5.  The first applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Constanţa. 6.  On 30 June 2005 he was placed during his pre-trial detention in Poarta Albă Prison. On 9 November 2006 he was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. He served his sentence in the same prison until 16 February 2010, when he was conditionally released. 7.  The first applicant alleged that there had been severe overcrowding, having had to share cells measuring 35 sq. m. with fourteen other prisoners without proper ventilation. He further alleged that there had been a severe lack of hygiene, no provision of hygiene products, a lack of heating during the winter, a lack of bedclothes, an infestation of lice and bugs in the cells, as well as frequent water and power cuts and poor quality water. 8.  In addition, he alleged that strip-searches were conducted regularly on groups of prisoners in the prison yard, even during the winter, with prisoners being bullied by guards. In this connection, the first applicant submitted statements made by three inmates who declared seeing such a search conducted on prisoners, including the first applicant, in December 2006. 9.  The Government submitted that Poarta Albă Prison had been built in 1949 and that no changes were made to the size of the cells since. They further submitted that the prison authorities held no information with respect to the number of persons with whom the first applicant had shared his cell before 5 February 2010, the date a regulation requiring such statistics to be logged entered into force. Hence, between 5 and 16 February 2010 the first applicant had been placed in a cell measuring 68.09 sq. m, which he shared with fourteen other inmates. 10.  With respect to hygiene conditions, the Government mentioned that all prisoners had unrestricted access to water and sanitary facilities, while access to showers was allowed twice per week. In addition, hygiene products and bedclothes were provided to all prisoners in accordance with the regulations and within the limits of the budget available. The Government also mentioned that internal prison regulations provided that prisoners could bring or buy their own hygiene products or bedclothes – the first applicant had been given permission to receive bedclothes from his family on two occasions. The Government also submitted that, according to the governor of Poarta Albă Prison, regular disinfections had been carried out between 2005 and 2010. 11.  The Government further contended that Poarta Albă Prison had its own heating system with wood-burning stoves and a heating program which provided adequate warmth. In this connection, they submitted documents showing that between 2008 and 2010 certain quantities of wood were consumed each year, while certain quantities remained unused. 12.  Lastly, according to documents submitted to the Government by the prison governor, potable water and food were tested regularly and were in compliance with hygiene standards. 13.  On 6 June 2013 the applicants’ representatives at the time informed the Court that the applicant Andrei Dumitrof no longer wished to pursue his application. 14.  Two letters, in which Mr Dumitrof’s attention was drawn to the fact that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application, were sent by the Court by registered mail directly to him on 30 July and 29 October 2013. The letters remained unanswered and were returned to the Court on 25 September and 5 November 2013 marked “Unknown recipient” and “Recipient moved from the address” respectively.


5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is currently serving a prison sentence. Since his sentence began, he has been imprisoned in a number of prisons in Romania. 6.  On 22 January 2007 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of murder. 7.  On 10 July 2007 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to seventeen years and six months’ imprisonment. 8.  According to the information provided by the National Prisons Administration (Administraţia Naţională a Penitenciarelor, the “ANP”), from his arrest to January 2012 the applicant was mainly held in Târgu Jiu, Craiova, Giurgiu, Gherla and Arad Prisons. Every two or three months he spent about a week in a prison hospital, in one of Jilava, Colibaşi or Dej Prisons.
During the reporting period, the applicant was transferred forty-seven times between these eight facilities; fifteen of these transfers were to the psychiatric wards of prison hospitals. 9.  The applicant alleged that in all of the prisons in which he had been held other inmates had tried to poison his food and to beat him to death, and had been encouraged to do so or even helped by the prison authorities. 10.  On 14 March 2007, while in detention, the applicant was diagnosed with delusional disorder, a type of psychosis. Psychiatric treatment in Jilava Prison Hospital was recommended. 11.  According to the official prison records, each time the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital the diagnosis was confirmed. From 2007 to March 2010, each time he was discharged from prison hospital he was prescribed medication for his psychiatric disorder. It is mentioned in the official prison records that he refused to accept the diagnosis and to take his medication. For this reason, he was on each occasion discharged from hospital and transferred back to prison. 12.  From March to July 2010 the applicant spent two periods of two weeks and one period of one week in Jilava Prison Hospital. He was discharged from hospital each time, it being considered that no medication was needed for his psychiatric condition. Following a further period of admission to Colibaşi Prison Hospital in September 2010, he was given medication again. 13.  On several occasions the applicant reported to the authorities that the other inmates were trying to poison him. According to him, instead of receiving an answer to his complaints, he was transferred each time to a psychiatric hospital. He also asked to be placed in a cell alone, in order to prevent other attempts at poisoning him. 14.  According to the information provided by the ANP, the quality of food was tested daily, and water quality was tested periodically. The results were satisfactory. The applicant was never admitted to the infirmary with symptoms of poisoning. 15.  In 2009, in Craiova Prison, he was transferred, at his request, to the maximum security wing of that prison, where he shared a room with two others. While he was there, the applicant nevertheless chose to sleep in a small bathtub (measuring 80 cm by 80 cm) in the unheated bathroom from November 2009 to February 2010, as he feared that his cellmates were trying to poison him while he was asleep. 16.  The applicant lodged criminal complaints against the prison guards, the doctor and the governor of Craiova Prison, whom he accused of improper behaviour. On 10 March 2010, 31 March 2010 and 8 July 2011 the Prosecutor’s Office decided not to bring a criminal prosecution. It noted that there was no evidence that prison officers had encouraged the inmates to poison or beat the applicant. The prosecutor also noted that the applicant had never sought medical help in prison for any poison-related symptoms and that he had never been in conflict with the other inmates or with the wardens. The prosecutor took account of the fact that the applicant had been diagnosed with mixed delusional disorder and that he had been compulsorily admitted to hospital several times, but discharged only a few days later, because he had refused to acknowledge the illness or to receive treatment. 17.  Upon receiving the prosecutor’s decision of 10 March 2010, the applicant asked to be examined by the National Institute for Forensic Medicine (“the Forensic Institute”) to prove that he was not mentally ill. 18.  In Gherla Prison, the applicant chose to sleep on the toilet seat to avoid the alleged poisoning and used to wake up in the middle of the night to rinse his mouth, being certain that he had been poisoned in his sleep. According to the official prison records, the most difficult stage of his detention in Gherla Prison was in April 2010, when he repeatedly complained that the administration was promising benefits for inmates if they poisoned his food and water. 19.  In February 2010 the applicant went on hunger strike to force the prison administration to place him alone in a cell. The judge delegated by the court of appeal to supervise the observance of prisoners’ rights for the purpose of Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences (“the post‑sentencing judge”) visited him and explained that his request could only be met if there were places available in individual cells, which was not the case at that time. In a decision of 24 February 2010 the post-sentencing judge determined that it was appropriate for the applicant to be kept in common dormitories but asked that he be seen daily by a doctor during his hunger strike, to ensure that his life was not endangered. 20.  In 2011, a similar request to be placed alone was denied by the Craiova Prison administration, as there were no individual cells available. 21.  The applicant asked to be transferred to Rahova Prison Hospital, in a single room under medical supervision, from September to November 2009. His request was refused, as it was considered that the conditions of detention in Craiova Prison were appropriate. 22.  On 8 September 2009, 9 November 2009 and 15 June 2011 the Craiova Prison administration responded to inquiries by the ANP concerning the applicant’s allegations of poisoning, explaining the applicant’s mental health problems. In the letter of 15 June 2011 they also informed the ANP that the applicant was not “a person in need” who required the help of another person, as he could take care of himself, notably wash and feed himself.
At the end of its investigation, the ANP informed the applicant that his allegations remained unfounded. 23.  The applicant lodged similar complaints with the post-sentencing judge.
On 9 November 2010 such a complaint concerning the situation in Giurgiu Prison was dismissed as unfounded. On 12 February 2009 the post‑sentencing judge dismissed a similar complaint concerning Craiova Prison as unfounded. 24.  On 30 August 2008, while in Târgu Jiu Prison, the applicant was involved in a violent incident. 25.  According to the applicant, he was beaten up by three inmates and stabbed in the lungs, kidneys, spleen and other organs by H.G. He was only taken to the doctor seven days after the incident and never received a copy of the medical certificate. Despite the applicant’s complaints H.G. was never punished for the attack. 26.  According to the official prison records, the applicant was found injured by a guard and immediately taken to the prison infirmary, where he refused to be bandaged. As a consequence, he was immediately taken to a civilian hospital. Later on, he was also examined by a forensic doctor, who confirmed the existence of lesions and established that the applicant needed nine to ten days of medical care but that his life had not been endangered. 27.  During disciplinary proceedings opened in the prison, the applicant refused to give statements or to get acquainted with the official reports. On 10 September 2008 the disciplinary commission punished H.G. with three days’ isolation. On 21 November 2008 the same disciplinary commission exonerated the applicant of any responsibility for the incident; a copy of this decision was forwarded on the same day to the applicant. 28.  No criminal complaint was filed with respect to that incident.


