the squatting position all the time. There was no lavatory bowl or running water. His requests to allow him to use the toilet were refused and he had to relieve himself in a plastic bottle. He was given food only once during that period but was anyway unable to eat it because of his handcuffs. 27.  On 21 April 2014 the applicant was transferred to solitary confinement cell no. 412 on the fourth floor where he remained until 2 July 2014. The cell measured 9 sq. m and was equipped with a bed, a bedside cabinet, a table, a sink and a lavatory bowl that stank. The window did not open so the applicant could not air his cell. The window was also covered with paint which blocked the daylight. The artificial lights were dim. The cell was damp and cold and the applicant had to sleep with his coat on. The cell was swarming with mice. 28.  From 2 July to 29 August 2014 the applicant was held in solitary confinement cell no. 413. The conditions of detention in that cell were similar to those in cell no. 412. 29.  Both cells nos. 412 and 413 were locked and the applicant remained alone all the time. Neither the other inmates nor the warders ever entered the cells. The cells were not equipped with a radio or TV set. The applicant was not given any books or newspapers. He was not allowed to use his mobile telephone. As he was in total isolation, he counted the days by drawing sticks on paper. 30.  It was not until 5 June 2014 that he was allowed to take walks in the yard. In particular, he was allowed to go out in the yard on 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 30 June, 13, 7, 11, 13, 15, 19, 27 and 29 July and 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 18, 21, 24 and 25 August 2014. The walks lasted between ten minutes and half an hour. The exercise yard measured 30 m by 8 m and was enclosed by a three-metre-high fence. The applicant was always alone in the yard. 31.  It was very difficult to get permission for family visits. He was allowed only four visits from his wife, each time for less than half an hour and in the presence of warders. 32.  The detention centre had no canteen and the food was brought from other detention facilities. It was always cold and did not contain any vegetable, fruit, meat or dairy products. The warders gave him food through a small window in the door. No drinking water was provided and the applicant had to drink tap water which was of poor quality. 33.  During his four-month stay in the centre the applicant was allowed to take a shower only five times. The water in the shower was cold. There was no laundry service and the applicant had to wash his clothes himself.
(b)  The Government’s description 34.  According to the Government, the applicant was held in cell no. 412 which measured 27.4 sq. m. The cell had windows, artificial light and central heating. It was equipped with a lavatory bowl, running hot and cold water, a bed, a bedside cabinet and a dining table. 35.  Inmates were provided with hot meals three times per day. They could walk in the exercise yard every morning in accordance with applicable regulations. 36.  The detention centre for aliens had a library which the applicant was allowed to use on request. 37.  The detention centre for aliens had no punishment cells and its warders never used handcuffs. 38.  On 29 August 2014 the applicant was transferred to an administrative detention cell at Krasnoselskiy District police station no. 9 where he remained until 31 August 2014.
(a)  The applicant’s description 39.  The applicant was placed in a cell at about 4.30 p.m. on 29 August. However, he remained handcuffed until 11.30 p.m. of the same day. 40.  The cell measured 3.75 sq. m. It had concrete walls and ceiling and no windows. There was an opening in the wall measuring 40 cm by 60 cm blocked by a metal sheet with ventilation holes. 41.  The cell was equipped with a narrow wooden bench. There was no table, chair, sink or lavatory bowl. The applicant was not given any food or water. He was not allowed to go to the toilet until about 1 p.m. on 30 August before a court hearing. He remained handcuffed from 1 to 5 p.m. on 30 August 2014 during the entire court hearing and until his return to the police station. 42.  The applicant’s representatives were not allowed to visit him. 43.  The applicant was released at about 4.30 p.m. on 31 August 2014.
(b)  The Government’s description 44.  The Government submitted the floor plan of police station no. 9. It is apparent from the plan that there were three administrative detention cells, two of them measuring 7.55 sq. m and one measuring 6.5 sq. m. Each cell was equipped with two benches. There was no other furniture and no lavatory facilities in the cell. 45.  The Government confirmed that the windows were blocked by metal screens with holes in them. 46.  According to the police officers’ statements, the applicant was given food but refused to eat it. He preferred to eat food brought by his wife. He was allowed to go to the police station toilet on request. The applicant was not handcuffed.


5.  The applicant, BENet Praha, spol. s r.o., is a limited liability company incorporated under Czech law with its registered seat in Prague. 6.  Between 1994 and 1997 the applicant company dealt in ferrous alloys. 7.  In April 2001 customs authorities initiated a set of administrative proceedings against the applicant company in order to check the accuracy of the customs debt (concerning customs plus VAT) the company had paid during the aforementioned period of time. 8.  Simultaneously, criminal proceedings were instituted against a person, who was a manager (jednatel) of the applicant company during that period of time, on suspicion of tax evasion while he was managing the applicant company. According to the Government the damage caused to the State exceeded 200,000,000 Czech korunas (CZK; 7,770,000 euros (EUR)). 9.  Within the framework of the criminal proceedings a search of the applicant company's premises was carried out on 24 April 2001. Cash in several currencies in the total amount of approximately CZK 20,000,000 (EUR 770,000) and several documents such as financial files, books of accounts and business documents were seized. According to the applicant company these documents and most of the cash have not yet been returned to it. 10.  On 25 and 27 April 2001 the prosecuting authorities seized all of the applicant company's assets deposited on its five bank accounts on the suspicion that they constituted profits from the criminal activities of the former manager. The applicant company's bank accounts contained at that time funds equivalent to CZK 98,458,516 (EUR 3,786,866). The seizure orders, which were notified to the applicant company on 8 October 2001, did not specify what assets had been seized, nor to what amount. This was remedied on 28 November 2001 by the Prague High Prosecutor (vrchní státní zástupce) who amended the original decisions by writing in the sums to be seized. While doing so, he froze all assets deposited on the applicant company's accounts on that day, which included payments which had come in after 25 April 2001 and 27 April 2001 respectively. The applicant company's assets amounting to CZK 101,909,105 (EUR 3,919,580) were thus seized. 11.  Simultaneously with the criminal investigation, the customs and tax administrative proceedings resulted in the delivery of numerous payment orders assessing duty payable by the applicant company. With all of its assets frozen, the applicant company requested the prosecuting authorities on a number of occasions to lift the seizure in order to discharge these duties, but only few of these requests were granted. Its appeals did not suspend the effect of those orders payable within thirty days of delivery. Consequently, the company had to take out a loan, among other measures adopted to overcome this situation, and avoid insolvency, as it was obliged to pay under these orders a sum totalling CZK 55,000,000 (EUR 2,115,385). 12.  Between 2004 and 2005, upon the applicant company's appeals, all of the payment orders and other decisions adopted by tax and customs authorities imposing the duties on the applicant company were quashed as unlawful either by superior authorities or administrative courts. The tax proceedings were discontinued and sums paid by the applicant company upon the orders reimbursed accordingly. 13.  The former manager has been prosecuted for acts committed in his capacity as the manager of the applicant company and in the context of its business activities. On 4 June 2009 the former manager was acquitted by Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) from some of the charges, and on 30 April 2010 Prague High Court (vrchní soud) upheld that judgment. The investigation concerning other charges is apparently still pending. During the investigation the prosecuting authorities, inter alia, collected over 100,000 pages of documentary evidence, interviewed several hundred witnesses, including homeless persons with unknown whereabouts whose names the accused had allegedly used in sham transactions to evade customs and other duties, and requested legal assistance from the competent authorities of sixteen countries.
Application no. 33908/04 14.  In December 2001 the Frýdek-Místek Customs Office (celní úřad) ordered the applicant company to pay customs duties in the amount of CZK 280,672 (EUR 9,955). 15.  In May and June 2002 the Prague 4 Customs Office ordered the applicant company to pay customs duties of CZK 3,361,940 (EUR 119,242). 16.  On 6 June 2002 the High Prosecutor granted the applicant company's request for the seizure to be lifted for the sum of CZK 280,672. 17.  On 5, 17 and 21 June 2002 respectively, the applicant company requested the High Prosecutor to lift the seizure in order to enable it to pay the customs duties ordered in May and June 2002. 18.  On 11 July 2002 the High Prosecutor dismissed its requests, finding that the orders had not yet become final. According to the prosecutor, it was premature to lift the seizure under these circumstances, as such a step might have been contrary to the interests pursued by the prosecuting authorities. 19.  The applicant company appealed to the High Court, which dismissed its appeal on 27 August 2002. 20.  On 18 November 2002 the applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) maintaining that the customs authorities, together with the prosecuting authorities, had misused the law to its detriment and consequently had violated Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod) (hereinafter “the Charter”). 21.  In December 2002 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) invited the respondent parties to the proceedings, the High Court and the High Prosecutor, to submit written observations on the applicant's constitutional appeal pursuant to section 42(4) of the Constitutional Court Act. 22.  The High Prosecutor did not submit any observations. The High Court submitted written observations, referring to the reasoning of its impugned decision. It expressed the view that the applicant's constitutional appeal should be dismissed. This submission was not communicated to the applicant company. 23.  The Constitutional Court also requested the Prague High State Prosecutor's Office to send it the criminal file in the context of which the seizure had been carried out. The Constitutional Court made copies of the relevant documents, which were included in the case file of the Constitutional Court. Subsequently the criminal file was returned to the Prosecutor's Office on 29 May 2003. 24.  On 22 May 2003 the applicant company's acting manager consulted the case file at the Constitutional Court. The next day he sent a letter to the court with the following text:
“On 22 May 2003, when consulting the case file, I found that it should also include nine files [covering the criminal proceedings] submitted by the Prague High Prosecutor ... [A]bout nine files annexed to the reply of the Prague High Prosecutor submitted upon the Constitutional Court's invitation of 5 December 2002 were dispatched on 8 January 2003 ... and delivered to the Constitutional Court on 9 January 2003.
