6.  The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1947, who lives in Moosthenning, Germany. 7.  In 1993, the applicant and M.G., a Romanian citizen, decided to set up a commercial company. 8.  The envisaged company was registered in Romania on 9 November 1993 under the name Fivarog Impex SRL (hereinafter called “the company”). 9.  In September 1993, the two associates bought in Germany a truck and merchandise on behalf of the company to be registered. The vehicles and the merchandise were registered on the name of a company belonging to M.G (“company P.”) and should have been registered in the accounting books of the company after its setting up. 10.  In March 1994, the applicant bought a trailer for the company that was registered by M.G. in the name of his company P. 11.  M.G. used both vehicles to carry out the activity of company P. and did not register the counter value of the rendered transport services in any accounting books. 12.  In 1995, the applicant transferred the majority of his shares to M.G., who became the main shareholder and administrator of the company. By an act under private signature, the latter undertook the obligation to deliver to the applicant the truck and the trailer. 13.  In 13 August 1996, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against M.G., accusing him of forgery, use of forged items, fraud, fraudulent management of the company and selling goods placed under judicial seizure. He maintained that M.G. used the money obtained by commercial operations performed on behalf of the company for his personal use, without registering them in the accounting books of the company. He added that the truck and the trailer bought for the company and mostly paid for by him were never registered in the name of the company and were used by the company P., which belonged to M.G. 14.  On 11 March 1998, the police opened a criminal investigation against the applicant and M.G., on suspicion of several offences of an economic nature, namely fraud, fraudulent management of the company and intellectual forgery related to the accounting books of the company. 15.  The applicant joined a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings, asking for the return of the trailer and the truck and damages. He evaluated the damages only on 25 March 1998, after an accounting report had been prepared. 16.  On 5 March 1999, the prosecutor attached to the Buftea District Court decided to terminate the investigation against the applicant and M.G. 17.  The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision, which was allowed by the prosecutor attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 26 August 1999. He decided to continue the criminal investigation against M.G. 18.  By a bill of indictment of 17 October 2001 the prosecutor attached to the Buftea District Court accused M.G. of fraudulent management, smuggling and fiscal evasion. In respect of the offences of use of forged documents and fraud, the prosecutor decided to terminate the investigation. The prosecutor also decided to terminate the investigation related to all the offences of which the applicant was accused. 19.  By a judgment of 26 March 2002, the Buftea District Court convicted M.G. of smuggling, fraudulent management and fiscal evasion, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended, and placed him on probation. He was also ordered to award pecuniary damages to the company, while the applicant’s request for damages was dismissed on the ground that there was no causal link between the prejudice stated and the offences committed by M.G. 20.  M.G. and the applicant lodged an appeal. The applicant argued, inter alia, that the court was wrong when deciding to dismiss his request for damages. He added that neither the prosecutor nor the court of first instance had analysed or decided on the alleged fraud whose victim he was. 21.  By a decision rendered on 6 December 2002, the Bucharest County Court upheld the judgment of Buftea District Court without providing reasons for the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal. 22.  On 17 April 2003, the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law filed by M.G., on the ground that the defendant’s right to defence had been infringed, as neither he nor his lawyer had been present at the previous hearing. It also allowed the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant on the ground that the Bucharest County Court did not provide any reason for dismissing his appeal. It quashed the decision of 6 December 2002 and remitted the file to the Bucharest County Court. 23.  On 26 April 2004, the Bucharest County Court partially allowed the appeal lodged by M.G., holding that in respect of fiscal evasion and fraudulent management the criminal liability had become statute-barred. It dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. 24.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on the same grounds as those raised before the county court. By a final decision rendered on 8 June 2004, the Bucharest Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal in respect of the request for damages, on the ground that the county court had not provided reasons for dismissing it. 25.  By a decision rendered on 17 December 2004, the county court dismissed the applicant’s appeal again, on the ground that the prejudice experienced by the applicant was not connected with the offences in the charges against M.G. It pointed out that the applicant had the opportunity to bring a separate civil action for damages in which the contractual liability of M.G might be established. 26.  By a final decision rendered on 4 March 2005, the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the county court dismissing the applicant’s appeal on points of law. 27.  On 6 February 1996, the applicant lodged a civil action against M.G. seeking recognition of his property right in respect of the truck and trailer bought in 1993 and 1994 respectively. 28.  By a separate action, lodged on the same day, he requested the judicial seizure of the vehicles. 29.  On 1st March 1996 the Bucharest District Court ordered the seizure of the vehicles and decided to join the two actions in a single file. 30.  Despite the seizure order on the vehicles, on 29 February 1996 M.G. sold them to a third party. Therefore, on 5 May 1996 the applicant added a new claim to the joined action, namely for the cancellation of the salepurchase agreement between M.G. and the third party. 31.  On 5 April 1996, the Bucharest District Court decided to hear separately the action regarding the seizure of vehicles from the action regarding the recognition of the ownership right over the vehicles and the cancellation of the sale-purchase agreement. 32.  M.G. lodged an appeal against the order of 1 March 1996 for the seizure of the vehicles, dismissed by the Bucharest County Court on 5 June 1996. 33.  On 17 October 1996 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the action as ill-founded. It held that from the analysis of the agreement’s clauses concluded between the applicant and M.G. there had been no transfer of ownership rights over the truck and trailer to the applicant. Furthermore, it dismissed the applicant’s request for the cancellation of the sale-purchase agreement concluded between M.G. and the third party, on the ground that there were no reasons for the cancellation. 34.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Bucharest County Court. The applicant relied on the fact that the agreement interpreted by the court of first instance as a loan agreement had in fact three different clauses, namely the first one was indeed a loan agreement, the second allowed M.G. to use the vehicles until the date of reimbursement of the loan (understood as a favour granted to M.G. for obtaining the money for reimbursement of the loan) and the third one provided for the transfer of ownership title over the vehicles to him on the date of reimbursement of the loan. 35.  On 20 January 1998 the proceedings were stayed at the request of the applicant until the delivery of a final decision in the criminal proceedings, to which the civil proceedings were closely related. 36.  On 28 September 1999 the civil proceedings were reopened to determine whether the reason for staying them persisted. The applicant was present at the hearings. The hearings were adjourned until 9 November 1999, in order for the parties to be able to prove that the criminal proceedings were still pending. 37.  On 9 November 1999, the Bucharest County Court decided to maintain the suspension of the case on the same legal basis, namely Article 244 point 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). 38.  On 30 November 2000 the proceedings were reopened in order to determine whether the criminal proceedings had been finalised. The parties were summoned for 23 January 2001. Noting the applicant’s absence, the court adjourned the hearings until 20 February 2001. 39.  On 20 February 2001, both parties were absent. Therefore, the Court suspended the civil proceedings on another legal ground, that of the absence of the parties, under Article 244 point 2 of the CCP. 40.  On 24 February 2002, the Bucharest County Court reopened the civil proceedings. The applicant was again summoned at the two addresses indicated by him in the file. 41.  On the ground of the parties’ lack of interest in the appeal, indicated by their absence from the hearing without submitting any request for the adjournment of the case, the court decided to extinguish (a constatat perimarea) the applicant’s appeal on 2 April 2002. From the analysis of the documents submitted by the parties it seems that the applicant did not lodge any appeal against the decision. 42.  On 4 May 2005, the applicant requested the reopening of the civil proceedings before the Bucharest District Court on the ground that the criminal proceedings had been completed on 4 March 2005. 43.  On 11 July 2005, the applicant was informed about the decision of 24 February 2002 to dismiss his civil action.