8.  The first applicant, Bronisław Rosenzweig, is a German national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Berlin. The second applicant is “Bonded Warehouses Ltd”, a public company. 9.  On 18 February 1994 the Main Customs Office granted a licence to run a bonded warehouse in Słubice to the applicant company “International Bonded Warehouses Ltd.”. 10.  On 29 May 1995 the German customs office at Frankfurt/Oder stated in writing that the German customs authorities had no objections to the operation of the applicant company. 11.  On 1 June 1995 a further permit was given for exporting merchandise via the border crossing in Słubice by the Director of the local Customs Office in Słubice. 12.  The applicant submitted that it had been repeatedly suggested that the company should pay various bribes to the customs officials if it wished to continue its operation undisturbed. The Government did not respond to this submission. 13.  By a letter of 22 November 1995 the Director of the local Duty Office in Słubice stated that from 27 November 1995 on he would revoke the permit of 1 June 1995 for exporting merchandise via the Słubice border crossing. It was argued that the permit of 1 June 1995 was not in conformity with an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the border crossings and trans-border movements of goods and persons. 14.  On 27 November 1995 the customs officers ordered that the headquarters of the applicant company be closed and affixed official seals on its door, preventing it thereby from conducting further business. On the same day the applicant company complained to the Main Customs Office, submitting that there were no legal grounds on which the permit should be revoked and that the letter of 22 November 1995 was not an administrative decision, which made it impossible to lodge a formal appeal against it. 15.  In a letter of 21 December 1995 the applicant company reiterated its complaint and stressed that the director of the Słubice Customs Office had failed, despite the company's repeated requests, to give any legal basis for the revocation of the permit. It was argued that the revocation of the permit breached economic freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution, and clearly infringed the terms of a valid licence which the company had received from the Main Customs Office in February 1994. 16.  On 9 February 1996 the applicant company lodged a complaint under Article 17 of the Supreme Administrative Court's Act about the Main Customs Office's failure to give a decision following the appeal of 27 November 1995. It was submitted that the company had a valid permit given under the provisions of customs law. However, the company's operation had been de facto rendered impossible by the letter of 22 November 1995 as it could not run the warehouse if it was not allowed to export merchandise. 17.  In reaction to this complaint, on 14 February 1996 the Main Customs Office informed the applicant company that the permit of 1 June 1995 was of a temporary character. It was to remain valid only until a bridge in nearby Świeck was to be constructed. After the construction of this bridge had been terminated, the border crossing in Słubice was to be used only for small trans-border movement of goods and persons. This was to be understood as allowing for crossing of the border by persons, but taking merchandise out of the country via this crossing did not fall within the ambit of the notion of the “small trans-border movement of goods and persons” and therefore the permit of 1 June 1995 had to be revoked under Article 21 of the Customs Law. 18.  The applicant company appealed, submitting that the revocation of the exporting permit would practically mean that the company had to stop its business operation, carried out under the valid licence of February 1994.
On 21 August 1996 the applicant company and the Director of the Legal Department of the Main Customs Office concluded a settlement to the effect that the applicant company would withdraw the appeal it had lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court against the position taken by the Office in its letter of 14 February 1996 and the President of the Office would set aside the decision of the Director of the Słubice Customs Office of 22 November 1995. 19.  On 21 December 1996 the Main Customs Office set the decision of 22 November 1995 aside and ordered that the question be re-examined by the Director of the Słubice Customs Office. 20.  By a letter of 31 January 1997 the German customs office at Frankfurt/Oder confirmed that the German customs authorities had no legal objections whatsoever against the operation of the applicant company. 21.  On 28 May 1997 the Rzepin Customs Office revoked the permit for exporting merchandise by the applicant company via Słubice, stating that the Słubice border crossing was under Polish law designed only for the so‑called “small trans-border movement of goods and persons” and that, therefore, no merchandise could be exported via this crossing. 22.  The applicant company appealed. 23.  On 20 August 1997 the Main Customs Office quashed the decision of 28 May 1997 and discontinued the proceedings, considering that the impugned decision had been in breach of applicable provisions of procedural law since it had not been given in any of the types of proceedings on the merits provided for by the Code of Administrative Procedure. 24.  The applicant company requested that the legal meaning of this decision be interpreted. It emphasised that it was important for it to have clarified whether the original permit of 1 June 1995 was still valid. This, on the plain meaning of the text of this decision, was unclear. 25.  In an interpretative decision of 23 September 1997 the Main Customs Office explained that the fact that the decision of 28 May 1997 had been set aside was to be understood in such a way as to mean that the legal situation existing before this decision had been given still obtained. 26.  The applicant company requested that this issue be re-examined, asking whether the quashing of the decision of 28 May 1997, revoking the permit of 1 June 1995, was to mean that this permit was still valid. 27.  In a decision of 14 November 1997 the Main Customs Office held that the purpose of the decision of 23 September 1997 was not to decide whether the permit of 1 June 1995 was still valid. It upheld the decision of 23 September 1997. 28.  The applicant company appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, arguing that the decisions of the Main Customs Office lacked clarity. The Office had set aside the revocation of the permit, but did not confirm whether the original permit was valid. Therefore it was impossible to establish what was the actual legal situation of the company as far as the validity of its permits was concerned. The applicant company emphasised that it was de facto treated by the customs authorities as if the export permit of June 1995 had been effectively revoked. 29.  In a judgment of 2 April 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of 23 September and 14 November 1997. The court found that the decision of 23 September lacked clarity in that it did not allow the applicant company to elucidate the fundamental uncertainty as to the legal consequence of this decision. Neither were these doubts dispelled by the decision of 14 November in which the Main Customs Office had failed to explain what was the legal situation of the applicants' permit to run their business, and in particular, whether it could still rely on the permit of 1 June 1995. 30.  By a decision of 5 June 1998 the Main Customs Office stated that the decision of 20 August 1998 was to be understood in such a way that the applicant's rights stemming from the decision of 1 June 1995 remained intact. 31.  On 20 June 1998 the Main Customs Office instituted proceedings in order to have the licence to run the warehouse of 18 February 1994 set aside, considering that the applicant company had not been conducting its business for a period longer than three months, without having informed the competent authorities thereof, as required by law. 32.  On 30 November 1998 the Main Customs Office set aside the 1994 licence to run the warehouse, having found that after 20 August 1997 the applicant company had ceased its business activities. Under the provisions of the Customs Code, the customs authorities were obliged to withdraw the licence to run the bonded warehouse if the company enjoying such licence was not exercising it for a period longer than three months. 33.  The applicant company appealed. It argued inter alia that it could not have run the warehouse after 20 August 1997, given that the Słubice Customs Office had withdrawn its permit for exporting merchandise by the applicant company via Słubice, which had made it impossible to continue its business operation. 34.  On 5 March 1999 the Main Customs Office, having re-examined the case, discontinued the appellate proceedings. The office observed that the applicant was wrong in confusing the proceedings regarding the validity of the June 1995 permit with the present proceedings, in which it was the validity of the earlier licence, granted in 1994, which was at issue. The validity of the 1994 licence had not been questioned in the previous proceedings and therefore there were no grounds on which to accept that the applicant was prevented to run its business. 35.  It further noted that the proceedings had to be discontinued since on 1 January 1998 a new Customs Code had entered into force. It provided that various customs licences issued under the old Customs Act were to remain valid for twelve months, during which companies having such licences could lodge new requests to have new licences issued. The applicant company had not submitted such request and the validity of its 1994 licence had consequently expired on 31 December 1999. Therefore the proceedings would not serve any purpose and should be discontinued. 36.  The applicant company appealed. It argued, inter alia, that when giving the contested decision, the Main Customs Office had breached the law in that it entirely failed to take into consideration all circumstances relating to the proceedings concerning the withdrawal of the permit to export. These proceedings, which had lasted from August 1997 until June 1998, had rendered it impossible for the company to continue its business operation. Therefore it was unreasonable to revoke the 1994 licence on the ground that the company had ceased its business activities. 37.  On 5 November 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of 5 March 1999 as not being in compliance with law. It considered that the Main Customs Office had incorrectly held that the proceedings had become devoid of purpose. At the time when they had been instituted, i.e. on 20 June 1998, the applicant company's licence was still valid. It therefore had a legal interest in clarifying its legal situation and to confirm whether it was still authorised to run its business. 38.  On 23 March 2000 the Main Customs Office, having regard to the judgment of 5 November 1999, set aside the decision of 30 November 1998, revoking the 1994 licence to run the warehouse. 39.  The applicant company did not resume its operations afterwards. The first applicant submitted that as a result of the withdrawal of the permit and the licence to run the company, described above, it was impossible for him as the principal shareholder and, likewise, for the applicant company, to resume their business operations.   It is the withdrawal of those decisions authorising the company to run its business which constitute the basis of the applicant's claims of pecuniary damage under Article 41 of the Convention. The Government did not respond to this argument.