At the time of my study of the case file these nine files had been sent somewhere for consultation. ... I kindly ask you to set another date on which consultation of the case file including the aforesaid documentary evidence, will be possible.” 25.  In a letter of 29 May 2003 from the Constitutional Court judge, the applicant company's acting manager was told to make a direct approach to the High Prosecutor's Office to which the file in question had been returned. The same letter also informed the representative of the applicant company that he was free to inspect the Constitutional Court's file after arranging a visit to do this with the court's registry. 26.  In a letter of 5 June 2003 the applicant company's acting manager asked the Constitutional Court judge to remedy the situation and ensure the applicant company had access to those criminal files. The latter replied, on 1 July 2003, that pursuant to section 30(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, a party to the proceedings must be legally represented. He further stated that the criminal case file was not a Constitutional Court file, but subject to the Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular Article 65, which governs access to criminal files.
On 11 March 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company's constitutional appeal (II. ÚS 708/02). It held in particular:
“As it appears from the decision refusing to lift the seizure of the assets, in the High Prosecutor's view, to lift it could jeopardise the purpose of the criminal proceedings. ... [The High Court] shared his opinion ... In its written observations, it found that there was no ground justifying the conclusion that the seizure of the [applicant company's] assets ... was no longer necessary.
In the present case, the Constitutional Court did not consider the conduct of the State authorities a misuse of law to the applicant company's detriment, contrary to the basic requirements of fairness and of Article 4 of the Charter. The mere fact that the applicant company was not successful in its request cannot be in itself considered as violating its right to a fair trial.” 27.  On 18 March 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed as manifestly ill-founded another applicant company's constitutional appeal regarding a decision of the High Court to reject another applicant company's request to partially lift the seizure.
Application no. 7937/05 28.  In May and June 2002 the Prague II Customs Office ordered the applicant company to pay customs duties in the amount of CZK 16,527,646 (EUR 584,724). 29.  On 20 August 2002 the High Prosecutor dismissed the applicant company's request of 23 July 2002 for the seizure to be partially lifted in order to enable it to pay this amount. 30.  At the applicant company's request the Customs Office postponed the time-limit for payment of the company's customs duties until 28 February 2003. 31.  On 20 September 2002 the applicant company again requested the High Prosecutor to lift the seizure in order to enable the company to pay the customs duties ordered in May and June 2002. Its request was, however, refused by the prosecutor on 23 October 2002. This decision was approved by the High Court on 11 December 2002. 32.  On 10 December 2002 and 10 February 2003, the High Prosecutor partly lifted the seizure covering the sum of CZK 16,527,645. The applicant company then discharged its customs debt. However, as it had not done so in time, the Customs Office ordered it to pay a penalty of CZK 232,423 (EUR 8,223). 33.  On 10 October 2002 the High Court dismissed the applicant company's appeal against the High Prosecutor's decision of 20 August 2002. 34.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal against the High Court's dismissal. 35.  At the invitation of the Constitutional Court the High Court submitted written observations, referring to the reasoning of its impugned decision. It expressed the view that the applicant's constitutional appeal should be dismissed. This submission was not communicated to the applicant company. 36.  The appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the Constitutional Court on 24 August 2004 (I. ÚS 723/02).
Application no. 25249/05 37.  On 4 November 2002 the Mladá Boleslav Customs Office ordered the applicant company to pay customs duties in the amount of CZK 14,371,989 (EUR 508,460). 38.  On 12 and 29 November 2002 and 3 January 2003 respectively the Kladno Customs Office ordered the applicant company to pay customs duties amounting to CZK 1,219,922 (EUR 43,159). 39.  On 12 November 2002 and 29 January 2003 the applicant company requested the High Prosecutor to lift the seizure in order to enable the company to pay its customs duties. 40.  On 25 March 2003 the High Prosecutor decided not to grant the company's requests. 41.  On 2 July 2003 the High Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant company of 2 April 2003 challenging the High Prosecutor's refusal to lift the seizure. 42.  On 13 October 2003 the applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal alleging a violation of Article 4 of the Charter. 43.  Upon the invitation of the Constitutional Court the High Court and the High Prosecutor submitted written observations. They expressed the view that the applicant's constitutional appeal should be dismissed. These submissions were not communicated to the applicant company. 44.  On 15 December 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company's constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded (I. ÚS 538/03).
Application no. 29402/05 45.  On 2 June 2003 the High Prosecutor decided not to grant the applicant company's request of 19 May 2003 to lift the seizure. 46.  On 20 August 2003 the High Court, upon the applicant company's appeal of 9 June 2003, upheld the prosecutor's refusal. 47.  On 11 November 2003 the applicant company introduced a constitutional appeal challenging the aforesaid decisions and alleging, inter alia, that its property rights continued to be limited contrary to the national law. 48.  At the invitation of the Constitutional Court, the High Court submitted written observations, referring to the reasoning of its impugned decision. It expressed the view that the applicant's constitutional appeal should be dismissed. This submission was not communicated to the applicant company. 49.  Its appeal was dismissed as unsubstantiated by the Constitutional Court on 9 February 2005 (IV. ÚS 585/03).
Application no. 33571/06 50.  On 25 May 2004 the applicant company requested the High Prosecutor to lift the seizure of its assets, maintaining in particular that it had discharged all its customs duties. 51.  On 16 December 2004 the prosecutor dismissed the request, holding that there was a reasonable suspicion that the assets represented profit from the criminal activities of the accused manager. 52.  On 23 December 2004 the applicant company appealed to the High Court. 53.  On 21 February 2005 the High Court accepted in principle that prolonged seizure of assets could constitute a disproportionate interference with property rights, but did not find such a disproportionality in the applicant company's case and thus rejected its appeal. 54.  On 26 July 2005 the applicant company appealed to the Constitutional Court, complaining of excessive length of the seizure of its assets. 55.  Upon the invitation of the Constitutional Court, the High Court and the High Prosecutor submitted its written observations. The High Court proposed that the applicant's constitutional appeal be dismissed. The High Prosecutor informed in detail on several aspects of the criminal proceedings. He also addressed the issue of the length of the seizure by stressing the extent and complexity of the investigation and the need for foreign cooperation. He also proposed to dismiss the appeal. These submissions were communicated to the applicant company in September 2005. The applicant company reacted by sending a letter it had received from the Ministry of Finance which contained an assurance that all money held by the customs authorities would be returned to the applicant company. The letter also contained an apology from the Ministry for problems arising in the complex case of the applicant company. 56.  On 13 January 2006 the Constitutional Court again requested the High Prosecutor to inform it about the stage the investigation had reached and when it was expected to be finished. On 20 January 2006 the High Prosecutor submitted to the court a one-paragraph reply saying that almost all the sixteen States from whom assistance had been requested had responded and it was expected that they would send the required materials before April 2006. He further informed the court that he expected to conclude the investigation by mid-2006 and that it was highly likely that all the accused persons would be tried before a court. These submissions were not communicated to the applicant company. 57.  On 9 February 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as manifestly ill-founded (III. ÚS 394/05). It held that the seizure of the assets was still proportionate in view of the complexity of the investigation and in this context it considered important the assurance of the High Prosecutor that the investigation should be finished that year.
Subsequent developments 58.  On 30 January 2008 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to property of a company, Benet Czech, spol. s r.o., which was in the same position as the applicant company. It held that the length of the seizure, over six years, was unreasonable, which thus disrupted the fair balance between the general interest of fighting serious crime and the protection of the rights of the applicant company. Consequently, the applicant company lodged another request for the seizure of its bank accounts to be lifted referring to this decision of the Constitutional Court. 59.  On 6 March 2008 the High Prosecutor lifted the seizure of the applicant company's bank accounts, holding that the conclusions of the Constitutional Court also applied to the applicant company.