5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Munich. 6.  On 17 March 1995 during an investigation undertaken by the tax authorities of Teleorman County, a contravention report was issued against the applicant, suspected of smuggling, and in particular, of having illegally imported into Romania agricultural equipment, which he subsequently used for illicit activities. The report indicated that the matter was to be brought before the prosecution. 7.  Upon the same investigation, the authorities summoned the applicant to the local tax office on 22 March 1995 to provide clarifications in respect of a fake invoice allegation. On 21 March 1995 the applicant presented himself at the tax office and tried to persuade two tax commissioners not to issue a new report against him by offering them money. On the same day, the tax authority issued a new report on the offences of smuggling and active bribery, both of which were brought before the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the County Court of Teleorman. 8.  On 21 March 1995 the applicant was remanded in detention. 9.  On 12 April 1995 he was released under supervision. 10.  On 11 August 1995 the applicant was brought to trial on charges of active bribery, smuggling and fraud-related offences in connection with the importation of agricultural equipment, the seizure of which was equally ordered. 11.  From 1996 to 2000 the court listed at least nine hearings at intervals ranging from five to nine months for failure to properly summon the applicant at his residences in Germany and in Romania. Throughout the trial at first instance, the applicant’s legal representative or, in his absence, a court-appointed lawyer, were present at most of the hearings. 12.  On 14 November 2000 based on contravention and in flagrante reports, customs papers, applicant’s statements and ten witness testimonies, the County Court of Teleorman found the applicant guilty of active bribery and smuggling and convicted him to a two-year deferred prison sentence. He was acquitted of charges of fraud-related offences. With regard to the offence of smuggling, the court applied a newly entered into force law (Law no. 141/1997 which amended the Law no. 30/1978, in force at the commission of the offence) and stated that the act of smuggling was incriminated in both laws, but the new one was more favourable in respect of penalty provisions. The seizure of the agricultural equipment was maintained in court. 13.  On appeal, the Bucharest Court of Appeal listed a total of seven hearings of which four were adjourned in the attendance of documents and information from the Customs Office of Teleorman. Both the applicant and his legal representative were present at all court hearings. 14.  On 20 December 2001 the court rejected the appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment. The applicant appealed on points of law. 15.  On 11 June 2003 the High Court of Cassation and Justice (the former Supreme Court of Justice) convicted the applicant to a two-year deferred prison sentence for smuggling charges. With regard to the active bribery charges, he was acquitted as the criminal liability had become time-barred. The judgment became final.