8.  The applicant company, “Intersplav” (hereinafter “the applicant”), is a joint venture enterprise, based in the town of Sverdlovsk in the Lugansk Region, Ukraine. 9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 10.  The applicant manufactures goods using recycled scrap metal purchased in Ukraine, bearing a 20 % VAT rate. The major part of the applicant’s production is exported from Ukraine at a zero VAT rate. The applicant is thereby entitled to a refund of the VAT due on the price of the scrap metal. Under the Law on Value-Added Tax (see the Domestic Law part below) such a refund should be made within a one-month period following the applicant’s submission of the relevant calculations to the local tax administration. If the refund is delayed, compensation is payable. Both payments (the refund and compensation) are made by the State Treasury upon the submissions of the relevant tax authority. 11.  Since April 1998, the VAT refund to the applicant has been systematically delayed due to the failure of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to confirm the amounts involved. For the same reason, the applicant could not receive compensation for the delayed VAT refund. 12.  Since 1998, the applicant has complained to the Lugansk Regional Tax Administration and the State Tax Administration about the failure of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to issue certificates for the VAT refunds on time. However, these authorities found no illegalities in the actions of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration, whilst recognising the existence of the State’s debts to the applicant. 13.  The applicant also complained to the Sverdlovsk Prosecutor and the General Prosecutor’s Office, without any result. 14.  In its letter of 22 October 2002, the applicant claimed that further obstacles had arisen in running its business, including new discriminatory legislation, transport controls by the police, and judicial proceedings against its employees for defamation instituted by the Tax Administration. 15.  Since 1998, the applicant has instituted a number of proceedings, more than 140[1] so far, in the Lugansk Commercial Court against the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration and the State Treasury Department in order to receive compensation for the delayed refund of the VAT. 16.  In the proceedings during 1999-2000, the applicant requested the court to oblige the Tax Administration to confirm the amounts of compensation due to the applicant. The court found for the applicant and ordered the tax administration to issue the requested confirmation for the amounts claimed. 17.  In the proceedings during 2001-2003, the applicant changed the subject of its claim and requested the courts to award it the amounts of the VAT refund and compensation directly. The Tax Administration and Treasury both opposed the claims; the former on the basis of an alleged lack of competence in VAT refunding, the latter on the basis of the impossibility of refunding any VAT without prior confirmation of such an amount by the Tax Administration. The court found for the applicant and awarded the claimed amounts in its decisions between 2001 and 2004. It confirmed the applicant’s right to compensation for the various delayed VAT refunds. 18.  The court decisions given between 1999 and 2002 were executed within periods ranging from four days to two years and eight months. The oldest decision that remained unenforced in February 2004, according to the applicant, was given on 18 March 2003. 19.  In its further correspondence, the applicant maintained that the Tax Authorities claimed that the court decisions given in its favour should not be directly enforceable, but would require the prior confirmation of the awarded amounts by the Tax Administration. 20.  On 17 March 2004 the applicant lodged a claim with the Lugansk Commercial Court against the Lugansk Regional Department of the State Treasury and the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration for their refusal to enforce the judgments rendered by the said court in the period between March 2003 and February 2004 (see the annex) and for a proposal to convert the amounts awarded by the above judgments into loan bonds with a five-year term. 21.  On 24 May 2004 the court found for the applicant and ordered the defendants to enforce the impugned judgments. 22.  The applicant maintained that, as of 18 June 2004, the amount of the State debt to the company confirmed by court decisions was UAH 26,363,200 (around EUR 4,119,250).


6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Zelenograd. 7.  On 5 February 1999 three police officers from the Metro police (милиция метро) at Leningradskiy railway station in Moscow, L., S. and I., arrested the applicant and another person, R., on suspicion of burglary. They took them to the Komsomolskaya Metro police station for questioning and urged the applicant to confess. The applicant refused and asked to be provided with a lawyer. Angry about this request, the policemen punched the applicant in the upper body and the head. 8.  Later, the policemen took the applicant to a special Metro police station for further questioning. According to the applicant, as soon as the interrogation had begun, the policemen beat him to make him sign a confession they had prepared. The applicant refused to sign. Angry about this refusal, the policemen cuffed the applicant’s hands behind his back, dropped him on the floor, and applied electric shocks to his neck, kidney and liver areas and private parts. They kicked the applicant in the stomach, put him in a chair, and beat his head with a document file until he fainted. Fifteen minutes later the policemen told the applicant that they would hand him over to officers from the Sokol district police station because the burglary had been committed in that district. 9.  The officers from the Sokol district police station questioned the applicant and placed him in a temporary detention unit. Three days later, the applicant was transferred to remand prison SIZO–48/5. 10.  On the applicant’s admission to the prison, the doctor on duty observed injuries on his body. He sent the applicant to a first-aid point to record the injuries. 11.  On 10 February 1999 the staff at the first-aid point recorded the following injuries sustained by the applicant:
“Bruises on the soft tissue of the left auricle, right forefinger and right elbow joint and an abrasion on the left shin.”
The applicant explained that the injuries were caused by the ill-treatment he had received from the policemen. 12.  On 22 February 1999 the prison administration asked the public prosecutor of the Golovinskiy District to investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. The prosecutor referred the request to the Metro public prosecutor (прокурор Московского метрополитена) because it was Metro police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. 13.  The applicant’s criminal case was submitted for trial in the Golovinskiy District Court. At the trial, the court questioned as a witness L., the policeman who had arrested the applicant, who stated that he had not used physical coercion against him. The applicant recognised L. as the man who had beaten him. The court asked the Metro public prosecutor about the results of the inquiry (прокурорская проверка) into the alleged ill-treatment. On 9 June 1999 the Internal Investigations Department of the Moscow police informed the court that the applicant could have been injured when being transported to the remand prison. 14.  On 5 October 1999 the court convicted the applicant and R. of burglary and sentenced them to four years and four months’ imprisonment. The court found the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment unsubstantiated, stating:
“The use of physical coercion [against the applicant and R.] by the policemen has not been corroborated by the results of the inquiry conducted.” 15.  On 15 December 1999 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 16.  On 26 June 1999 the Metro public prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators on the ground that there was no indication that a crime had been committed. On 31 October 1999 the applicant asked the Moscow public prosecutor to quash the decision of 26 June 1999. 17.  On 17 January 2000 the Moscow public prosecutor quashed the decision of 26 June 1999 rendered by the Metro public prosecutor and referred the case back for further investigation. 18.  On 24 January 2000 the Metro public prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings against the policemen for the second time. 19.  On 28 January 2004 a Moscow deputy public prosecutor quashed the decision of 24 January 2000, finding that it was superficial. He noted, in particular, that no medical examination had been carried out to establish the method by which the injuries had been inflicted and their gravity and, furthermore, that O. and D., persons who had been detained simultaneously with the applicant and had sustained similar injuries, had not been questioned. He referred the case back for further investigation. 20.  On 5 March 2004 the deputy Metro public prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen for the third time on the ground that there was no indication that a crime had been committed. In the decision it was noted that the policemen L., S. and I., who had arrested the applicant, had stated that they had not used physical coercion against him. Three other policemen, K., Z. and J., who had been on duty at the police station on 5 and 6 February 1999, were also questioned. K. stated that during his shift the applicant had not been brought to the police station. Z. and J. submitted that on 5 February 1999 at around 2 p.m. two persons had been brought to the police station; however, no physical force had been used against them and no procedural steps had been taken that day. O. and D., the persons who had been detained simultaneously with the applicant, could not be questioned because they did not reside in Moscow any more. As regards the injuries noted in the medical report of 10 February 1999, it was impossible to determine when and in what circumstances they had been inflicted.