5.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1977 respectively and live in Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatarstan. They are currently serving their respective sentences in correctional facility UE-148/5 in Sviyazhsk, Tatarstan. 6.  On 6 December 2000 Mr D.E., Mr Yu.D. and Mr R.I. were transporting a travel bag with a large sum of money belonging to their employer, Ms S.S., in a car owned by Mr V.G. At about midnight the car was stopped by four armed persons disguised as policemen. Two of them had portable radios. They robbed Mr D.E., Mr Yu.D. and Mr R.I. and beat them up before stealing the travel bag and some other items from the car and leaving.
(a)  The applicants’ account 7.  In the evening of 7 December 2000 the applicants were in Mr R.’s flat together with Mr Sh. At around 10 p.m. the police entered and searched the flat. They found a travel bag with money and two portable radios. 8.  At 11 p.m. on 7 December 2000 the applicants, Mr Sh. and Mr R. were arrested on suspicion of robbery. The arrest was ordered by a prosecutor. The report on the applicants’ arrest was drawn up at 4 p.m. on 8 December 2000. 9.  Following his arrest, the first applicant was searched in the absence of a lawyer. The police found a wallet in his pocket with a list of towns and traffic police posts located near the road where the crime had been committed. 10.  On 8 December 2000 the second applicant was questioned by investigators in the absence of a lawyer. 11.  On 9 December 2000 the investigator ordered the first applicant’s placement in custody as a measure of restraint. On an unspecified date the same measure was applied to the second applicant. Later, the respective terms of the applicants’ pre-trial detention were extended several times by the prosecutor. 12.  When asked where he had got the money found in Mr R.’s flat, the first applicant explained that he had borrowed it from an acquaintance of his, Mr L. The second applicant said that he had borrowed the money from three persons: his sister, Mr M.A. and Mr I.P. 13.  The investigator questioned Mr L. The printed version of Mr L.’s statement read “I did not give [the first applicant] any money”. 14.  The second applicant’s sister confirmed her brother’s account of events when questioned by the investigator. Mr M.A. and Mr I.P. were not questioned. 15.  The first applicant told the investigator that at about 1 a.m. on 7 December 2000 he had bought some food in a night shop “M.” and requested that sales assistants from the shop be questioned. On 5 May 2001 the request was refused. 16.  The first applicant further requested the investigators to question Mr Yu.I., an employee of a petrol station who had allegedly seen him on the night of the crime. 17.  On unspecified dates Mr D.E., Mr Yu.D., Mr R.I., Mr V.G. and Ms S.S. were granted victim status and were questioned by the investigator. 18.  The applicants did not participate in any identification parade before the victims and did not confront them. 19.  The first applicant told the investigators that the list of towns seized from him during the search had been put into his pocket by a police officer, Mr T. The investigator ordered a graphology examination of the document. The expert report stated that one set of handwriting was identical to that of the first applicant. The first applicant insisted that the expert report had not attributed the handwriting to him. 20.  Two other witnesses, Mr G. and Mr Tr., apparently police officers, were questioned by the investigator. 21.  While in pre-trial detention, the first applicant received a handwritten note allegedly containing threats. He believed that the note had been written by one of his co-accused, Mr Sh. 22.  Upon completion of the investigation the applicants were allowed to study the case file. 23.  On 5 July 2001 the prosecutor drew up a bill of indictment charging Mr R., Mr Sh. and the applicants with aggravated robbery with violence, destruction of property, illegal possession of arms, possession of drugs and theft of official documents. The case file was transmitted to the court.
(b)  Information submitted by the Government 24.  Following their arrest, the first and second applicants were questioned as suspects on 8 and 9 December 2000 respectively. Neither of them confessed to any crimes. 25.  On 14 December 2000 criminal charges were brought against the second applicant; on the same date he had been questioned as an accused in the presence of counsel, Mr V.T. The second applicant made no statements referring to his right to remain silent. 26.  On 14 or 15 December 2000 the first applicant was officially charged and questioned as an accused in the presence of officially assigned counsel, Mr O.P. The first applicant informed the investigators that he wanted to retain Mr M.; the latter was notified of the first applicant’s request. 27.  On 21 December 2000 the investigators questioned Mr Yu.I. He said that he could not remember which cars had been refuelled at the station on the night of 6 to 7 December 2000. 28.  At some point the second applicant informed the investigators that he wanted to retain Mr A. as counsel. Mr A was then notified of the request. 29.  On 23 March 2001 the applicants were visited by their relatives and asked them to retain Mr M. and Mr. A. as counsel. 30.  At some point the first applicant informed the investigators that, since Mr M. had not visited him, he wanted to retain Mr A. He rejected assistance offered by other lawyers. On 24 March 2001 the first applicant’s mother, Mr M. and Mr A. were notified of his intention. On an unspecified date the head of the Advocates Office informed the investigators that the first applicant had signed no contracts for legal representation with either Mr M. or Mr A. On 3 April 2001 the investigator dismissed the first applicant’s request to retain Mr M. and Mr A. on the ground that he had not registered their appointment with the Advocates Office. 31.  On 2 April 2001 both applicants were charged with another offence in the presence of Mr O.P., Mr V.T. and Mr A. They refused to make any statements and stated that they did not need the lawyers’ assistance. The applicants studied the case file separately from Mr P. and Mr V.T. 32.  On 5 May 2001 the investigator refused a request for additional questioning of Mr Yu.I. 33.  On 17 July 2001 the trial against the applicants and their two co-accused commenced in the Leninskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya (“the trial court”). 34.  According to the first applicant, on 17 July 2001 he challenged Mr O.P. as counsel because he had seen the lawyer’s last name appear as the name of a police officer in a search report drawn up in respect of one of the first applicant’s co-accused. On 24 July 2001 Mr O.P. was not present at the hearing. 35.  According to the Government, on an unspecified date the second applicant stated that he did not wish to have Mr V.T. as counsel and asked to retain Mr A. Between 18 October and 8 December 2001 he was represented by Mr V.T. The trial court asked the first applicant whether he wished to appoint another lawyer, Mr I., as his counsel; the first applicant submitted that he did not need any assistance from lawyers. On 19 September and 21 October 2001 the first applicant again submitted that he needed no lawyers; he did not allege that his decision to defend himself had been motivated by any financial difficulties.
i.  Victims’ and witnesses’ statements 36.  On 17 July 2001 the first applicant requested the trial court to summon Mr Yu.I. and the sales assistants from the night shop “M.” who could confirm his alibi. The trial court agreed to summon Mr Yu.I. but refused to summon the sales assistants because their personal particulars were unknown. 37.  On 17 July 2001 the trial court summoned the five victims to attend the hearing scheduled on 24 July 2001. 38.  By letter of 18 September 2001 the victims informed the trial court that they refused to attend the hearing. Mr D.E., Mr Yu.D., Mr V.G. and Ms S.S. explained that they did so in the interests of their own security and that of their families. Mr R.I. said that he could not be absent from work as there was no one to replace him. All the victims also confirmed their pre-trial depositions and requested them to be read out at the trial in their absence. 39.  On 24 September 2001 the trial court summoned the five victims of the crime to attend the hearing scheduled on 8 October 2001. 40.  On 5 October 2001 Mr D.E., Mr Yu.D., Mr R.I., Mr V.G. and Ms S.S. sent the trial court a letter identical to that of 18 September 2001. 41.  On 26 October 2001 the trial court asked the parties if they had any objections to the reading out of the victims’ pre-trial statements. The defence objected, while the prosecution proposed to grant the victims’ request. The trial court found that the victims had not appeared at the hearing for a valid reason; that measures to ensure their attendance had been repeatedly taken; and that the victims had notified the trial court of their absence in advance. The victims’ pre-trial statements were read out. 42.  On 11 October 2001 the first applicant requested the trial court to summon Mr L. in order to clarify one point in his statement. The record of Mr L.’s pre-trial statement had been visibly corrected in pencil to the effect that the printed words “I did not give him any money” were replaced by “I have already given him the money”, which reversed the sense of the statement. The trial court granted the request. Mr L. failed to attend the hearing. According to the applicants, the trial court noted that the latter had been busy at work and asked each co-accused and their lawyers whether there were any objections to the reading out of Mr L.’s pre-trial statement. The first applicant objected. The court did not read out the statement but noted that the applicants themselves had made the correction while studying the case file. 43.  On an unspecified date the court granted a request by the first applicant to summon Mr Yu.I. The latter’s mother informed the trial court by telephone that her son had left home and that his whereabouts were unknown. 44.  Mr R.’s lawyer requested the trial court to summon Mr K., a prosecution witness who had been in Mr R.’s flat on the night of the events and who had stated that he had seen two unknown persons. The trial court noted that it was impossible to establish Mr K.’s whereabouts. 45.  On 26 October 2001 the trial court ruled on whether the statements of the absent witnesses should be read out. According to the Government, the defence raised no objections to the reading out of the pre-trial statements of Mr Yu.I., Mr K. and Mr L. According to the applicants, the defence objected to the reading out of the statements of Mr K. and Mr L. The record of the trial contained a note “No objections”. The printed wording of Mr L.’s statement and the statements by Mr Yu.I and Mr K. were read out. 46.  The trial court questioned the investigator who had dealt with the applicants’ case. He said that he had heard Mr L. saying that he had not given any money to the first applicant. 47.  The first applicant requested to summon Mr T., the police officer who had allegedly put the seized list of towns in his pocket. The court refused the request on the ground that Mr T. was on a business trip. Later, Mr T. appeared before the court and stated that an unidentified police officer had found the list of towns in the first applicant’s pocket. 48.  Mr R. testified against the second applicant in court in respect of the charge of illegal possession of arms. 49.  The second applicant requested to summon Mr I.P., who had allegedly lent him part of the money that the police had found in Mr R.’s flat. According to the second applicant, the court refused to do so because Mr I.P. had left Chuvashiya; the second applicant submitted that the investigators and the court had been aware of Mr I.P.’s whereabouts. The Government submitted that the court had summoned Mr I.P. but he had failed to appear at the hearing. 50.  The trial court granted a request by the second applicant to summon another defence witness, Mr M.A. The latter did not attend the hearing. 51.  On an unspecified date the court dismissed the first applicant’s request to summon the sales assistants who could allegedly confirm his alibi on the ground that they could not remember the first applicant because almost a year had elapsed between December 2000 and October 2001. 52.  The second applicant requested to summon officers of the traffic police squad who had been on duty at the police post near the crime scene on 6 December 2000. He submitted that the squad should have registered all cars passing by the police post and the fact that his car had not been seen by the police could have confirmed his alibi. On an unspecified date the court dismissed the request on the ground that the policemen could not remember all the cars they had seen that night. 53.  The court read out the pre-trial statement by the second applicant’s sister confirming that she had given her brother the money. 54.  The statements of two prosecution witnesses, Mr G. and Mr Tr., were not read out at the hearing; the trial court did not take them into consideration.