5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Novosibirsk. 6.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and placed in pre-trial detention pursuant to an order of the Berdsk District Court of the Novosibirsk Region (“the Berdsk District Court”). 7.  Between 3 June 2003 and 12 May 2004 the Berdsk District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions. On the latter date it ordered that he remain in detention until 12 August 2004. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the absence of any grounds to change that particular preventive measure. 8.  On 11 August 2004 the Berdsk District Court convicted the applicant as charged and he was sentenced to imprisonment. It also ordered that he remain in detention until his conviction became final. 9.  On 15 December 2004 the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the applicant’s conviction and sent his case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. Its decision stated that the preventive measure applied to him “should remain unchanged”. 10.  In an interlocutory hearing on 9 March 2005 the Berdsk District Court examined a request by the applicant for release pending trial, subject to him either giving an undertaking not to leave a specified place or the application of a different preventive measure. He argued, in particular, that the Novosibirsk Regional Court’s brief indication in its decision of 15 December 2004 that the preventive measure applied to him should remain unchanged could not serve as a sufficient legal basis for his continued detention. In this connection, the Berdsk District Court noted that the Novosibirsk Regional Court’s decision, in so far as it had concerned the preventive measure, had been lawful as it had been taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of national law. It further did not consider it possible to release the applicant pending trial on account of the seriousness of charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of Russia, with the result that he might abscond if at liberty or put pressure on witnesses. The court thus ordered that his detention be extended until 15 June 2005. 11.  On 6 April 2005 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 9 March 2005 on appeal. It stated that the Berdsk District Court, in convicting the applicant on 11 August 2004, had indicated that he should remain in detention until that judgment became final. It further noted that when quashing the conviction, it itself had stated that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unchanged, and that then, in accordance with Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code, the Berdsk District Court had extended the applicant’s detention for three months. It thus concluded that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was lawful, well‑founded and based on a court order. 12.  On 8 June 2005 the Berdsk District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 15 September 2005. He requested his release, stating that he had been in custody for a long time and that his health had deteriorated. The court held that there were no grounds to change the preventive measure applied to him. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of Russia, with the result that he might abscond or influence witnesses if released. 13.  On 5 September 2005 the Berdsk District Court ordered that the applicant remain in detention until 15 December 2005. He asked the court to change the preventive measure, referring to the poor state of his health and the fact that he had already been kept in detention for a long time. He further argued that he would not abscond, given that his family lived in Berdsk and owned property nearby. The court stated that because the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious offence, had pleaded not guilty, was a foreign national and was not registered within the territory of Russia, he might seek to evade justice. It also stated that the extension of his detention was necessary, in view of the fact that an expert examination in his case was being carried out in Moscow at the time. 14.  On 14 December 2005 the Berdsk District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 15 March 2006. He asked to be released, arguing that he had a child and family in the Novosibirsk Region as well as property nearby where he could be registered. He had also already spent a long time in detention and his state of health had deteriorated. The court gave reasons similar to those indicated in its decision of 5 September 2005. 15.  On 15 March 2006 the Berdsk District Court ordered the applicant’s release, subject to him giving an undertaking not to leave a specified place. The court noted that he had been kept in detention for a long time, and that his wife and child lived in Novosibirsk, where the latter went to school. It also took into account the fact that they were Russian nationals, and that there was therefore a possibility, and a place, for the applicant to live in the Novosibirsk Region pending trial. The court further noted that the results of the expert examination carried out in Moscow had since been received. It also referred to the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record, had positive references from his place of residence and place of work and needed medical treatment as his health had deteriorated. 16.  On 19 May 2006 the Berdsk District Court acquitted the applicant. In the operative part of its judgment it stated that he had a right to “rehabilitation” (реабилитация) and that it was open to him to claim compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 17.  On 21 August 2006 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the acquittal on appeal. 18.  After his acquittal the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the authorities in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk under Articles 131 and 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 136 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He claimed 10,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for the pecuniary damage resulting from his unlawful prosecution and detention, and RUB 120,761 for costs and expenses. He argued, in particular, that as a result of being prosecuted for an offence he had not committed he had been deprived of his liberty, which had caused him and his family suffering. Furthermore, he could not work and his health had deteriorated. 19.  On 30 January 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage and awarded him RUB 500,000 (approximately 12,500 euros). In its reasoning the court firstly noted that under Article 5 of the Convention everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in breach of that provision should have the right to compensation. It further noted that by virtue of the Berdsk District Court’s judgment of 19 May 2006 the applicant had been acquitted and his right to “rehabilitation” had been recognised. On this basis the court found that he had been unlawfully prosecuted, unlawfully detained from 8 April 2003 to 15 March 2006 and, subsequently, unlawfully subjected to an undertaking not to leave a specified place. It further stated that, where a person’s right to rehabilitation had been recognised, the existence of non-pecuniary damage was presumed and it was only the amount to be awarded that had to be established. For these purposes the court took into account the suffering caused to the applicant and the fact that his health had deteriorated. It relied on Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Civil Code in this regard. 20.  On the same date the Oktyabrskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses, on the grounds that it could not be examined within the civil proceedings but rather should be brought within criminal proceedings. 21.  On 18 March 2008 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 22.  Between 2003 and 2006, during the examination of the applicant’s case, he was on several occasions taken to the temporary detention facility of the Berdsk Office of the Interior (“the Berdsk IVS”) so that he could take part in the proceedings. 23.  The applicant provided the following information concerning his detention in the IVS:
-  between 6 and 15 April and 13 and 20 May 2003 he was held with one cellmate in cell no. 9, which measured less than 6 square metres and was equipped with two beds;
-  between 5 and 12 August 2003 he was again held in cell no. 9, but this time with three cellmates;
-  between 7 and 21 October 2003 and 3 and 10 February 2004 he was held with nine cellmates in cell no. 6, which measured around 16 square metres;
-  between 11 and 18 May 2004 he was again held in cell no. 6, but this time with five cellmates;
-  between 15 and 18 June 2004 he was held with nine cellmates in cell no. 4, which measured around 18 square metres and was equipped with six beds;
-  between 15 and 20 July 2004 he was again held in cell no. 9, but this time with two cellmates;
-  between 27 July and 13 August 2004 he was held with one cellmate in cell no. 11, which measured 5.75 square metres and was equipped with one bed;
-  between 31 August and 7 September 2004 he was held with eleven cellmates in cell no. 8, which measured around 18 square metres and was equipped with six beds;
-  between 3 and 18 March, 17 and 24 May, 7 and 10 June, 30 and 31 August and 13 and 20 December 2005, and between 14 and 15 March 2006, the applicant was again held in cell no. 8 with six, eight, five, two, six and eight cellmates respectively;
-  between 31 August and 6 September 2005 the applicant was again held in cell no. 11, but this time with two cellmates. 24.  None of the cells was equipped with a wash basin, which made basic hygiene procedures impossible. Detainees could take a shower only once every ten days. There was no partition between the lavatory and the rest of the room, which offered no privacy. The cells were infested with bedbugs and no pest control treatments were ever conducted. As there were no windows, there was no fresh air or daylight. The ventilation system was turned on very rarely, so the cells were stuffy and humid and in summer it was hard to breathe. The artificial lighting was insufficient, which affected detainees’ eyesight. The fact that there were no tables and chairs was humiliating as detainees had to eat, prepare for hearings and write complaints and applications while sitting on the floor. Food was served only once a day and the applicant was constantly hungry. Walks outside the cells were irregular and did not last for more than fifteen minutes. 25.  According to the Government, they were unable to provide exact information about the cells the applicant was held in 2003 and part of 2004 or the number of inmates he was held with, as the relevant documents had been destroyed on the expiry of their storage period. 26.  They did, however, provide the following information concerning the applicant’s detention in the Berdsk IVS in 2004 to 2006:
-  between 11 and 18 May 2004 he was held with six inmates in cell no. 6, which measured 17.3 square metres;
-  between 3 and 18 March, 17 and 24 May, 7 and 10 June and 13 and 20 December 2005, and between 14 and 15 March 2006, he was held with six to nine inmates in cell no. 8, which measured 18.3 square metres;
-  between 30 August and 6 September 2005 he was held with two cellmates in cell no. 11, which measured 5.75 square metres. 27.  The cells did not have windows but were ventilated. They contained no other furniture apart from beds. The number of cellmates exceeded the number of available beds. Each cell had a wall-mounted lavatory, but there was no partition to divide it from the rest of the cell. The cells were cleaned daily, and pest control treatments were conducted every three months. 28.  Detainees were each provided with bedding, towels, crockery and cutlery. Shaving items were made available upon request at least twice a week. Detainees were taken for a daily walk of a minimum of one hour in a yard measuring 48.8 square metres. Hot meals were provided three times a day. 29.  On 30 August 2005 a group of police officers of the Berdsk Office of the Interior accompanied by an officer of the Berdsk IVS entered the applicants’ cell to inspect it. 30.  According to the applicant, the police officers ordered him and his cellmates to stay crouched down with their hands on the back of their heads and started checking their personal belongings and sleeping places. One of the officers threw a pillow on the floor and the applicant moved to pick it up. An officer tried to then kick him in the head, but as he tried to cover himself with his arms, he kicked him in the arm. The officers insulted and threatened him. 31.  On the same date the applicant complained about the above incident to the Berdsk prosecutor’s office and the Department of Internal Security of the Department of the Interior of the Novosibirsk Region. 32.  On 6 September 2005 an investigator of the Berdsk prosecutor’s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the incident. The decision stated, in particular, that according to the statements given by the police officers and the head of the Berdsk IVS, no physical force had been used against the applicant. Detainee N., who according to the applicant had remained in the cell and had witnessed the incident, submitted that when the police officers had started the inspection he had left the cell and waited in the corridor. He had heard the applicant arguing with the police officers. When he had re-entered the cell after the inspection, the applicant had told him about the incident and had said that he would be making a complaint. However, N. had not seen him be kicked in the arm. His statement was confirmed by Sh., an officer of the Berdsk IVS who was on duty on 30 August 2005, who stated that N. had been outside the cell during the inspection. The investigator concluded that there was no evidence that an offence had been committed. The decision stated that it could be appealed against to a higher prosecutor or a court. 33.  The Berdsk prosecutor’s office informed the applicant of the decision by letter on 27 September 2005. According to the applicant, he was not informed of the decision. 34.  Nevertheless, the applicant complained about the decision to a higher prosecutor. 35.  On 26 October 2005 the prosecutor of Berdsk dismissed the complaint and upheld the decision. 36.  The applicant did not appeal against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings to a court.