4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Kherson. 5.  In 1996-1997 the applicant’s neighbours, Mr and Mrs P., who lived on the second floor of a two-storey dwelling house, reconstructed their two flats. As a result of this, the applicant’s flat on the first floor of the same house and the property in it were flooded and damaged. 6.  On 10 September 1997 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Komsomolskyy Court against Mr and Mrs P., by which she asked it to declare unlawful the reconstructions they had made, sought elimination of obstacles in using the house and claimed damages. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a similar claim against the local authorities, by which she also sought refutation of information published in a local newspaper concerning the applicant’s alleged failure to pay for the utilities and claimed damages in this respect. 7.  Between 9 September 1998 and 24 April 1999 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the applicant’s criminal complaint concerning the matter, which was eventually dismissed as unsubstantiated. 8.  On 28 August 2001 the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of Mr P. because of his death. 9.  Following two reconsiderations of the case, on 31 August 2005 the court allowed in part the applicant’s claim, declared the reconstructions made by Mrs P. unlawful, obliged her to repair the house and the applicant’s flat and ordered Mrs P. to pay the applicant certain amounts in compensation. The court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the applicant’s claim against the local authorities. 10.  On 12 December 2005 and 24 January 2008, respectively, the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal and the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld the above judgment. On 14 April 2008 the applicant was served with a copy of the decision of 24 January 2008. 11.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant amended or specified her claims on six occasions and on one occasion she requested the courts to extend the time-limit for lodging her appeal. Nineteen hearings were adjourned upon the applicant’s request or due to her failure to attend them. Thirty-five hearings were adjourned mainly due to the respondents’ or third parties’ failure to attend them and because of the absence of the judge. Three expert examinations were ordered in the course of the proceedings and lasted for about three months (in June-July 1999 and in May 2004). 12.  The applicant disagreed that she had been responsible for the adjournment of some of the hearings mentioned by the Government.


5.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1958, respectively, and live in Szolnok. 6.  The applicants intended to set up an enterprise and started to raise funds in March 1994. They contacted a loan agency and signed a real estate sales contract with an individual concerning their detached house on 12 March 1994. Change of ownership was registered on the basis of this contract on 14 July 1995. 7.  In August 1995 the applicants brought an action before the Szolnok District Court requesting the court to order restitutio in integrum by declaring the contract invalid. The fact of the existence of these proceedings (perfeljegyzés) was registered in the Land Registry. This case ceased after a six-month stay by mutual agreement of the parties. However, for unknown reasons, the registration of the proceedings was not deleted from the register until July 1998. 8.  In June 1998 the real estate was sold to a third party. After the deletion of the registration of the civil proceedings described above from the land register, the new owner was entered in that register on 25 August 1998. On 21 September 1998, after having been informed about these events and having unsuccessfully attempted to settle the case otherwise, the applicants brought an action before the Szolnok District Court, identical to the previous one, together with claims about other loan contracts between the same parties. 9.  On 4 March 2004, after holding a hearing in June 2002, the District Court dismissed the applicants’ action in part. It established that, although the contract was ostensible, restitutio in integrum was impossible since the applicants had failed to bring their action before the court in due time. 10.  The District Court pointed out that the purchase contract evidently concealed a loan and was thus invalid. However, this could not have any effect on the acquisition by a third party, whose good faith had not been successfully challenged by the applicants. It relied on paragraph 31(2) of Law-Decree no. 31 of 1972 on the Land Registry which provided – in order to secure the legal certainty of the real estate market – that in such disputes, a third-party proprietor could not be deprived of his acquisition after sixty days of his date of entry in the register, provided that he had acted in good faith and the decision to make the entry in the register had been served on the former owner. 11.  However, applying paragraph 237(2) of the Civil Code, the court restored the financial balance between the parties, taking into account the ostensible purchase contract and other loan contracts. All in all, it obliged the defendants to pay the applicants 8,082,214 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 32,300 euros (EUR)) plus accrued interest, from which HUF 4,160,000 (approximately EUR 16,300) was to compensate for the loss of the property. 12.  All the parties appealed. The Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 20 October 2004. 13.  The Regional Court confirmed that restitutio in integrum was impossible in this case, although it gave different reasoning. It noted that the sixty-day deadline could not be applied since the decision to enter the third party’s acquisition in the register had not been served on the applicants. It also observed that, flowing from the above-mentioned provision of the Law-Decree, after three years no change could be made at all to this entry in the land register. It further stated that paragraph 63(2) of the new Act on the Land Registry (no. 141 of 1997) ruled the same way. The Regional Court saw no reason to depart from the remaining findings of the District Court, including the value of the real estate, which was not in dispute during the appellate proceedings. 14.  The applicants lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 24 May 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed their petition.


8.  The first and second applicants were born in 1950 and 1953 and currently live in Moscow, the Russian Federation, and Kutaisi, Georgia, respectively. They are husband and wife. 9.  The first applicant was the deputy mayor of Kutaisi, the second largest city in Georgia, from 1993 to 1995 and the managing director of the company operating the Kutaisi Automotive Plant (“the factory”), one of the most important public companies in the country, from 1995 to 2000. On 29 December 2000 he was appointed chairman of the factory’s supervisory committee at the shareholders’ general meeting. 10.  The first applicant owned 12.95% of the shares through purchases made in 1998 and 2002 and was the principal shareholder in the factory after the State (78.61% of the shares). The second applicant owned 2.6% of the shares, purchased in 2002, so together the couple owned a total of 15.55% of the shares. 11.  The first applicant was kidnapped in December 2002. After being severely ill-treated by his abductors, he was released in exchange for a large ransom paid by his family. 12.  On 12 March 2004 the first applicant was accused of illegally reducing the share capital of the factory, for which he had first been responsible as managing director and then as chairman of the supervisory committee. He was charged with making fictitious sales, transfers and write‑offs, and spending the proceeds without regard to the company’s interests (Article 182 of the Criminal Code – “abuse of authority by embezzling and misappropriating the property of others”). 13.  On 15 March 2004 the police and the Kutaisi prosecutor went to the first applicant’s workplace to arrest him. The arrest was filmed by journalists and broadcast on a local private television station the same night. The broadcast consisted of an interview with the prosecutor following footage showing the first applicant’s arrest and escort down a flight of stairs, with his arms held by policemen and surrounded by journalists. The prosecutor made two comments in respect of the matter: that the documents seized during a search of the first applicant’s office “were relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation and would be assessed and analysed”, and that the charge which the first applicant faced carried up to twelve years’ imprisonment. 14.  The prosecutor’s interview was followed by that of the Governor of the Region. The Governor, without making any reference to the first applicant or the criminal proceedings against him, declared, among other things, that the State, which was “experiencing difficult times [due to a political crisis], would not stray from the path that it had chosen in pursuit of the identification of those who had devoured public money ... which was exactly why pensions and salaries had not been able to be paid on time”. 15.  On 16 March 2004 the first applicant appointed a lawyer to protect his interests. 16.  When questioned for the first time as a suspect on 17 March 2004, the first applicant, assisted by his lawyer, protested his innocence and exercised his right to silence. 17.  On the same day the prosecuting authority brought an application before the Kutaisi City Court to have the first applicant detained pending trial arguing that the first applicant, who was accused of a crime of a serious nature, might try to evade justice, prevent the discovery of the truth and pursue his criminal activities. Ruling on this request on an unspecified date, the City Court decided to place the first applicant in detention for three months. Applying Article 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), the first applicant challenged that decision before the Kutaisi Regional Court, which dismissed his appeal on an unspecified date. 18.  On 25 March 2004 the first applicant sent a letter to the prosecuting authority, which read as follows: “Since I am not indifferent to the future of the automobile factory and consider it possible to settle the problems [I am having] with the State, I express my readiness to forfeit the shares in the factory which are currently in my and my wife’s possession to the State.” 19.  On 14 June 2004 the first applicant’s detention pending trial was extended by the Kutaisi Regional Court until 15 July 2004, and in July 2004 it was extended until 15 September 2004. 20.  During the first four months of his detention the first applicant was detained in the same cell as the person charged with his kidnapping in 2002 (see paragraph 11 above) and another person serving a sentence for murder. After the Public Defender’s Office complained of that fact on the ground that it put the applicant’s physical and psychological well-being at risk, the prison authorities transferred the applicant to another cell. 21.  On 1 August 2004 the first applicant and his lawyer were given access to the criminal case materials. On 6 August 2004 the first applicant appointed a second lawyer to protect his interests in the proceedings. 22.  On 6 September 2004 the investigation was terminated, and the first applicant was indicted on the aforementioned charges. Having acquainted himself, with the assistance of his two lawyers, with the case file in its entirety, he again protested his innocence but confirmed his intention to cooperate with the investigation. 