ii.  The applicants’ statements 55.  On 18 October 2001 the first applicant requested the trial court to declare the record of his pre-trial questioning inadmissible evidence on the ground that he had been questioned in the absence of a lawyer. He alleged that he had made a self-incriminating statement under police pressure. According to the first applicant, the trial court delivered no ruling in this respect and read out the pre-trial statement. 56.  The second applicant testified at the trial. As his testimony differed from his pre-trial statement, the court decided to read out the latter.
iii.  The applicants’ interlocutory applications and requests 57.  The first applicant challenged the stipendiary judge and the lay judges. He submitted that the bill of indictment had been based on inadmissible evidence. On 11 October 2001 the trial court dismissed the challenge as unsubstantiated. 58.  Requests by the first applicant to order an additional graphology examination of the list of towns seized from him and a graphology examination of the threatening note presumably written by Mr Sh. were dismissed. 59.  Both applicants challenged the court’s secretary, claiming that she had erred when drafting the record of the trial. The challenge was dismissed on 29 October 2001 as unsubstantiated. 60.  The trial court dismissed a request by the applicants to organise a reconstruction of the events. 61.  Certain items of physical evidence collected by the investigation were not presented at the trial. The trial court read out the expert’s report of his examination of the said items drawn up at the pre-trial stage. The first applicant requested to summon the expert who had drawn up the report. The request was dismissed.
iv.  The applicants’ conviction 62.  On 8 November 2001 the trial court found the first applicant guilty of robbery with violence and the second applicant of robbery with violence and illegal possession of firearms and sentenced each of them to nine years’ imprisonment. The applicants were acquitted of the other charges. 63.  The trial court found that the applicants’ guilt was confirmed by the statements of all the victims, the prosecution witnesses – that is, the investigator, Mr T., Mr K. and Mr L. – and in particular by the statement of Mr L. that he had not given any money to the first applicant, and other items of evidence, including the list of towns seized from the first applicant and two portable radios belonging to the applicants. The trial court further found that no credit could be given to the statement of the second applicant’s sister because she had only been trying to help her brother. 64.  When enumerating the pieces of evidence in the judgment, the trial court summarised the second applicant’s pre-trial statement as follows: “[the second applicant] had 100,000 roubles’ worth of money. They had no portable radio transmitters. Mr Polufakin and [the second applicant] each kept the money in their plastic bags.” It did not expressly rely on that statement to prove the second applicant’s guilt. 65.  On 17 November 2001 the second applicant sent his comments on the record of the trial to the trial court. He noted, in particular, that it was recorded on page 71 that there had been no objections to reading out the witnesses’ pre-trial statements despite the fact that he had objected and had requested that the witnesses’ reasons for their absence be stated. 66.  On 21 November 2001 the trial court agreed to amend the record of trial in accordance with some of the second applicant’s comments. Numerous comments, including the one concerning page 71, were rejected.
(b)  The second-instance proceedings 67.  The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya (“the appeal court”) against the first-instance judgment on the grounds, inter alia, that the victims and the prosecution witnesses had not been questioned at the trial and that certain points of the victims’ and witnesses’ pre-trial statements had not been clarified. They further alleged that the trial court had relied on inadmissible evidence and that the expert examination report of the physical evidence had been expressed with a certain degree of probability. The first applicant complained about the trial court’s refusal to conduct an additional graphology examination of the list of towns but did not expressly raise an issue of inadmissibility as evidence with regard to this item. 68.  The second applicant’s lawyer, Mr A.T., was absent at the appeal hearing. According to the second applicant, his request to adjourn the hearing due to the lawyer’s absence was dismissed by the court. According to the Government, Mr A.T. was duly informed of the date of the appeal hearing but failed to attend it. The second applicant did not request to postpone the hearing due to his lawyer’s absence. The appeal court studied Mr A.T.’s points of appeal. The first applicant defended himself before the appeal court. 69.  On 8 January 2002 the appeal court upheld the judgment of 8 November 2001. It stated, inter alia, that the applicants’ guilt had been proven by the victims’ pre-trial statements and other evidence, and that the guilt of the first applicant had also been proven by the list of towns found in his wallet. The appeal court further noted that the trial court had taken measures to secure the victims’ and witnesses’ presence and that their statements had been read out in accordance with domestic law.
(c)  The applicants’ further requests 70.  The trial court dismissed requests by the applicants for access to the case file on 15 and 21 November 2001. 71.  Requests by the applicants for supervisory review were dismissed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya on 3 and 14 March 2003 and by the Supreme Court of Russia on 14 November 2003 and 15 March 2004. 72.  The applicants also complained to the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation, but to no avail. 73.  Between 8 and 18 December 2000 the applicants were kept in the temporary detention centre of Cheboksary. The conditions of detention there were poor. In particular, the first applicant’s cell, located in the basement, was not equipped with a lavatory pan; there was no running water; and the temperature was below 10º Celsius. 74.  Between 18 December 2000 and 24 January 2002 the applicants were kept in the remand prison of Cheboksary. The first applicant’s cell was overcrowded and scantily equipped. On his arrival at the remand prison the first applicant underwent blood tests that revealed no infection with hepatitis C. 75.  Between 24 January and 16 February and 19 May and 4 June 2002, the first applicant was kept in remand prison IZ-16/2, Kazan. The second applicant was kept there between 24 January and 22 February 2002. Their cells were overcrowded. 76.  Between 17 and 23 February and 17 and 18 May 2002, the first applicant was kept in remand prison IZ-66/1, Ekaterinburg. At some point he shared a cell with some eighty inmates. 77.  Between 26 February and 4 March 2002 the first applicant was kept in remand prison IZ-24/1, Krasnoyarsk. His cell was overcrowded. On 28 February 2002 the first applicant complained in writing to the head of the Federal Penitentiary Service (Федеральная служба исполнения наказаний, ФСИН – hereinafter “the FSIN”) of the Krasnoyarsk Region of the poor conditions of his detention; of the fact of his transfer to Siberia; and of unlawful acts by the convoying officers that had escorted him. He also requested that he be placed in an infirmary and provided with an inhalator. He received no reply to his complaint. 78.  Between 5 and 7 March and 14 and 26 April 2002, the first applicant was kept in the transit area of detention facility U-235/15, the Krasnoyarsk Region. On 5 March 2002 he complained to the head of the FSIN of the Krasnoyarsk Region of the poor conditions of detention. He received no formal reply, but was interviewed by the head of the transit area. 79.  Between 7 March and 14 April 2002 the first applicant was kept in Central Hospital No. 2, the Krasnoyarsk Region, in satisfactory conditions. While in hospital, he underwent blood tests that revealed no infection with hepatitis C. 80.  Between 27 April and 16 May 2002 the first applicant was kept in remand prison IZ-55/1, Omsk. He shared a cell with eighteen inmates. The windows in the cell were covered with iron sheets.