8.  On 23 June 1994 the applicant's husband filed a divorce petition with the Wałbrzych Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). 9.  On 26 August 1994 the applicant filed a pleading. On 19 October 1994 her husband requested the court to find that the applicant was responsible for the marital breakdown. 10.  On 1 September 1995 the court ordered the applicant's husband to pay 170 Polish zlotys (PLN) in family maintenance pending trial. 11.  The court held twelve hearings on the following dates: 26 August, 6 December 1994; 31 January, 21 March, 16 May, 1 September, 28 November 1995; 9 January, 13 February, 19 March, 17 April and 26 April 1996. It heard evidence from at least twelve witnesses. 12.  On 26 April 1996 the court granted a divorce decree. It considered that both spouses had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage. The court further vested custody rights over their minor child with the applicant and obliged her husband to pay maintenance for the child. 13.  On 28 May 1996 the applicant filed an appeal against the above judgment. She claimed that her husband had been exclusively responsible for the failure of their marriage and that, therefore, divorce was inadmissible in law. 14.  On 5 July 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Wałbrzych Regional Court. 15.  On 10 October 1996 the applicant filed a request for her maintenance claims to be secured. The court considered that further evidence regarding the financial situation of both parties should be obtained. 16.  On 13 November 1996 the court held a hearing. On 9 April 1997 the court amended its decision of 1 September 1995 concerning the family maintenance pending trial, increasing it to PLN 250. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant's maintenance claims. 17.  On 6 June 1997 the Wałbrzych Regional Court ordered that evidence be obtained from experts in psychiatry, psychology and pedagogics. On 27 November 1997 experts from the Family Diagnostics Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny) prepared their report. 18.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on the following dates: 13 February, 16 March, 24 April 1998. 19.  On 15 May 1998 the Wałbrzych Regional Court pronounced divorce, finding that both spouses had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage. 20.  On 16 June 1998 the applicant filed an appeal with the Wrocław Court of Appeal. On 5 August 1998 it upheld the contested judgment. On the same day the applicant applied to the court to grant her legal assistance and to exempt her from court fees in cassation proceedings. On 28 September 1998 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed her application. 21.  On 12 November 1998 the applicant filed a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 5 August 1998. On 5 January 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) held a hearing and on the same date it dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal.


9.  On 28 July 1996 police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the İzmir Security Directorate arrested the applicants on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PRK-Rızgari. 10.  On 5 August 1996 the İzmir State Security Court ordered the applicants' detention on remand. 11.  On 28 August 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the İzmir State Security Court charging the applicants with membership of the PRK-Rızgari and undertaking actions against the indivisible integrity of the state. The charges were brought under Articles 125 and 168 of the Criminal Code. 12.  In a judgment dated 14 August 1997 the İzmir State Security Court acquitted Ms Melahat Filiz of the charges, holding that there was insufficient evidence to convict her. The court found Mr Nadir Kalkan guilty of the offences under Articles 125 and 168 and sentenced him to capital punishment. 13.  On 19 September 1997 Mr Kalkan lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation. The applicant did not submit any information concerning the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him.


5.  The applicants are spouses who were born in 1957 and 1955 respectively and live in Plovdiv. 6.  Following partition proceedings, in 1980 the first applicant obtained title over a house together with the adjoining land in Plovdiv, previously owned by her ancestor. 7.  By an order of 25 April 1984 the mayor of Plovdiv expropriated the properties with a view to constructing an apartment building. The order was based on sections 95 and 98 of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (“the 1973 Act”) and stipulated that the first applicant was to receive as compensation a three-room flat in a building which was to be erected by a housing construction cooperative and partly financed by the State. The expropriated properties were valued at 7,431.81 old Bulgarian levs (BGL[1]). 8.  By a supplementary order of 5 June 1986 based on section 100 of the 1973 Act (see paragraph 17 below), the mayor indicated the exact flat to be given to the first applicant by way of compensation, specifying the building in which it would be located and its exact size and price. 9.  In November 1986 the applicants vacated the property and were accommodated in a State-owned dwelling. Subsequently the expropriated house was pulled down. 10.  The flat allotted to the first applicant was valued at BGL 22,928. In 1987 the applicants paid to the cooperative part of that price. The remainder, which equalled the value of the first applicant’s expropriated property, was to be covered by the State. 11.  On 3 June 1987 the State Savings Bank informed the Bulgarian National Bank that all members of the housing construction cooperative had paid the instalments due by them for the construction of the building. 12.  Apparently, the construction works started in 1987. 13.  Between 1992 and 1997 the housing construction cooperative informed the mayor of Plovdiv, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works of the increase in construction material prices, including by providing in October 1992 and in July 1997 a calculation of the respective increase in the financing due by the authorities. The cooperative also drew the authorities’ attention to delays in the construction works and requested that the State fulfilled its obligation to pay its share in the financing of the construction works. 14.  It appears that between 1995 and 1997 the Ministry of Finance paid the State’s share for the construction works which had been performed between 1992 and 1997. The applicants and the other persons entitled to receive flats in the building also made further financial contributions on account of the increase in construction material prices. 15.  Apparently, in 1999 and 2001 the Plovdiv Municipality and the housing construction cooperative concluded contracts assigning the construction works of the building to several companies. According to an annex to the contract of 2001, signed in 2005, which specified each party’s financial obligations the State was to cover the whole cost of the construction expenses for the flats of the cooperatives’ members whose properties had been expropriated. The annex further specified that the Plovdiv Municipality’s outstanding financial obligations towards the cooperative amounted to 13,800 new Bulgarian levs (BGN). 16.  The part of the building where the first applicant’s flat was located was completed and its use authorised on 23 July 2007. That month the first applicant and her family moved in the property. On 5 June 2008 the first applicant obtained a notary deed for the flat which stated that its market value was BGN 41,745.82 (21,344 Euros (EUR)).