23.  On the same day both applicants transferred their shares free of charge, representing an overall total of 15.55% of the factory’s share capital, to the State. 24.  According to a written statement in the case file from Mr G.T., a worker in the factory, on 6 September 2004 he and nine other employees of the factory transferred their shares to the State ex gratia, at the request of the prosecuting authority, in connection with the criminal proceedings against the first applicant and in exchange for the latter’s release from detention. The case file contains a copy of the relevant ex gratia agreements dated 6 September 2004. 25.  The file also contains a witness statement by Mrs M.I., the second applicant’s sister-in-law, that the public prosecutor had also demanded that the first applicant’s family pay 50,000 laris (GEL) (about 21,000 euros (EUR)) to the Fund for the Development of State Bodies ensuring the Protection of the Law (“the Development Fund”) in order to conclude a “procedural agreement” releasing the first applicant from detention. Thus, the public prosecutor had supplied them with the documents necessary for the transfer, adding that the first applicant’s name must not appear as the one paying the money. The public prosecutor insisted that the money not be paid to the Development Fund directly by the applicants. Mrs M.I. therefore agreed to pay the required amount in her own name. 26.  As confirmed by the relevant bank-transfer receipt, that payment was made on 8 September 2004, with Mrs M.I.’s name duly appearing on the document as the source of the transfer. 27.  On the following day, 9 September 2004, the first applicant filed a written statement with the public prosecutor, requesting him to arrange a “procedural agreement” (hereinafter a “plea bargain”), which procedure had been introduced into the Georgian judicial system in February 2004. The applicant specified that, whilst considering himself to be innocent, he was willing to reach an agreement as regards the sentence and to repair the damage caused to the State; he stated that he would pay GEL 35,000 (EUR 14,700) to the State budget in that connection. He added that he fully understood the contents of the agreement. 28.  On the same day the public prosecutor of Kutaisi offered and the first applicant accepted a plea bargain regarding sentence (Article 679 § 2 of the CCP). The written record of the plea agreement mentioned that, whilst the applicant refused to confess to the charges, he had “actively cooperated with the investigation by voluntarily paying compensation in the amount of GEL 4,201,663 (approximately EUR 1,765,000) for the damage caused by his criminal activity by returning 22.5% of the shares in the factory to the State”. The prosecutor further noted that, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was charged with a particularly serious offence liable to a term of imprisonment of six to twelve years, it was still possible, having due regard to the full compensation of the damage and in the interest of the efficient use of State resources, to offer him a plea bargain. Notably, the prosecutor promised that he would request the trial court to convict the applicant without an examination of the merits, seeking a reduced sentence in the form of a GEL 35,000 (EUR 14,700) fine. It was explained to the applicant that the proposed plea bargain would not exempt him from civil liability. The first applicant stated that he fully understood the content of the bargain and was ready to accept it and that his decision was not the result of any duress, pressure or any kind of undue promise. The record of the plea agreement was duly signed by the prosecutor, the applicant and one of his two lawyers. 29.  Also on the same day the public prosecutor filed a brief with the Kutaisi City Court, requesting approval of the aforementioned plea bargain consisting of no examination of the merits of the case, of finding the first applicant guilty of the charges brought against him and of reducing the sentence to which the offences were liable by fining the accused GEL 35,000 (EUR 14,700). It was mentioned in the prosecutorial brief that it was accompanied by the written record of the plea agreement and twelve volumes of the criminal case materials. 30.  Also on the same day Mrs M.I. effected a bank transfer to the State in payment of the fine of GEL 35,000 (EUR 14,700) as per the above-mentioned plea bargain between the first applicant and the public prosecutor. 31.  At an oral hearing on 10 September 2004, the Kutaisi City Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, examined the prosecutor’s request of 9 September 2004. As disclosed by the record of the hearing, the judge explained to the first applicant, who was assisted by one of the two lawyers who had countersigned the plea bargain (see paragraph 28 above), his rights under Article 679-3 of the CCP. In reply, the applicant acknowledged that he was well aware of his rights and that he had agreed to the bargain voluntarily, without having being subjected to any kind of undue pressure during the negotiations with the prosecutor. That was confirmed by the lawyer as well. The first applicant and his lawyer then asked the judge to endorse the plea bargain, as submitted by the prosecutor, confirming that they fully accepted its consequences. The lawyer added that he had assisted in the plea-bargaining negotiations between his client and the prosecution, that it was his client who had insisted on reaching a settlement, and that he, as a lawyer, had provided all the necessary counselling to the applicant. 32.  Relying on the documentary evidence and the testimony of various witnesses acquired during the investigative stage, the Kutaisi Court found that the charges brought against the first applicant were well-founded. The court also noted that, when he was charged on 6 September 2004 with crimes under Article 182 §§ 2 (a), (b) and (c) and 3 (b) of the Criminal Code, the applicant “did not plead guilty and exercised his right to silence. However, having actively cooperated with the investigation, he had voluntarily repaired the damage of GEL 4,201,663 [EUR 1,765,000] caused by his criminal activity by returning 22.5% of the shares in the factory to the State”. 33.  The City Court further held that, following the judicial examination, it reached the conclusion that the plea bargain had been concluded in accordance with the law, that the first applicant had signed it in full knowledge of the facts and that it was not the result of any duress, pressure or any kind of promise which went beyond what was permitted in plea bargaining. The court thus sanctioned the agreement by declaring the first applicant guilty of the charges brought against him and sentencing him to a GEL 35,000 (EUR 14,700) fine. The first applicant was then immediately released from the courtroom. 34.  As mentioned in its operative part, the Kutaisi City Court’s decision of 10 September 2004 was final and not subject to appeal. A request could be made to have the decision quashed and the case reopened though, if newly discovered circumstances justified such a course of action. 35.  According to the case file, after the termination of the criminal proceedings and his consequent release from detention, the first applicant left Georgia and has since been residing in Moscow, Russia. 36.  After notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government on 21 September 2006 and the parties had exchanged their observations, the applicants complained to the Court, on 12 November 2007, that the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) was continuing to exert pressure on them, this time with the aim of having them withdraw their application from the Court. 37.  In support of that assertion, the applicants submitted a written statement given by their daughter, Ms A. Natsvlishvili, dated 6 November 2007. 38.  According to that statement, after having been told by her parents that pressure was being brought to bear on them, in September 2004 Ms Natsvlishvili, who was a student at the Central European University in Budapest at the time, decided to approach an acquaintance of hers who was working at the GPO, Ms T.B. Subsequently, Ms Natsvlishvili exchanged several e-mails with her acquaintance in which the latter, claiming to act on behalf of the GPO, expressed that authority’s position on the applicants’ case. The case file contains a copy of the relevant e-mail exchange. 39.  In the e-mail exchange, Ms Natsvlishvili and Ms T.B. addressed each other on friendly terms, using shortened, pet names and familiar instead of formal forms of address. 40.  Ms Natsvlishvili was the first to contact Ms T.B., on 14 September 2006, asking her, as a friend and an experienced lawyer, to give her some advice about her master’s thesis and a forthcoming examination in law. 41.  On 29 November 2006 Ms T.B. advised the applicants’ daughter, whom she considered to be “a friend”, that she had been “personally” working on her father’s case and thus possessed important information emanating from the Prosecutor General. Inviting the applicants’ daughter to express her parents’ position on the matter, Ms T.B. promised to share her hierarchical superiors’ views with them. 42.  On 11 December 2006 Ms T.B. informed the applicants’ daughter that the GPO would be ready to reopen the first applicant’s criminal case and then terminate it again, this time in his favour, and to return the GEL 35,000 (EUR 14,700) which had been paid by him as a fine. Ms T.B. encouraged the applicants to think about that proposal quickly and to accept it, otherwise, she stated, “the prosecution authority would defend its position in Strasbourg and might even unilaterally annul the plea bargain and reopen the criminal proceedings against the first applicant”. 43.  On 16 December 2006 Ms Natsvlishvili informed Ms T.B. that her father was ready to reach a friendly settlement, as provided for “by the Convention” and under the scrutiny of the Court. Ms Natsvlishvili then asked a number of procedural questions and also enquired whether it was possible, having due regard to the substantial pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which had been inflicted on her family by the State, to review the conditions of the proposed settlement. 44.  On the same date, 16 December 2006, Ms T.B. replied that “her personal involvement in the case was a guarantee that the applicants’ family would not find itself in an inauspicious situation again”. Ms T.B. then stated that the first applicant should file an application with the GPO, complaining that the plea bargain in question had been reached without a full consideration of his interests. The GPO would then treat that application as a request for the reopening of the case on the basis of newly discovered circumstances. Ms T.B. assured the applicants’ daughter that, after the reopening of the case, the first applicant would, as a matter of fact, be rehabilitated by having obtained the deletion of the conviction from his criminal record. 45.  Ms T.B. then stated that the State would be ready to return the money which had been paid by the first applicant as a fine and the shares in the factory forfeited by the second applicant; she explained that the first applicant’s shares could not be returned as they had already been assigned to a third party. The GPO employee also assured Ms Natsvlishvili that the first applicant would become eligible to return to Georgia and to start business afresh there, in which entrepreneurial activity the prosecution authority would even assist him. Ms T.B. then continued:
“We all know that errors have been committed, but it has become a particularly vital issue, in the interests of the country, to set aside personal experience and trauma now, notwithstanding the painfulness of those [experiences]. I know that this is difficult, but if you can manage it, I am confident that after years have passed you would then be in a position to tell yourself that you were successful in differentiating Georgia, as your own country, from individual State agents, and to tell yourself that you made your own small sacrifice for your country.” 46.  Ms T.B. specified that “they”, the GPO, were not telling the applicants to first withdraw their application from the Court and to settle the issue at the domestic level afterwards. On the contrary, the State was ready to start working on the settlement of the issue at the domestic level first. However, Ms T.B. then reminded the applicants’ daughter that “they had only a month left for [filing observations with] Strasbourg”. 47.  On an unspecified date, but apparently subsequent to the above‑mentioned e-mail exchange, Ms T.B. informed Ms Natsvlishvili that the State would be ready to pay to the first applicant, in compensation, GEL 50,000 (EUR 22,000) and to take procedural measures to have the conviction deleted from his criminal record. She specified as follows:
“As regards the issue of rehabilitation and compensation, the decision will apparently belong, according to the applicable rules of jurisdiction, to the Kutaisi Court of Appeal. It will therefore be indicated in this court’s decision that, given the fact that the remainder of [the applicants’] shares have been assigned and that the factory has become indebted, it is factually impossible to return the shares in their entirety, which would then lead to the award of GEL 50,000 [(EUR 22,000)] in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.” 48.  Ms T.B. then assured the applicants’ daughter that they could trust the GPO, as, in any event, should there be any improper conduct by the authorities, the applicants could always then complain to the Court about the alleged hindrance of the right of individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention, which allegation would be of particular harm for the respondent State’s international image. Ms T.B. mentioned, lastly, that the State might be ready to increase the amount of compensation to a maximum of GEL 85,000 (EUR 35,700).


7.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently in Sweden. 8.  On 18 October 2003 the applicant arrived in Sweden and three days later he requested the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) to grant him asylum and a residence permit in Sweden. 9.  The Board held a first interview with the applicant on 27 May 2004 during which he stated that he was Shia' Muslim and came from a city in the south of Iran where his wife and two minor sons remained. A smuggler had arranged for his travel to Sweden and he had travelled all the way hidden in a lorry. He claimed that he had criticised the Iranian government on several occasions and, the last time he had participated in a student demonstration to show his sympathy, he had been arrested. He had spent seven months in Sepah prison and then been transferred to a prison in his home town where he had spent another seventeen months. He had never been formally tried in court but every third month there had been a sort of religious trial where he had been put before a priest who had decided on his continued imprisonment. While imprisoned, he had been subjected to torture and still suffered from headaches because of it. He knew others who had participated in the demonstration and who were still imprisoned without trial. 10.  A complete asylum investigation was conducted by the Migration Board on 4 June 2004 where the applicant maintained his initial statements and essentially added the following. In 1993 he had quit his job and returned to his village to work as a farmer. He had discussed with other villagers about the lack of human rights and freedom in Iran. One night the Basij (a “people's militia”, loyal to the Supreme Leader) had come and destroyed his fields with a tractor. When he had tried to report the incident to the police, they had advised him not to, since it would lead nowhere. He had also expressed his opinion of the government when he had watched television in public places. The Basij had later destroyed his car, thrown stones at his house and sent messages that he should stop his activities and “information evenings”. He had received the threats through a relative of his wife who worked for the regime. The threats had commenced in 1997 but had become more serious after he had participated in his first demonstration in 2000. It had been a student demonstration and he had escaped when the police intervened. On 9 July 2001 he had participated in his second student demonstration where he had been arrested because police had closed off all escape routes and had been filming the protesters as evidence. Many others had also been arrested. During the demonstration they had shouted slogans against the president and the government and demanded the release of student prisoners. In Sepah prison he had been tortured. He had been stabbed twice in the thigh, boiling water had been poured over his chest and his captors had hit him with their fists. However, on 11 February 2002, he had been transferred to the prison in his home town. He had been planning to escape for almost nine months by being very co-operative with the prison guards so that he had earned their trust. The “religious trials” had taken place at a court outside the prison and the applicant had spoken with three of his friends, who had visited him in prison to help him. On 19 July 2003 he had been taken to the court and his friends had been there. He had worn his normal clothes under his prison outfit and he had not had any handcuffs as the guards trusted him. He had told the guard that he had to go to the bathroom, where he had taken off his prison outfit. In the meantime one of his friends had gone to start the car and another friend had spoken to the guard to distract his attention from the applicant. The applicant had then walked straight out of the court, got into the car and they had driven off. It had been a revolution court and there had been a lot of people. He had then remained hidden at a friend's home for about two months while his friend had found a smuggler to help him out of the country. While he had been in hiding, his wife had been taken to the police twice for questioning about his whereabouts. His father had also been questioned. The applicant underlined that he was not, and never had been, a member of a political party or any organisation and that he had never been formally convicted of any crime. He was convinced that he would be executed if returned to Iran since he had escaped from prison and because he would be accused of having co-operated with those who are against Islam. 11.  The applicant further stated that he continuously suffered from headaches and sleeplessness and had problems with his legs. He submitted a medical certificate, dated 4 February 2005 and issued by Dr I. Markström, a physician at a local health care centre. The certificate stated that the applicant had scars around both ankles, scars on the outside of both kneecaps and two lateral scars on his left thigh. He also had a reddish area stretching from his neck down to his chest and when he yawned there was a loud clicking sound from the left side of his jaw. In the physician's opinion, these injuries could very well originate from the torture to which the applicant claimed that he had been subjected in Iran, namely, that he had been chained around his ankles and suspended upside down for several hours, that boiling water had been thrown at his chest, that he had received blows to his head, jaw, abdomen and legs, and that he had been stabbed twice in the left thigh with a bayonet. 12.  On 27 May 2005 the Migration Board rejected the request. It first noted that the applicant had not claimed to have been a member either of an organisation or of a political party or to have had a leading role in the organisation of demonstrations. Moreover, the proceedings before the revolutionary courts were in general not open to the public. The Board found that the applicant had not substantiated his story in any way and that he had thus failed to show that he had been, or would be, of interest to the Iranian authorities. It therefore considered that the applicant would not attract special attention from the Iranian authorities if he were to be returned to his home country. As concerned the ill-treatment and torture of which the applicant claimed to have been the victim, the Board found that the medical certificate did not prove that he had been tortured even if the injuries documented could very well originate from the torture described. In its view, there was no reason to believe that the applicant would be subjected to ill-treatment or torture upon return to Iran. Thus, it concluded that the applicant could neither be granted asylum in Sweden nor a residence permit based on humanitarian grounds. 13.  The applicant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden), maintaining his claims and adding that about half of the inhabitants in his home town knew him since he used to be a football player. Moreover, he had been one of ten to twelve organisers of the demonstration held in 2001. They had written the banners and decided which slogans to use. The other organisers, who were students and previously imprisoned critics of the regime, had also been punished. Following his escape, his wife had been taken in for questioning about his whereabouts on seven occasions and had been kept in detention on three occasions. His father had been questioned on two occasions and their home had also been searched on two occasions. The applicant further claimed that he had been kept in an isolation cell for the first two months of his detention. Furthermore, the public had access to hearings before the revolutionary courts and it had been relatively easy for him to escape since his friends had distracted the guards and he had thus been able to leave the building. Lastly, submitting four medical certificates, the applicant invoked his deteriorating health as he suffered, inter alia, from depression and panic attacks. 14.  In March 2006 the applicant was informed that the case would be transferred to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) for further proceedings, following the entry into force of a new Aliens Act (see below under Relevant Domestic Law). 15.  On 18 June 2007 the Migration Court held an oral hearing. In response to his lawyer's questions the applicant stated, inter alia, that he had participated in demonstrations critical against the regime since 1988 and that, in 1997 or 1998, he had started to notice that his criticism was not appreciated. He had participated in yearly demonstrations, such as on women's day and on labour day. Mostly he had participated in meetings on various premises. A relative of his wife had been an official at the intelligence agency and thus he had been assured that nothing would happen to him. He had been one of 4-5,000 participants in the demonstration in 2001 and he had played no special role, but it had been monitored by the authorities. He had been arrested and accused of being against Islam and the regime. In connection with a visit by his wife to Sepah prison while he was there, she had been detained for three days and questioned about him. However, no other relatives had been summoned or questioned by the authorities. He had escaped when his friends had come to the revolutionary court for his hearing and had pretended to have a fight with each other so that he could go to the toilets to change. It had then taken him fifteen seconds to leave the building since there were no exit controls. In response to questions by the Migration Board, the applicant claimed that he had organised demonstrations and that he had been one of the leaders at the demonstration in 2001. He had been arrested because he had been in the front row and had shouted slogans. 