(b)  The Government’s account 81.  Between 24 January and 16 February and 19 May and 4 June 2002, the first applicant was kept in remand prison IZ-16/2, Kazan. The cells were properly equipped. Inmates had an opportunity to use sanitary installations when necessary and could wash in a bath-house once a week. 82.  The first applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-66/1, Ekaterinburg, between 18 and 23 February 2002. His cell measured 35 sq. m and held nine inmates together with the first applicant. He was also kept in that facility from 17 to 18 May 2002 in a cell which measured 17 sq. m and held thirteen inmates. 83.  Between 26 February and 4 March 2002 the first applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-24/1, Krasnoyarsk. His cell measured 45 sq. m and was equipped with twenty-six beds. At the material time it held twenty-two inmates. The first applicant made no complaints concerning the conditions of his detention to employees of the prosecutor’s office of the Krasnoyarsk Region who regularly visited IZ-24/1. 84.  Between 5 and 7 March and 14 and 26 April 2002, the first applicant was kept in the transit area of correctional facility U-235/15, the Krasnoyarsk Region. He was kept in a cell measuring 50 sq. m. No more than fourteen other inmates were kept there at the same time as the first applicant. 85.  Between 7 March and 14 April 2002 the first applicant was kept in Central Hospital No. 2 of the Main Department of the FSIN of the Krasnoyarsk Region. He underwent a medical check-up. As a result, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic arthritis of the left knee and considered unfit to serve the sentence in the penitentiaries of the Krasnoyarsk Region. 86.  Between 27 April and 16 May 2002 the first applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-55/1, Omsk. He shared a cell, which was designed for four persons, with three inmates. 87.  On an unspecified date it was decided that the first applicant should be transferred from Kazan to the Krasnoyarsk Region to serve his sentence. 88.  At the Kazan railway station the first applicant and twelve to fifteen other detainees were placed in a special carriage for detainees in a compartment designed for eight persons. As there was not enough space, the convoying officers used force when placing the detainees in the compartments. 89.  The conditions of transportation were extremely poor: the first applicant and other detainees were underfed during the journey; before leaving remand prison IZ-66/1, Ekaterinburg, the first applicant had received three loaves of bread from the authorities and was not given any other food for the next three days of transportation by rail. 90.  At various railway stations detainees were escorted by different groups of convoying officers. When loading detainees onto trains at railway stations, members of each convoying group used similar practices. In particular, once at a railway station detainees were forced to squat with their heads down. Then the convoying officers ordered them to rise, with their heads still down, and to run forward in the direction of their carriages. Detainees carried their heavy bags in their outstretched arms. Each detainee had to link arms with another. The convoying officers beat those who did not obey.
(b)  The Government’s account 91.  On 16 February 2002 the first applicant was convoyed to Kazan railway station and put on a train to Ekaterinburg. He shared a compartment with five other detainees. On 17 February 2002 the train arrived at Ekaterinburg railway station. The first applicant did not complain to servicemen of the FSIN of the Sverdlovsk Region of the conditions of his transportation. 92.  On 23 February 2002 the administration of remand prison IZ-66/1 provided the first applicant with a seventy-two hour ration. Then the first applicant was put on a train to Krasnoyarsk. He was placed in a big compartment together with eleven other detainees; the convoying officers did not use force against him. The journey lasted fifty-five hours and fifty-one minutes. On 26 February 2002 the first applicant arrived in Krasnoyarsk. He made no complaints concerning the conditions of his transportation. 93.  On 4 March 2002 the administration of remand prison IZ-24/1 provided the first applicant with a twenty-four hour ration and sent him to Krasnoyarsk railway station. The first applicant was put on a train and placed in a big compartment that he shared with nine other detainees. The convoying officers respected the detainees and did not use force against them. On 5 March 2002 the train arrived at Reshoty railway station, the Krasnoyarsk Region. The first applicant did not complain of the conditions of transportation or of ill-treatment to the convoying officers. 94.  On 26 April 2002 at Reshoty railway station the first applicant was put on a train to Omsk. He shared a big compartment with ten other detainees. The carriage was properly equipped. 95.  On 16 May 2002 in Omsk the first applicant was placed on a train to Ekaterinburg. He shared a compartment with ten other detainees. No force was used against him. He did not complain of the convoying officers’s actions. 96.  On 18 May 2002 in Ekaterinburg the first applicant was put on a train and placed in a compartment together with five other detainees. On 19 May 2002 the first applicant arrived in Kazan. He did not complain of the convoying officers’ actions. 97.  On 4 June 2002 the first applicant was transferred to correctional facility UE-148/5 in Sviyazhsk, the Tatarstan Republic.
(a)  The first applicant’s account 98.  The correctional facility was overcrowded as 2,300 inmates were detained in premises built for 1,000 persons. In summer there was no hot water. Once a week inmates, who were divided into groups of 250, were allowed to wash in a bath-house equipped with only six working showers. Each group was limited to two hours in the bath-house. 99.  The UE-148/5 infirmary lacked the medicines that the first applicant needed because of his asthma; the catering was very poor; and the food lacked vitamins. 100.  The prison authorities occasionally lost the detainees’ documents and did not allow the inmates to make copies of their respective case files, thus precluding them from complaining to the competent authorities. 101.  On 6 December 2002 the acting head of UE-148/5 punished the first applicant by placing him in a disciplinary cell. The first applicant complained to the court of unlawful actions by an official. His complaint was dismissed by a final decision of 18 December 2003. 102.  In March 2006 the first applicant learned that on 10 June 2002 he had been diagnosed with hepatitis C. 103.  In his observations of 10 November 2006 the first applicant submitted that 1,700 detainees had been in UE-148/5 at that time.
(b)  The Government’s account 104.  Detainees kept in UE-148/5, the strict-regime correctional facility, lived in residence halls. They could stay inside the halls during certain hours and spent the rest of their time in other premises, such as production units. 105.  On 9 June 2002 the first applicant was allocated an individual sleeping place in the residential hall of brigade no. 7. His cell measured 90 sq.m and accommodated forty-four inmates, which allowed 2.04 sq.m of space per person. 106.  On 7 April 2003 the first applicant was transferred to the residential hall of brigade no. 16 and allocated an individual sleeping place. His cell measured 35 sq.m and accommodated seventeen inmates, which allowed 2.06 sq.m of space per person. 107.  On 5 September 2003 the first applicant was returned to the residence hall of brigade no. 7 and allocated an individual sleeping place. He shared a cell measuring 90 sq.m with forty-one inmates. Each inmate was allocated 2.14 sq.m of space. 108.  On 15 April 2004 the first applicant was transferred to the residential hall of brigade no. 8 and allocated an individual sleeping place. His cell measured 90 sq.m and accommodated forty inmates. Each inmate was allocated 2.25 sq.m of space. 109.  The sanitary facilities of the three residence halls were properly equipped as required by domestic law. In particular, the residence hall of brigade no. 8 comprised three dormitories, with 130 beds in total. It was equipped with a washroom measuring 25 sq.m, in which there were five showers, a mirror, a shelf, a urinal and a foot bath. 110.  There was a properly equipped bath house in UE-148/5 where detainees could wash once a week in accordance with a schedule. 111.  There were five wash basins with cold and hot water taps in every residence hall. While inside the residence halls, detainees could use the wash-basins and lavatory pans when necessary. The production units were equipped with sanitary facilities and wash basins. 112.  The nutrition that detainees received in UE-148/5 corresponded to the norms established by law. UE-148/5 had been fully supplied with food while the first applicant was detained there. The UE-148/5 administration duly controlled the quality of the food. 113.  While in UE-148/5 the first applicant was under constant medical supervision. He underwent regular medical check-ups and received the requisite treatment when necessary. 114.  The first applicant was not detained with those suffering from tuberculosis and hepatitis. Detainees who had earlier suffered from tuberculosis and carriers of the hepatitis virus were under preventive monitoring, but were not contagious. 115.  On 10 June 2002 the first applicant underwent blood tests that revealed that he had been a carrier of the hepatitis C virus. The first applicant showed no clinical signs of hepatitis. 116.  The second applicant suffered from chronic hepatitis B and C. According to the medical certificate issued by the Town Outpatient Polyclinic of Naberezhnye Chelny on 24 April 2003, the second applicant needed a specific diet, vitamins and hepatoprotective medicines. He was also recommended constant medical supervision. 117.  On 13 October 2003 the second applicant received two NO-SPA tablets in the UE-148/2 infirmary. 118.  On 15 January 2006 the second applicant was transferred to the prison hospital of the FSIN of Tatarstan. While being transported by rail he lost consciousness. The convoying officers had no medicines to help him to recover his senses. On the same date he was admitted to the prison hospital. 119.  Between 15 January and 14 February 2006 the second applicant was kept in ward no. 2 of the prison hospital. The ward had only one small window measuring 20 x 20 cm and lacked fresh air and natural light. During that period the second applicant was treated with a glucose solution and Carsil, a hepatoptotective medicine. 120.  While in the hospital, the second applicant complained in writing to a district prosecutor’s office of a lack of medicines and qualified medical assistance in the prison hospital. 121.  On 15 February 2006 the second applicant was transferred to ward no. 4, which had bigger windows. He learned that his inmates were HIV-positive. 122.  The second applicant was treated with medicines which his brother had bought on the doctors’ recommendation, including hepatoprotective medications Heptral and Essenciale. He was losing weight despite keeping to the prescribed diet. 123.  By letter of 24 August 2006 the doctor of the prison hospital informed the second applicant’s lawyer that some medicines administered to the second applicant had been purchased by his relatives. She also said that it could not be established whether the second applicant needed anti-viral therapy as he had been discharged from the prison hospital and noted, further, that such therapy was to be administered only after a complex examination that could not be carried out in penitentiary institutions.