6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Iaşi. 7.  The applicant was sentenced in 1992 to ten years’ imprisonment for damage to community property (avut obştesc). By a final decision of 7 September 1993 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Criminal Code referring to crimes against community property. 8.  On 27 August 1996 the Prosecutor General lodged a request to have the proceedings against the applicant reopened, on the basis that his conviction was based on provisions declared unconstitutional. By a final decision of 23 September 1997 the Supreme Court of Justice granted the request to reopen the proceedings, quashed the previous conviction, changed the legal qualification of the offences committed by the applicant and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment for fraud, ordering his immediate release from prison. At that time he had already served fifty‑four months of the original sentence. 9.  On 10 May 2002 the applicant lodged an action in damages against the Ministry of Finance, asking for compensation because he had been imprisoned for fifty-four months, while the final decision of 1997 reduced his sentence to only four months’ imprisonment. 10.  By a final decision of 20 December 2004, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed his action on the basis of the provisions of Articles 504 and 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which limited the right to be paid compensation solely to acquittal or a decision of the prosecutor not to pursue criminal proceedings. Taking into account that the applicant had not been acquitted, the domestic courts concluded that he did not qualify for payment of compensation on the basis of the provisions of the CCP as in force at that time, and dismissed his claim in this respect. 11.  The applicant was arrested on 28 March 2001 on suspicion of fraud. He was committed for trial on 20 June 2001. By a final decision of 16 January 2003 he was found guilty and was sentenced to three years and eight months’ imprisonment. The domestic courts, after reviewing evidence, including witness statements, a financial report and the applicant’s statements, concluded that the applicant had caused harm to different private companies by issuing cheques without the funds to cover them. The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing throughout the proceedings. In his appeal on points of law he complained that no evidence had been adduced in his favour. The appellate court reviewed the decisions of the lower courts and concluded that they had assessed the factual situation correctly and identified that the applicant had committed the offence, and that his requests to adduce evidence in his favour had been allowed. 12.  The applicant had been detained in connection with the second set of proceedings from 28 March 2001 until 19 March 2004, when he was released conditionally. 13.  According to him, he was detained in the Iaşi police station cells until 25 June 2001, when he was transferred to Iaşi High‑Security Prison. 14.  The applicant complains mainly of overcrowding and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions. He alleges that during his entire detention he had to share a bed with other prisoners, mostly dangerous criminals.
(a)Iaşi police station 15.  According to the applicant, in Iaşi police station he occupied cell 20. It had eight beds and was occupied by ten detainees. The surface area of the cell was 14.2 square metres. 16.  He complained that the cell had no toilet. The detainees went to the toilets twice a day, at 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. respectively. The rest of the time the detainees had to use a bucket. 17.  He alleged that he had been allowed to walk outside the cell for twenty minutes each day. 18.  He also complained that there was no running water. 19.  He further complained that the cell had no natural light. It had a small window with a grille.
(b)Iaşi prison 20.  The applicant alleged that between 25 June 2001 and 18 May 2003 he had been placed in several cells: cells 72 and 74 (when he refused to eat), 95, 4 and 51. 21.  He alleged that cells 4 and 51, where he spent most of his time while in detention, had no natural light. He claimed that when he had complained to the prison authorities about the lack of natural light he had been transferred to cell 95, which he shared with murderers and paedophiles. 22.  He further complained that these cells had more detainees than beds. According to the applicant the cells had a surface area of 32.3 square metres and were occupied by up to forty-five detainees. 23.  He acknowledged that he had refused the twenty‑minute outdoor walks and therefore he had been disciplinarily punished on 31 October 2002. He justified his attitude by the pain caused to his eyes by natural light. 24.  According to the information provided by the Iasi Inspectorate of Police to the Romanian Government, the applicant was placed in cell 20. Each detainee had his own bed. However, there was no information concerning the surface area of the cell and the number of prisoners occupying it for the relevant period of detention. 25.  The cell was fitted with clean toilets and had natural lighting and adequate ventilation.
(b) Iaşi prison 26.  According to the information submitted by the National Prison Administration (“the NPA”) and the Iaşi Prison Administration, the applicant shared cell 27 with inmates with no previous convictions, serving sentences less severe than ten years’ imprisonment. 27.  The surface area of the cell was 33.3 square metres. However, there was no information concerning the number of prisoners occupying it for the relevant period of detention. 28.  They also alleged that the cell had natural lighting and good ventilation. It had a supply of running and drinking water. 29.  According to the Government the prison had its own electric and heating facilities. The detainees could take a shower at least once a week. 30.  The Government claimed that the applicant used to participate in entertainment and sport activities. However, on the ground that the applicant refused to take the daily walk and to participate in recreation activities, he was sanctioned with a reprimand on 31 October 2002. 31.  The applicant alleged that his eyesight had been seriously impaired as a result of his detention in cells with neon light on permanently. He claimed that at the time of his arrest he had 2.5 dioptres in both eyes, while after twenty months of detention he had 3 dioptres in his right eye and 5 dioptres in his left eye. He submitted in this connection a medical certificate issued by the hospital of the Iaşi Prison on 15 November 2002 attesting to that statement. 32.  The Government maintained that according to the applicant’s medical record, he had been “healthy and fit for work” when he was placed in Iaşi Prison. They also admitted that the applicant has since been under medical surveillance for simple hypermetropy and presbyopia. They also submitted that on 15 November 2002 the applicant had been diagnosed with chronic conjunctivitis and simple hypermetropia and on 7 July 2003 with ophthalmological haemorrhage. 33.  According to the applicant’s medical file, from the date of his imprisonment he was regularly examined by doctors and was prescribed and administered medication during the course of his detention. 34.  The applicant lodged a civil action in damages against the Romanian State for the worsening of his eyesight. His claims were dismissed by the Iaşi County Court in a first-instance judgement of 27 January 2003 as unsubstantiated. From the information available in the case file it appears that the applicant lodged an appeal, but no information is available as to the final outcome of the case. According to the Government, the applicant did not continue the proceedings.