16.  In a judgment of 9 July 2007, the Migration Court, by three votes to one, rejected the appeal. It first noted that the applicant appeared to have expanded his grounds for asylum by claiming that he had not just participated in demonstrations but had actually been involved in organising them. However, since he had not been a member of a party or an organisation which was critical of the regime, the court found it unlikely that he would be of any interest to the authorities in his home country if he returned. It further considered that the applicant's account of how he had escaped from the revolutionary court was not credible, having regard, inter alia, to international sources which stated that insights into the functioning of the revolutionary courts were very limited. The court also noted that he had remained in Iran for two months following his escape before leaving the country. Moreover, it found that the applicant had failed to show that he had been tortured in Iran. Thus, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that the applicant could not be considered to be in need of protection in Sweden and that his health problems were not of such a serious nature that he could be granted leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. 17.  One of the three lay judges dissented as he considered that the applicant had given a credible account of events and should be granted asylum as a refugee in Sweden. 18.  On 17 July 2007 the applicant appealed to the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen), maintaining his claims and stating that he was only telling the truth. He was also of the opinion that the Migration Court had failed to take into account the medical certificate testifying to his torture injuries. He further requested some extra time in order to submit certain documents that his family had sent to him from Iran. The court granted an extension of the time-limit and, on 7 August 2007, the applicant submitted, among other things, two summonses, one to his wife and one to his father, to appear before the revolutionary court in his home town on 6 August 2003 to answer questions concerning the applicant and his escape from prison. 19.  On 4 September 2007 the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. 20.  The applicant was called to a meeting with the Migration Board on 9 November 2007. 21.  On 8 November 2007, following a request by the applicant, the President of the Chamber to which the case had been allocated decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to indicate to the Swedish Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to deport the applicant to Iran until further notice. 22.  Following the request by the Court, on 9 November 2007 the Migration Board stayed the enforcement of the deportation order until further notice. 23.  Upon request by the Court, the applicant submitted a forensic medical report dated 14 November 2008 and issued by Dr E. Edston, specialist in forensic medicine at the Crisis and Trauma Centre at Danderyd Hospital. The report was drawn up on the basis of the protocols from the interviews with the applicant before the Migration Board, the medical certificate by Dr I. Markström, a letter from the applicant's representative dated 16 October 2008 and the applicant's own story as told to Dr Edston during his examination on 4 November 2008. The report contained photos of the scars together with a written protocol of all the scars and the medical record from the examination as well as Dr Edston's opinion. 24.  The report noted that the applicant had claimed that he had been tortured in prison in 2001 and that the torture had consisted of beating with fists, kicks, being hit on his kneecaps with rifle butts, having a bayonet stuck twice in his thigh, as well as being flogged, suspended upside down for prolonged period of times and having hot water poured over him. He further stated that, as a result of the torture, he suffered from chronic headaches, reduced feeling in his right thigh, reduced mobility of his jaw, reduced eye sight, an ulcer, pain in his knees when walking and medical problems with his thyroid gland and diabetes. Dr Edston examined the applicant and found numerous scars on his body. 25.  In Dr Edston's opinion, the injuries invoked by the applicant could very well have occurred in 2001 as claimed and the scars observed on his body had the appearance and localisation which corresponded well with his statements of how they had appeared. For example, the scars on his kneecaps could well correspond to blows with rifle butts, the marks on the front of his shins from having been kicked with boots, the marks on his left ankle could have appeared as a consequence of having been suspended upside down by his ankles and the pigmentation on his neck corresponded well with a burn injury. In conclusion, Dr Edston noted that, in cases like this, alternative causes for the origins of the scars could not be completely excluded but that experience showed that self-inflicted injuries and injuries resulting from accidents normally had a different distribution to those showed by the applicant. The findings in the present case favoured the conclusion that the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant completely or to a large extent by other persons and in the manner claimed by him. Thus, the findings strongly indicated that the applicant had been tortured.


5.  The applicant was born in 1972. He is currently serving his sentence in Zabela Prison near Požarevac in Serbia. 6.  On 9 February 2001 a couple were killed. 7.  On 10 February 2001 at about 8 p.m. the applicant was arrested at his home in Grocka. He was taken to Smederevo police station and beaten up by police officers. He then confessed to having participated in the killing. 8.  On 11 February 2001 the applicant was taken to Smederevo Prison. 9.  On 13 February 2001 the applicant was taken to the investigating judge. He met his counsel there, who had meanwhile been appointed by the applicant’s wife, but he was not given the opportunity to talk with him in private. While the applicant confirmed his earlier confession, he complained to the judge that he had been beaten up by the police. The applicant was then examined at Smederevo Hospital. According to the medical report, he had a broken rib and bruises on his chest. 10.  On 14 February 2001 the applicant was taken to the investigating judge again. His counsel was not present. The applicant met his counsel in private for the first time later that day. 11.  On 17 February 2001 the applicant was returned to Smederevo police station and beaten up again. After having collapsed, he was taken to Smederevo Hospital. According to the medical report, he was concussed and had bruises on his head. The investigating judge was informed of the incident. 12.  On 19 February 2001 the applicant appeared before the investigating judge again. His counsel was not present. 13.  When the applicant was taken to the investigating judge for the fourth time on 16 March 2001, his counsel was present and he retracted his confession. 14.  Following a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant’s counsel against unidentified criminal police officers, the public prosecutor obtained a report from Smederevo police station rejecting the applicant’s allegations. The public prosecutor also obtained the medical reports of 13 and 17 February 2001. On 24 September 2001 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute and informed the applicant’s counsel of the possibility of starting a subsidiary prosecution within eight days. Counsel did not do so. 15.  On 4 November 2002 the Smederevo District Court found the applicant and S.P. guilty of murder and sentenced each of them to forty years’ imprisonment. On 9 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Serbia quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a retrial. It instructed the first-instance court to establish whether the applicant had been ill-treated by the police and whether any of his statements were therefore inadmissible. 16.  At a hearing held on 13 May 2004, the applicant described his ill‑treatment in detail and named the alleged perpetrators for the first time. Counsel for S.P. then applied for the minutes of that hearing to be sent to the public prosecutor with a view to prosecuting the police officers named by the applicant. The public prosecutor, who was present at the hearing, raised an objection. She emphasised that a criminal complaint in that connection had been dismissed on 24 September 2001 and that her office had no intention of dealing with the same case again. Counsel for S.P. then applied for that prosecutor to be excluded from the proceedings. On 17 May 2004 the Smederevo District Chief Public Prosecutor rejected that application, but confirmed that the 2001 decision might be reconsidered in view of the new facts, notably the names of the alleged perpetrators. 17.  On 27 December 2004 the Smederevo District Court found the applicant guilty of murder and S.P. of incitement to murder and sentenced each of them to forty years’ imprisonment. It held that the applicant had indeed been beaten at Smederevo police station. The applicant’s statements made there on 10 and 17 February 2001 were thus declared inadmissible. However, it regarded the statements which the applicant had made before the investigating judge on 13, 14 and 19 February as admissible. The court relied in that regard on an expert report prepared by a team of psychiatrists, stating that the applicant’s fear must have receded by the date of his appearance before the investigating judge. 18.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of 27 December 2004. He maintained, among other grounds of appeal, that the admission of the statements which he had made before the investigating judge in February 2001 should have also been barred. On 13 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Serbia upheld the first-instance judgment. 19.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of 13 May 2005. He repeated that the admission of the statements which he had made before the investigating judge in February 2001 should have also been barred. On 14 April 2006 the Supreme Court of Serbia, in a different formation, upheld the second-instance judgment. 20.  On 3 November 2006 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor against six police officers in relation to the events of February 2001. On 18 January 2007 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. The reasons for that decision are unknown because the applicant was not informed thereof and the entire file was allegedly destroyed in early 2010 (that is, three years after the decision not to prosecute). 21.  In March 2011 both the applicant and his counsel applied for the reopening of the criminal proceedings described above. On 17 March 2011 the Smederevo Higher Court rejected both applications. On 29 April 2011 the Belgrade Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 17 March 2011.