(b)  The Government’s account 124.  In 1995 the second applicant was registered at the Outpatient Polyclinic no. 4 of Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatarstan, as suffering from chronic viral hepatitis B and C with a high degree of replication activity. 125.  While in detention, the second applicant regularly underwent medical check-ups and chest X-rays that revealed no clinical evidence of tuberculosis. There was no clinical evidence confirming that he suffered from cirrhosis. 126.  On 21 February 2001 the second applicant received treatment for a respiratory viral infection. In August and November 2001 he was treated for neurodermatitis. He had no traumas or bodily injuries. 127.  On 19 December 2005 the second applicant was placed in the UE-148/5 infirmary and diagnosed with advanced chronic viral hepatitis C. He was treated, in particular, with Heptral and Essenciale. On 13 January 2006 he was discharged from the UE-148/5 infirmary. 128.  On 15 January 2006 the second applicant was admitted to the prison hospital of the FSIN of Tatarstan and diagnosed with active chronic viral hepatitis C with cholestatic syndrome and impaired cytolic response, and with moderate liver dysfunction. He received adequate treatment, but did not keep to the prescribed diet. 129.  On 21 March 2006 the second applicant’s state of health was described as stable. 130.  On 29 March 2006 the second applicant was discharged from the hospital and transferred to UE-148/5.


7.  The applicant was born in 1978. She is from Baghdad and is of Mandaean denomination. She was once married, but divorced her husband in 1999, after which she lived with their son, born in 1998, in Iraq while her former husband moved to the United States. 8.  The applicant arrived in Sweden on 27 August 2007 and applied for a residence permit the following day and for asylum on 21 January 2008. She stated that she and her son had left Iraq on 25 July 2007 and had then stayed with relatives in Amman, Jordan, for a month. In Amman she had left behind her son, because she had not been able to afford his trip. Later, her former husband had come to Jordan and brought the son back with him to the United States. To the Swedish authorities the applicant submitted an Iraqi citizenship certificate, an identity card, divorce documents and a membership card for Mandaeans regarding her and her son. 9.  Assisted by legal counsel, the applicant stated in essence the following in support of her application. Her main reason for leaving Iraq was the generally insecure situation for Mandaeans in Iraq, which had affected her and her family personally. Her fears had led to her son going to school only sporadically during the past year. Moreover, at the beginning of June 2007 her mother had received a threatening phone call from someone who had wanted to contact the applicant, presumably to forcibly remarry her with another man. If they did not comply, the applicant understood that her family would have to leave the neighbourhood. They had taken the threats very seriously and she had moved immediately with her son to her grandmother’s house in the al-Dora neighbourhood of Baghdad, where they had stayed for a month. The applicant further stated that her only remaining relative in Iraq was her mother. 10.  On 31 October 2008 the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) rejected the application and ordered the applicant’s deportation to Iraq. The Board held that she had not proved her identity, but that she had made it plausible that she was from Iraq. It further considered that the situation in Iraq as such did not constitute grounds for asylum. While noting that Mandaeans were an exposed minority, their general situation did not suffice either for an individual be granted protection, but his or her personal circumstances would have to be assessed. The Board went on to state that the applicant had not submitted any written evidence in support of her allegations of persecution. Furthermore, she had received a threat on only one occasion and it had not been shown that the person threatening her had referred to her religious beliefs. Nor was there any other indication that she had been ill-treated on account of those beliefs or that she had received other threats before leaving Iraq. The Board then noted that the applicant’s brother, who had also applied for asylum in Sweden, had had his application rejected and his deportation to Iraq ordered and that, consequently, the applicant would likely not lack a male network upon return to Iraq. In conclusion, the Board found that she had not made it probable that she was at personal risk of being subjected to serious ill-treatment if she returned to Iraq. 11.  The applicant’s brother, who had arrived in Sweden on 18 December 2007, had his application for a residence permit rejected by the Migration Board on 2 October 2008. 12.  The applicant appealed, adding the following to her story. Mandaeans, being the smallest and most vulnerable minority in Iraq, were subjected to extortion, kidnappings and murder. Mandaean women and children had been forced to convert to Islam, often after having been assaulted and raped. The Mandaeans were not a large enough community to be able to protect and support each other and there was no particular region where they could settle safely. This was enough to show that she was in need of protection. The applicant asserted that the threat against her had to be seen against this background. Her whole existence had been marked by the threatening atmosphere and demands directed at non-Muslim women and in particular the Mandaeans. Her situation had been further aggravated by the fact that she is a single woman without a social network in Iraq. Her mother had had the intention of leaving the country as well, but the applicant had no information on her whereabouts. Furthermore, in Sweden the applicant had met a Muslim man from Iraq together with whom she now lived. This situation would never be accepted in Iraq. Also, when she had talked about her new relationship in Sweden, her family had reacted very negatively and had virtually frozen her out. 13.  On 14 December 2009 the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) upheld the decision of the Board. The court acknowledged the difficult situation for Mandaeans in Iraq and stated that, consequently, a lower threshold was applied in assessing the individual risks than in Iraqi cases in general. The general situation for Mandaeans did not suffice of itself to be granted protection, however; an assessment of the applicant’s individual circumstances was necessary. In the absence of written evidence, the court went on to examine the statements made by the applicant. It considered that the threat received concerning forced marriage was primarily related to the general security situation in Iraq at the time. In the two years since the applicant had left the country, the security situation had improved. While the Mandaeans remained disadvantaged, there was no sign that she was still being searched for in Iraq. Nor was there anything to indicate that her mother’s possible exile had been caused by continued threats. The court further found that the negative reaction of the applicant’s family to her new relationship did not imply a need of protection. In that connection, it further noted that the asylum appeal lodged by her brother, who had not turned his back on her, had been rejected on the same day. Thus, she could return to Iraq with him and thereby have a social network in the country. 14.  On 16 February 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrations-överdomstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal. On 25 February 2010 it refused leave to appeal also in the applicant’s brother’s case. 15.  Subsequently, the applicant, as well as her brother, claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of their deportation orders. Their petition mainly concerned the brother’s period of active duty in the Iraqi army, during which he had gained knowledge of important people in the army and their illegal actions. This knowledge would put both the applicant and her brother at risk if they were returned. The applicant further claimed that her mother had been kidnapped. 16.  On 8 May 2010 the Migration Board rejected the petition, finding that no new circumstances justifying a reconsideration had been presented. It considered that the claims made in relation to the brother did not in any way show that there were threats against him or the applicant. The allegation that the mother had been kidnapped was actually new, but it was unclear when this incident was supposed to have happened and there was nothing to conclude that the possible kidnapping had any personal connection to the situation of the applicant and her brother. The applicant did not appeal against the Board’s decision. 17.  On 23 August 2010 the applicant submitted a letter to the Migration Board, which was perceived by the Board as a new petition for reconsideration. The applicant stated that, if she were forced to return to Iraq, she would have to do so without her current partner or her brother, who were both in Sweden. Her partner had been issued a visa to Syria, as he was born in Damascus, and could not return to Iraq. Consequently, they would be separated, because she could not travel to Syria since she lacked a passport and would not be granted a visa. The applicant further asserted that she had no relatives in Iraq. 18.  On 25 August 2010 the Migration Board decided not to reconsider the case. Although the fact that the applicant’s partner had been granted a visa to Syria was considered to be new, the Board stated that this fact did not constitute a lasting impediment to the enforcement of the deportation order. The applicant did not appeal against the Board’s decision. 19.  The respondent Government have submitted the following notes to the Court, taken from the files of the Migration Board. The applicant’s mother was living with relatives and friends in Baghdad. When the applicant left Iraq, her grandmother and cousins were living in the al-Dora neighbourhood of Baghdad. In Sweden, the applicant has been living in the same flat as her brother and her partner from October 2009 onwards. Her partner left Sweden in October 2010 to be reunited with his family in Syria, whereas her brother is still in Sweden. Furthermore, in reply to the Government’s request for information in the case, the Migration Board had stated that it was likely that the applicant had a large number of relatives left in Baghdad. 20.  The applicant has given the following additional account to the Court. Following her divorce in 1999, she went to live with her parents and her brother. Her father, under whose protection she was living, died in 2005. Her grandmother, with whom she had briefly lived after the threatening telephone call, died in 2008. To her knowledge, she has no relatives left in Iraq, cousins or others. Several relatives are living abroad, in Sweden, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Spain and Canada. Her sister is living in Denmark. After the applicant and her brother had left Iraq, their mother went to live with a Christian family in Baghdad, from whom she rented a room. In the beginning of 2010, the applicant and her brother received information about their mother’s disappearance. The family with whom the mother had lived called the applicant’s uncle in Sweden and said that they did not think that she had left voluntarily. A police report, sent to the uncle only in 2012, states that the report was filed on 7 June 2011 by the mother’s landlord, who had told the police that the mother had been missing since 5 December 2010. The applicant does not know why the landlord did not file a report earlier or why he did not state that her mother had been missing for several months before December 2010. The applicant is still unaware of what has happened to her mother following her disappearance. However, given the time that has passed without any contact with her, she assumes that she is dead. The applicant is still in a relationship with the man she met in Sweden, although he is now living in Syria. The people who disowned her because of that relationship were her relatives in Sweden, with the exception of her brother. The brother married a relative, who is a Swedish citizen, on 27 May 2012. He left Sweden and applied at the Embassy in Tehran for a Swedish residence permit based on his marriage. By a decision of 5 November 2013 the Migration Board granted him a residence permit until 5 November 2015.