4.  The applicants were born in 1937, 1921, 1963, 1929, 1945, 1926, 1943, 1948 and 1950 respectively and live in Gebze. 5.  In 1996 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office (Kocaeli İl Özel İdare Müdürlüğü) expropriated nineteen plots of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place. 6.  On 5 November 1996 the applicants brought three separate actions for compensation before the Gebze Civil Court of First-instance. 7.  In order to assess the real value of the land, the court ordered on-site inspections and expert reports. Primarily, the experts worked on the classification of the plots since the value of urbanised land (arsa) was higher than rural land (arazi). In this context, the experts observed that the plots were not reserved for habitation under any urban plan (imar planı) of the Municipality or the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement; they were not situated within residential areas; and there was no annotation in the land registry that these plots were to be used for tourism purposes. Instead, the plots were classified as “fields” in the Land Registry. As a result of the on-site inspections and their findings, the experts decided that the plots should be classified as rural land. They therefore calculated the value of the plots on that basis. 8.  In their written submissions the applicants contested the expert reports. They submitted an expert report dated 5 March 1998 which concluded that the land in question should have been considered urbanised. 9.  After taking into consideration three expert reports for each case, the Gebze Civil Court of First-instance rejected the applicants’ objections in respect of the nature of the land. 10.  On 15 September 1998, 13 March 1998 and 4 May 1998, the court issued three decisions and awarded the applicants the below-mentioned amounts:

SETS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST-INSTANCE COURT

DATES OF DECISIONS
AWARDED AMOUNTS
(In Turkish liras)

FIRST SET OF PROCEEDINGS 11.  On 2 March 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld these decisions. 12.  On 14 May 1999 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ requests for rectification. 13.  Three sets of enforcement proceedings were initiated before the Execution Offices. 14.  At the end of the enforcement proceedings, the amounts indicated below were paid to the applicants by the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office on the dates mentioned:

SETS OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE

DATES OF PAYMENT
AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS
(In Turkish liras)