5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zamostne. The applicant is the legal successor of his mother, Mrs K.A.P., who died in May 2003. 6.  On 1 September 1944 a property owned by L.B. – the applicant's grandfather and the father of K.A.P.- M.B. and H.L., was taken over by the State pursuant to provisions of the Decree of the Polish Committee of National Liberation on the Agricultural Reform of 6 September 1944 (Dekret PKWN o przeprowadzeniu reformy rolnej). No decision was delivered in the proceedings. 7.  The applicant submits that on 16 October 1991 his mother, K.A.P., who was the legal successor of L.B., informed the Siedlecki Governor (Wojewoda Siedlecki) that she had undertaken certain steps seeking restitution of her property or pecuniary compensation in lieu. 8.  It appears that the Governor informed the applicant's mother by a letter of 20 November 1991 that no laws regulating this matter had been enacted yet. 9.  On 1 December 1995 K.A.P. lodged a request with the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej) for restitution of the property. She argued that the property in question had been unlawfully expropriated, since the 1944 Decree had entered into force on 13 September 1944, i.e. after the date of the expropriation. 10.  On 9 January 1996 the Minister referred the case to the Siedlecki Governor. 11.  On 19 February 1996 the Siedlecki Governor gave a decision on the expropriation of the property in question, confirming that the property had been taken over by the State on 1 September 1944. 12.  On 27 February 1996 the applicant's mother appealed against the decision. 13.  On 7 March 1996 she reiterated her arguments. She added that the property in question had comprised a brickyard, a distillery, a glass-works and a power station and, should have therefore been as such, exempted from expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform law. 14.  On 13 March 1996 the Minister of Agriculture informed K.A.P. that her appeal would be examined in the first quarter of 1997. 15.  On 20 March 1996 K.A.P. lodged a complaint with the Council of Ministers (Rada Ministrów) about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture. 16.  By a letter of 22 July 1996 the Office of the Council of Ministers (Biuro Rady Ministrów) requested the Minister of Agriculture to accelerate the proceedings. 17.  On 7 July 1997 K.A.P. enquired about the state of the proceedings pending before the Minister of Agriculture. 18.  On 11 August 1997 the Minister of Agriculture upheld the decision of 19 February 1996. 19.  The applicant's mother appealed. 20.  On 17 July 1998 she asked the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) about the state of the proceedings. 21.  Subsequently, by a letter of 25 November 1998, she complained to the Ombudsman about the excessive length of the proceedings. 22.  On 23 November 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both the 1997 decision of the Minister of Agriculture and the preceding decision of the Siedlecki Governor. It held that the administrative authorities had failed to address the applicant's arguments concerning the non agricultural status of certain components of the property. 23.  On 27 October 2000 the Lubelski Governor (the Siedleckie Province had ceased to exist in the meantime) gave a decision declaring that the property had been taken over by the State in 1944 without compensation. 24.  On 17 November 2000 K.A.P. lodged an appeal with the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development (Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi). 25.  On 19 February 2001 she lodged a complaint with the Prime Minister (Prezes Rady Ministrów) about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture. 26.  She further complained, on 30 March 2001, to the Council of Ministers, about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture. 27.  On 17 April 2001 the Chancellery of the Prime Minister (Kancelaria Prezesa Rady Ministrów) requested the Minister of Agriculture to consider speeding up of the proceedings. 28.  On 30 May 2001 the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development quashed the decision of 27 October 2000 and remitted the case. 29.  On 9 January 2002 the Lubelski Governor informed K.A.P. that her application would be examined by the end of March 2002, as further evidence had to be taken. 30.  On 23 April 2002 the Lubelski Governor informed K.A.P. that her application would be examined by the end of June 2002. 31.  On 15 July 2002 the Lubelski Governor stayed the proceedings and requested K.A.P. to provide evidence that she was a legal successor of L.B. She lodged an interlocutory appeal. 32.  On 6 November 2002 the Minister of Agriculture dismissed her interlocutory appeal. 33.  On 31 December 2002 K.A.P. appealed against this decision. 34.  On 1 May 2003 K.A.P. died. 35.  On 14 April 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) stayed the proceedings concerning suspension of the administrative proceedings, pending the termination of the inheritance proceedings after K.A.P.'s death. 36.  On 9 August 2005 the applicant, the legal successor of K.A.P., lodged a complaint with the Minister of Agriculture about the inactivity of the Lubelski Governor. 37.  On 14 November 2005 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed both the Minister's decision of 26 November 2002 and the Lubelski Governor's decision of 2002, by which the proceedings had been stayed. It noted that on 13 April 2000 the Wejherowo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) had declared K.A.P. to be the legal successor of L.B. It held that the decisions to stay the proceedings had therefore been issued in breach of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure, since the authorities should have been aware of the above-mentioned inheritance decision. 38.  Between August 2006 and October 2008 the Lubelski Governor tried to establish the whereabouts of any potential heirs of M.B. and H.L. 39.  On 9 August 2007 the applicant complained to the Lubelski Governor about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. 40.  On 13 September 2007 the Lubelski Governor informed the applicant that his application would be examined by the end of 2007. 41.  On 31 December 2007 the Governor informed the applicant that his application would be examined by the end of February 2008. 42.  On 27 February 2008 the Lubelski Governor informed the applicant that his application would be examined by 30 June 2008. 43.  On 3 April 2009 the Warsaw District Court decided that a trustee of an estate (kurator spadku) should be appointed in respect to parts of property owned by M.B. and H.L. 44.  On 21 April 2009 the Lubelski Governor informed the applicant that the dates and places of birth of both M.B. and H.L. were needed in order to declare them dead and to appoint a trustee of an estate. In these circumstances the new time limit for dealing with his application was set on 31 December 2009. 45.  On 11 January 2010 the Lubelski Governor informed the applicant that his application would be examined by 30 June 2010. 46.  On 24 May 2010 the Lubelski Governor discontinued the administrative proceedings instituted by the applicant. The applicant complained about the decision to the Minister of Agriculture. 47.  The proceedings are still pending.


4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Andrushivka, Zhytomyr region, Ukraine. 5.  By its judgment of 8 December 2000, the Andrushivka District Court awarded the applicant 700 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to her by Mr Y. It appears that this judgment became final and the enforcement proceedings were initiated. No further information about enforcement of this judgment is available. 6.  In February 2002 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr against the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr (відділ державної виконавчої служби Богунського районного управління юстиції м. Житомира), alleging the latter’s inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 8 December 2000 and claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage she had sustained as a result. 7.  On 17 April 2003 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her a total of UAH 450.39[1]. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment. 8.  On 21 November 2003 the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr instituted enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, the latter transferred the enforcement writ to the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service (відділ примусового виконання рішень державної виконавчої служби Житомирської області) for enforcement. 9.  In the course of these enforcement proceedings the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service requested the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr to replace the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr with the local department of the State Treasury of Ukraine, as the debtor under the judgment of 17 April 2003. On 28 October 2004 the court rejected this request. The applicant did not attend this hearing. 10.  On 21 May 2004 the State Treasury of Ukraine replied, upon the applicant’s request, that the 2004 State Budget of Ukraine did not provide funds for payment of compensation for damage caused by officials of the State Bailiffs’ Service. 11.  Between July 2004 and April 2006 the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service several times terminated and resumed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 17 April 2003. By the decision of 18 April 2006, the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings of the judgment of 17 April 2003 on the ground that the debtor had been liquidated. Apparently the applicant did not appeal against this decision. 12.  The judgment of 17 April 2003 remains unenforced.