4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Berlin. He studied educational science and aircraft engineering and piloting in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). From 1969 until 1990 he worked for the GDR airline Interflug. 5.  On 4 December 2000 he applied for the transfer of alleged future pension rights under one of the additional pension schemes for certain professions or groups (Zusatzversorgungssysteme). On 20 February 2002 the applicant's request was dismissed. His subsequent administrative appeal, submitted on 13 March 2002, was rejected on 26 July 2002. 6.  On 30 August 2002 he brought an action in the Social Court, which, following a hearing on 20 January 2003, dismissed the action, finding that the applicant did not qualify for any of the additional pension schemes. The judgment was served on the applicant on 20 February 2003. On 18 March 2003 he appealed the judgment. 7.  On 18 June 2003 the Federal Social Court rendered a decision concerning a similar subject-matter, which was consistent with the Social Court's decision in the instant case. On 28 August 2003 the Social Court of Appeal advised the parties of the Federal Social Court's decision and classified the case as ready for decision. 8.  During the course of the appeal proceedings the applicant's representative declared that he was seeking fundamental clarification of the subject-matter before the Federal Constitutional Court. The Social Court of Appeal therefore awaited a decision of that court. 9.  On 24 April 2006 the judge rapporteur enquired whether the appeal was to continue after the Federal Constitutional Court on 1 March 2006 (file no. 1 BvR 320/06) had declined to admit for examination a constitutional complaint in a similar case. 10.  On 8 May 2006 the applicant's representative announced that he would submit further observations until 30 June 2006. After a reminder of the Social Court of Appeal on 15 August 2006 these observations were submitted on 20 December 2006. 11.  On 16 February 2007 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and refused to grant leave to appeal on points of law. On 15 March 2007 the judgment was served on the applicant's representative. 12.  Within the statutory time limit the applicant's representative objected to the refusal to grant leave to appeal on points of law and reasoned the objection on 15 June 2007. On 22 January 2008 the Federal Social Court dismissed the objection as inadmissible. This decision was served on the applicant's representative on 1 February 2008.


4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Syrotyne, Ukraine. 5.  The applicant worked at “Obyednannya Azot” (Сєверодонецьке державне виробниче підприємство «Об’єднання Азот»), a State chemical company, from 1978. According to the applicant, in December 2000 – January 2001 he was diagnosed as having chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (хронічний лімфолейкоз), a blood cancer. On 26 June 2001 the diagnosis was reaffirmed by a medical expert and he was recognised as having a work-related illness. 6.  In June 2001 the applicant was dismissed because of his absence from work. The applicant alleged that the real reason for his dismissal was his attempts to establish a casual link between his illness and work. 7.  In July 2001 an internal investigation relating to the applicant’s illness was held. A report of 16 July 2001 revealed a number of shortcomings on the part of the employer, including a disregard for minimum work safety conditions, which had led to the applicant’s illness. 8.  The applicant is now in the final stages of the disease. 9.  In January 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Severodonetsk Town Court against “Obyednannya Azot” challenging the reason for his dismissal and seeking compensation for his work-related illness. 10.  Shortly after that, on 31 January 2002, the local department of the State Social Security Fund (Сєверодонецьке відділення виконавчої дирекції Фонду соціального страхування від нещасних випадків на виробництві і професійних захворювань) was joined to the applicant’s case as a co-defendant. 11.  On 2 April 2002 the court split the dismissal claim against “Obyednannya Azot” and the compensation claim against “Obyednannya Azot” and the State Social Security Fund (the “Fund”) into two separate sets of proceedings. 12.  On 29 May 2002 the court stayed the compensation proceedings pending the determination of the dismissal proceedings. 13.  On 23 December 2004 the Severodonetsk Town Court discontinued the dismissal proceedings as “Obyednannya Azot” and the applicant had reached a settlement. 14.  On 28 March 2005 the court went on to examine the compensation claim. 15.  On 20 July 2005 and 15 August 2006 the court ordered forensic medical and psychiatric examinations. 16.  According to the applicant, on 19 January 2007, in order to expedite examination of his case, he was required to relodge his claim against the Fund for compensation for his work-related illness in administrative proceedings (see paragraph 23 et seq.). He also requested the court to discontinue examination of his claim against the Fund in civil proceedings. At the same time, he made a fresh claim against “Obyednannya Azot”, seeking compensation for unlawful dismissal, and requested the court to continue the civil proceedings in his claim against “Obyednannya Azot” seeking compensation for his work-related illness. These requests were granted on the same day. 17.  On 20 April 2007 the Severodonetsk Town Court rejected the applicant’s claims against “Obyednannya Azot”. 18.  On 4 December 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and gave a new one. In particular, it found in part for the applicant and awarded him 1,500 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in compensation for unlawful dismissal; the claim for compensation for the applicant’s work-related illness was dismissed as unsubstantiated. 19.  On 15 February 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. 20.  On 12 June 2008 the State Bailiffs’ Service refused to institute enforcement proceedings as the writ of enforcement lacked the necessary information about the debtor. 21.  On 24 October 2008 it was concluded, following an internal investigation held by the superior officials of the State Bailiffs’ Service, that the above refusal was lawful. 22.  The judgment of 4 December 2007 is still, apparently, not enforced. 23.  On 19 January 2007 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Severodonetsk Town Court against the local department of the Fund seeking an amount in respect of insurance and compensation for non-pecuniary damage as a result of his work-related illness. 24.  On 19 June 2007 the court rejected the applicant’s claim. 25.  On 14 September 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 19 June 2007. 26.  The applicant appealed in cassation and the proceedings are still pending before the Higher Administrative Court.