FIRST SET OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS


6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and is currently detained in Nicosia Central Prison. He is serving concurrent eighteen-year sentences pursuant to his conviction for two counts of attempted murder. 7.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant was permitted to leave detention on twenty-four hour leave granted by the prison director. He did not return to the prison when his leave expired. Following a search to trace his whereabouts, he was arrested on 21 September 2003. At the time of his arrest he was in possession of a gun and cartridges and was wearing a bullet-proof vest and a woman’s wig. He was transferred to the maximum security wing of the prison and placed in solitary confinement. He was thus confined until 7 November 2003, that is, for a total of 47 days. 8.  The parties’ submissions concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention during the period of his solitary confinement differed. 9.  The Government agreed that the applicant had been detained in the prison’s maximum security wing but maintained that he was detained in a normal cell. The dimensions of the cell were 2.8 metres by 2.1 metres, that is, 5.88 square metres. It was furnished with a bed, a cupboard and a table. The cell had two windows: an exterior one (0.8m by 0.6m) and a smaller one above the cell door (0.4m by 0.4m). The cell was opened about three times a day for a total of about an hour. This time was used for personal hygiene purposes and taking meals. It was the applicant’s responsibility to clean his cell and he was provided with all the necessary equipment. He had regular direct contact with prison personnel. Moreover, newspapers had been provided in the wing and he had access to books from the prison library. There was a television set in the wing corridor to which the applicant could listen and he would have been provided with a radio if he had requested one. 10.  During the applicant’s confinement he had spent considerable time outside prison when attending court hearings on 2, 10, 13, 16, 22 and 29 October and 4 and 6 November 2003. He was seen on four occasions by the prison doctor (7, 18, 20 and 31 October 2003). He was also visited by a welfare officer on 14 October 2003 and was seen by the prison psychologist on 3 and 30 October 2003. 11.  Although the applicant was allowed to send letters to his family and friends twice a week, he did not attempt to send any such letters. He did not ask to make or receive telephone calls. Visits from family members while the applicant was in solitary confinement were not permitted but during the applicant’s visits to the court, he could meet with his family and friends, and was in fact supplied with food, soft drinks and clothes by his family which he was allowed to take back to prison. On one occasion, a mobile telephone given to the applicant by a family member was confiscated upon his return to prison after a hearing. 12.  The applicant disputed the Government’s description of the conditions of his confinement. He alleged that following his return to prison on 21 September 2003 he was confined in a cold, damp cell of a maximum of five square meters without food, water or suitable clothing. The cell had no external window and the window of the cell door was considerably smaller than the Government had indicated. The applicant was excessively restricted in his ability to use the toilet or have a shower: for the first four days of his solitary confinement he was forced to use an empty water bottle to urinate and nylon bags for other needs. These were provided to him by a prison officer through the small window in the cell door. Due to the cold, his arm and shoulder had frozen and he suffered from pain but the doctor was not allowed by the prison authorities to provide him with painkillers. He was nevertheless given an anti-inflammatory gel by the doctor using her own funds. Relying on the prison logbook submitted to the Court by the Government, the applicant stated that he had not been allowed to go to the toilet prior to 24 September 2003 or to have food or the opportunity to shower before 25 September 2003, although he was given bottled water and an apple from time to time through his small cell window by a prison officer. He had no access to newspapers, books or television. Further, he was not regularly seen by a doctor and he was not allowed regularly to exit his cell for half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the afternoon, as required by the relevant regulations. 13.   While in solitary confinement, the applicant was not permitted to have visits from his family or to make telephone calls. As for the Government’s allegations that he had not asked to make telephone calls, the applicant replied it was not the practice of the prison authorities to give formal decisions refusing requests to make telephone calls in writing, there were no telephone booths in the maximum security block and, in general, prisoners were not allowed to receive calls from outside the prison. He had no contact with his family in the prison during the period of his solitary confinement and no contact was possible during his court visits. In particular, when he attended hearings at the district court in Limassol, he was kept at the Limassol central police station’s cells. It was only after the period of his solitary confinement that he could see his family and friends at the court’s hearings. 14.  The applicant also alleged that the maximum security wing was used to threaten or punish prisoners given the conditions of detention there and, in particular, the fact that another prisoner would beat up prisoners without any attempt by the authorities to protect them. The applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated in this manner on two occasions but did not provide further details. 15.  According to the entries in the prison logbook which was submitted to the Court by the Government, the applicant was returned to prison on 21 September 2003. On 24 September 2003, the logbook records that the applicant left his cell to use the toilet after special notification had been given to the security direction (“φρουραρχείο”). The following day, the entry in the logbook records that he met with the prison director and was given food. 16.  Although the logbook records that on some days the applicant used the toilet on several occasions, on others it indicates that he only used the toilet once.  On 4 October 2003, there is no record of the applicant leaving his cell to use the toilet. Access to shower facilities appears to have been sporadic: at times he showered every couple of days but on other occasions, according to the logbook, he did not leave his cell to shower for two weeks. Similarly, the prison logbook records that on some days the applicant was given two or three meals whereas on others, it would appear that he received only one. On 4 October 2003, there is no entry recording any meal given to the applicant. 17.  The logbook indicates that the applicant saw a prison psychologist four times: on 23 and 26 September and on 3 and 31 October 2003. He saw the prison doctor on 7 and 20 October 2003. He met with the welfare officer on 14 October 2003. On 31 October 2003, he refused to attend a scheduled visit to see a surgeon at the General Hospital 18.  The logbook records that the applicant attended court on seven occasions: on 10 October 2003 for about six hours; on 13 October 2003 for about five hours; On 16 October 2003 for about six hours; on 22 October 2003 for about eight hours; on 27 October 2003, for about one and a half hours; on 29 October 2003 for about seven and a half hours; and on 4 November 2003, for about two hours. 19.  According to the logbook, on 1 November 2003, the applicant met a member of the Prisons Board. On 5 November 2003, he was taken to meet with the Prisons Board and was away from his cell for 20 minutes. 20.  There are two entries in the logbook recording other relevant events. On 17 October 2003, he was taken to a conference room, where he remained for one hour and twenty minutes. On 4 November 2003, he was accompanied by a prison officer to visit a Mr A.T. and was away for about half an hour. 21.  Although the applicant was in solitary confinement until 7 November 2003, only entries from the logbook up to 5 November 2003 have been submitted by the Government. 22.  On the date of the applicant’s arrest following his failure to return to prison, a police investigation began into alleged offences committed while the applicant was at liberty. According to the Government, this was concluded on 11 November 2003 with the filing of charges against the applicant for the commission of various offences. The applicant maintained that he was charged on 10 October 2003. 23.  In parallel, on 5 November 2003, the applicant was charged with several disciplinary offences concerning the breach of the terms of his leave. However, the disciplinary proceedings were not pursued. 24.  On 19 July 2005 the Limassol Assize Court convicted the applicant of escaping from custody and of other offences associated with his escape. The prison director stated in his evidence before the court that the applicant was placed in solitary confinement in order to protect him from other prisoners who were hostile towards him because of restrictions imposed in the prison affecting everyone as a result of the applicant’s escape. The court noted in its judgment that the applicant had entered a plea of not guilty in respect of the disciplinary offences but that the proceedings were not pursued, no witnesses were heard and no sentence was imposed. Given that there had been no trial, no verdict and no imposition of a sentence in the disciplinary proceedings, the court concluded that the applicant’s confinement could not be treated as a disciplinary sentence. 25.  The applicant lodged an appeal against his conviction before the Supreme Court. 26.  On 11 December 2007 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal against his conviction of the offence of escaping from custody given that, at the relevant time, he had been on temporary release and had merely failed to return to prison at the expiry of his release period. 27.  The applicant, in a letter to the office of the Commissioner of Administration (“the Ombudsman”) dated 6 October 2003, complained about his detention for an excessive period of time in the maximum security wing, alleging in particular that during this period he was not able to have visits or contact with his family by telephone or correspondence and that he was only allowed to leave his cell in order to go to the toilet, have a bath or pick up his food tray. He subsequently complained that his letter addressed to the Ombudsman dated 6 October 2003 was delivered late, after having been sent by the prison director to the Director General of the Ministry of Justice. 28.  According to the Ombudsman’s report of 21 November 2003 the applicant had been confined to a cell in the security wing for 47 days. Having been contacted by the Ombudsman, the prison authorities stated that the applicant had been put in solitary confinement for his own protection given the possibility of retaliation by other prisoners due to the restrictive measures imposed on them as a result of the applicant’s failure to return from home leave. The prison authorities confirmed that the applicant was not permitted any visits, telephone conversations or letters and that moreover, he was not allowed to exit his cell except in order to wash himself, to go to the toilet and to get his food. It was further noted that although the Senior Prison Inspector had given instructions on 31 October 2003 that the applicant be returned to normal detention, the applicant was kept confined to his cell until 7 November 2003 as the instructions had not been registered in the records of the wing but had merely been noted on a piece of paper which had been misplaced. 29.  As regards the applicant’s letter to the Ombudsman dated 6 October 2003, the report noted that a copy of that letter, as well as copies of three other letters addressed to recipients other than the prison authorities, had been sent by the prison director to the Director General of the Ministry of Justice in order to seek instructions as to whether the particular letters should be sent to the intended recipients. The Ombudsman received the letter addressed to her on 5 November 2003. 30.  The Ombudsman in her report observed that it did not appear from the file that the confinement of the applicant had been of a disciplinary nature. She also noted that had the applicant’s confinement been a preventive measure or a measure for the protection of the applicant, as claimed by the prison authorities, then under regulation 151(5) of the Prison (General) Regulations 1997 (“Prison Regulations” – see further “Relevant domestic law and practice”, below) the written approval of the prison director would have been required. No such approval had been given. The Ombudsman therefore considered that the applicant’s confinement was a punitive measure. 31.  Moreover, the Ombudsman was not convinced that the denial of the applicant’s right to receive visits, correspondence and telephone contact, for example with his eight year old son, had aimed to protect the applicant from his fellow inmates. She further observed the following:
“It is noted that although in theory the total seclusion of a person in combination with his total social isolation is not acceptable, in practice the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission have tolerated this type of total confinement in exceptional circumstances. However, this was done in cases concerning particularly dangerous terrorists who had been detained pending their trial and who had been allowed to go into the prison yard at some specific time in the day.” 32.  The Ombudsman concluded that the applicant’s confinement for a total period of 47 days with no right to exit his cell for one hour a day as provided for in the Prison Regulations, in combination with the denial of the applicant’s right to have contact with family and friends, was in breach of the Prison Regulations and constituted a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. 33.  As regards the applicant’s complaint concerning the monitoring of the letter he sent to her, the Ombudsman emphasised the importance of allowing prisoners direct and uninhibited access to her office. In this connection she referred, inter alia, to the European Prison Rules and a report by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the prevention of torture (see further “International materials”, below), as well as the case of Silver and others v. the United Kingdom, (no. 5947/72; 6205/73; 7052/75; 7061/75; 7107/75; 7113/75; 7136/75, Commission’s report of 11 October 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 9, p. 56). 34.  On 1 January 2004 the applicant submitted an additional complaint to the Ombudsman against the prison authorities. He complained that the prison authorities had, on 20 December 2003, refused to allow him to give his father, who had visited him in prison, a letter addressed to the Ombudsman requesting her to send him copies of past correspondence between them. The applicant claimed that he did not want the contents of his letters to the Ombudsman to be monitored by the prison personnel and that for this reason he had decided to send the letter through his father. He had complained on 30 December 2003 to the prison director. 35.  The Ombudsman, in a report dated 15 March 2004, repeated that prisoners should be allowed unrestricted access to her office. She found that there had been unjustified difficulties and unnecessary obstacles in the direct and unhampered communication of the applicant with her office that had negatively affected the exercise of his rights. She noted that on 3 February 2004, at a meeting held in the Ministry of Justice, it was decided that a designated letter box would be placed in the central prisons to allow prisoners, freely and without procedural or substantive restrictions, to submit complaints to the Ombudsman concerning their conditions of detention. 36.  By letter of 22 May 2004 the applicant informed the Court that in May 2004, on the basis of a recommendation by the Attorney-General of Cyprus, fifty-four prisoners were granted an official pardon by the President and were consequently released. The applicant was not among the fifty-four.