4.  Mr Miller was born in 1972 and he resides in Stockton-on-Tees, Mr Morrison was born in 1970 and he resides in Aberdeen and Mr Gillespie was born in 1974 and he resides in Greenock. They are represented before the Court by Mr Blades, a lawyer practising in Lincoln. 5.  In April 1996 the first applicant was a soldier and the second applicant was a non-commissioned officer in the regular forces of the British Army. On 29 April 1996 they were charged along with two others (pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955) with four counts of indecent assault contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. 6.  The convening officer, by order dated 26 July 1996, convened a general court-martial to try them. On 10 September 1996 the first applicant was found guilty on two of the charges and was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment and to be dismissed with disgrace. The second applicant was found guilty on three of the charges and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, to be dismissed from the service with disgrace and to be reduced to the ranks. On 19 December 1996 the confirming officer reduced the first applicant's sentence to two years' imprisonment and the second applicant's sentence to three years and six months' imprisonment, but otherwise the findings of the court-martial were confirmed. 7.  The applicants petitioned the Defence Council against conviction and sentence. By letters dated 18 February 1998 and 27 February 1997, their representatives were informed of the decisions (taken by the Army Board) to reject their petitions. 8.  Both applicants applied to the single judge of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court (“CMAC”) for leave to appeal to that court against conviction and sentence. The first applicant pointed to various alleged failings by the judge advocate during the court-martial and argued that his sentence was excessive. The single judge granted leave to appeal to the full CMAC. Before the full CMAC, the first applicant added a new ground of appeal (that he did not have a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, citing Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I). The second applicant argued before the single judge that the judge advocate had erred and misdirected the court and that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (referring also to the Findlay judgment). The single judge granted leave to appeal to the full CMAC. 9.  On 4 March 1996 the applicant, a soldier of the regular forces of the British Army, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955) with wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and with inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of that Act. 10.  The convening officer, by order dated 13 August 1996, convened a general court-martial. On 6 September 1996 the applicant was found guilty on the first charge and of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the 1861 Act. He was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment and to be discharged from the army. 11.  His petition against sentence to the confirming officer was rejected and his conviction and sentence were promulgated on 10 October 1996. By letter dated 20 November 1996, his legal representatives were informed that his petition against sentence had been rejected by a Reviewing Authority appointed by the Army Board of the Defence Council. By letter dated 24 March 1997, the applicant's representatives were informed of the decision (taken by the Army Board) to reject his petition against sentence. 12.  On 20 May 1997 he presented a further petition to the Army Board of the Defence Council against conviction arguing that he had not had a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (referring also to the above-cited Findlay judgment). By letter dated 22 May 1997, he was informed that the Reviewing Authority had decided not to waive the relevant time-limit which had by then expired. It was also indicated in that letter that the “Findlay issue” had been frequently rejected by the Army Board and by the CMAC. 13.  His application to the single judge of the CMAC was dated 18 July 1997 and raised the Findlay issue together with the fact that he could not appeal against sentence only to the CMAC. On 6 October 1997 the single judge rejected that application considering that the grounds of appeal were not arguable. He renewed his application for leave to appeal to the full CMAC raising the same points. 14.  In response to these appeals, affidavits were filed on behalf of the Ministry of Defence explaining that neither the presidents nor the members of the applicants' courts-martial had been under the command of the convening officer and that none had been subordinate to him in the chain of command. Accordingly, the convening officer would not have reported on either the president or the members of the court-martial in their annual confidential reports. A policy decision had been taken that, as from 1 January 1996, all courts-martial would be composed of a president and members who were not in the chain of command of the convening officer. 15.  The applicants' appeals were rejected by detailed judgment of 13 November 1998. As to the “Findlay point”, the CMAC noted the change in policy as regards the constitution of courts-martial in place since January 1996. It considered that there was no chain of command influence and no obvious reason why any observer knowing the constitution of the courts-martial and the full facts would suspect any lack of independence or impartiality. In any event, the CMAC pointed out that the applicants' reliance on the Findlay judgment was misconceived as the only power of the CMAC was to enquire as to whether the convictions were unsafe. Where there was abundant evidence to support the conclusion of the courts-martial which had been properly convened in accordance with domestic law, the composition and behaviour of which had not been criticised, the CMAC considered that there was no possible reason to intervene. It noted that the time for having regard to the provisions of the Convention had not yet been reached, but it was difficult to see, even in such circumstances, how the provisions of Article 6 could be of any assistance to the applicants.


4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Sukhodolsk, Lugansk region. 5.  On 31 March 1997 the Krasnodon Court awarded the applicant's husband UAH 27,669 from his former employer, the State Mining Company “Duvannaya”, in compensation for health damage inflicted by a work accident. 6.  In May 1998 the applicant's husband died. 7.  On 27 June 2000 the Presidium of the Lugansk Regional Court, upon the prosecutor's protest lodged under the extraordinary review procedure, quashed the judgment of 31 March 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown. 8.  On 21 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnodon Court against the State Mining Company “Duvannaya” claiming compensation for health damage allegedly due to her late husband. 9.  Between September 2000 and November 2001 seven out of nineteen hearings were adjourned due to the respondent's representative failure to appear before the court. 10.  On 18 March 2002 the Krasnodon Court found against the applicant. 11.  On 4 July 2002 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal (former Lugansk Regional Court) upheld this judgment. 12.  On 2 August 2002 the applicant lodged with the Krasnodon Court her appeal in cassation. She was requested by the court's secretary to pay the postal expenses for sending her case-file to the Supreme Court. 13.  On 27 November 2002 the Supreme Court returned the case-file to the Krasnodon Court as the applicant also challenged the ruling of 27 June 2000, which was not attached to the case-file. 14.  On 24 October 2003 the Supreme Court returned the case-file to the Krasnodon Court as its ruling of 27 November 2002 was not fulfilled. The Supreme Court further explained that the ruling of 27 June 2000 could not be appealed within the pending proceedings. 15.  On 30 October 2003 the case-file was sent back to the Krasnodon Court. 16.  On 12 April 2004 the Krasnodon Court allowed the applicant until 27 May 2004 to rectify the shortcomings of her appeal in cassation. Following the applicant's request, the time-limit was extended until 25 June 2004. 17.  On 2 August 2004 the case-file was transferred to the Supreme Court. 18.  On 6 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.


4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Zagreb. 5.  On 28 May 1990 a certain D.I. (“the plaintiff”) brought a civil action against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking the conclusion of a sale contract by which the applicant was to sell her flat to the plaintiff. 6.  On 6 November 1990 the applicant filed her response and a counter-claim alleging that the plaintiff did not pay her the full price for the flat. 7.  In November 1990 the plaintiff requested that the case be joined to another case pending between the same parties. In November 1991, July and November 1992 the applicant requested the court to schedule a hearing. In May 1994 the applicant objected to the plaintiff’s request to have the two cases joined. 8.  The court held hearings on 21 November 1990, 14 February, 8 April and 22 November 1994 and 7 March 1995. 9.  By a judgment of 7 March 1995 the Municipal Court accepted the plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the applicant’s counter-claim. On 23 October 1996 the applicant appealed. 10.  On 9 June 1998 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) accepted the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case. 11.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held a hearing on 19 July 1999. On that date it decided to close the main hearing. 12.  On 15 October 1999 the applicant requested the court to reopen the main hearing and obtain an opinion from a financial expert. On 10 November 1999 the court accepted the applicant’s request. 13.  On 21 January 2000 the court heard witnesses and requested the applicant to advance the costs of the expert. On 26 January 2000 the applicant did so. 14.  On 2 February 2000 the court appointed an expert. On 19 May 2000 the expert submitted his report to the court which then forwarded it to the applicant, who received it on 28 August 2000. 15.  On 11 October 2000 the Municipal Court closed the main hearing. 16.  By a judgment of 11 October 2000 the court again accepted the plaintiff’s claim and declared inadmissible the applicant’s counter-claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 2 July 2001. 17.  The plaintiff and the applicant appealed on 10 July and 12 July 2001, respectively. In her appeal, the applicant also applied to be exempted from the court fees. The appeals were forwarded to the County Court, which received them on 8 February 2002. 18.  On 15 October 2002 the Zagreb County Court, without deciding on the admissibility or merits of the appeals, returned the case-file to the Municipal Court. It instructed the latter to decide on the applicant’s application for exemption from the court fees and the plaintiff’s ‘appeal’ which, in fact, constituted an application for a rectification of the judgment. 19.  On 14 September 2004 the Zagreb County Court accepted the appeals, quashed the Municipal Court’s judgment of 11 October 2000 and remitted the case. 20.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 8 March 2005. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. 21.  Meanwhile, on 9 May 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 14 November 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint on its merits. It examined the length of the proceedings in respect of their part following the Convention’s entry into force with respect to Croatia. The Constitutional Court found that the case was complex since it had already been remitted once and because the Municipal Court needed to obtain an expert’s opinion. It also found that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings in that until May 1994 she had not objected to the plaintiff’s proposal of November 1990 to have that case joined to another one. Only then did she argue that the second proceedings were irrelevant.


4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine. 5. On 19 March 2004 the Moskovskiy District Court of Kharkiv (“the court”) partly allowed the applicant’s claims and awarded him 4,643.42 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and compensation for loss of earnings, to be paid by the State-controlled company “Serp i molot”. 6.  The applicant did not appeal against this decision under the ordinary appeal procedure, but on 3 February 2005 he lodged a cassation appeal against it. On 4 February 2005 the court returned the applicant’s cassation appeal since the relevant decision had not been appealed under the ordinary appeal procedure. 7.  The applicant states that he received the ruling of 4 February 2005 when the time-limit for lodging an appeal against it had already expired. The applicant did not provide this Court with any document certifying that he had requested the domestic courts to renew the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the ruling of 4 February 2005. 8.  On 31 August 2004 the Moskovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kharkiv initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19 March 2004. 9.  Following insolvency and liquidation proceedings instituted against the company, on 10 October 2007 the latter was closed down and removed from the relevant enterprises’ register. 10.  In 2007 the applicant received UAH 163.71. The remainder of the judgment has not been enforced.