4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and currently lives in Sevastopol, the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, Ukraine. 5.  At the material time she worked at the Housing Maintenance and Utilities Enterprise “Kotelnikovo” (Управління житлово-комунального господарства «Котельниково»), a municipal enterprise set up and owned by local village council. The labour contract with the applicant was signed by that village council. Subsequently she resigned. 6.  On 16 December 2002 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea awarded the applicant 3,151.25 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments due to her by her former employer. 7.  This judgment became final and on 30 January 2003 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it. According to the Government, in the course of these proceedings the total amount of UAH 357.97 was paid to the applicant. The applicant, in her turn, contested that she had ever been paid any sum under the judgment. 8.  In September 2003 the applicant instituted another set of proceedings against her former employer seeking additional compensation for salary arrears. On 1 February 2005 the court dismissed her claim. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment. 9.  On 15 December 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated for lack of funds of the debtor enterprise. The applicant did not challenge this decision before the domestic courts; nor had she reintroduced her writ of enforcement with the State Bailiffs’ Service. 10.  On 26 January 2006 the Commercial Court of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea initiated liquidation proceedings against the debtor enterprise. These proceedings were terminated on 26 February 2007 and the enterprise was removed from the relevant enterprises’ register. The applicant did not raise her creditor claims within these proceedings. 11.  The judgment of 16 December 2002 remains unenforced. 12.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Pyatykhatky, the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine. 13.  On 11 April and 1 October 2003 the Pyatykhatky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region awarded the applicant UAH 1,705.14 and UAH 570.41[2], respectively, in salary arrears due to her by her former employer, the Pyatykhatky Municipal Plumbing Company (Комунальне підприємство водопровідно-каналізаційного господарства в м. П’ятихатки) set up, owned and managed by local town council. 14.  These judgments became final and on 30 April 2003 and 30 March 2004, respectively, the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them. 15.  The applicant complained to various State authorities about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour but to no avail. 16.  On 15 May 2007 the awarded amounts were paid to the applicant.


4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Rejowiec Fabryczny. 5.  The applicant was arrested on 20 September 1999 on suspicion of homicide. On 22 September 1999 the Chełm District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of 3 months in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed homicide. It further held that the likelihood that he would be given a heavy sentence justified his detention on remand. 6.  On 14 December 1999 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 19 March 2000. It relied on the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offence in question and the likelihood of a heavy sentence being imposed on the applicant. In addition, it had regard to the need to obtain expert evidence and a psychiatric examination of the suspects. 7.  On 8 March 2000 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 19 June 2000. It found that in the light of the evidence obtained there was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offence. Furthermore, it relied on the severity of the likely sentence and the need to obtain further expert evidence. On 24 May 2000 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 4 September 2000, reiterating the grounds previously given. It appears that his detention was subsequently prolonged on an unspecified later date. 8.  In the course of the investigation the Regional Prosecutor obtained voluminous evidence and took a series of investigative measures. On 10 July 2000 the prosecution service filed a bill of indictment with the Lublin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with two counts of homicide and armed robbery. There were four other defendants in the case. 9.  On 20 March 2001 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 19 September 2001. It held that the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that the applicant would be given a heavy sentence confirmed the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings. It further held that the applicant’s detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. Lastly, when extending the applicant’s detention, the Regional Court had regard to its caseload. 10.  On 19 September 2001 the Court of Appeal granted the Regional Court’s application and prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 2001. It noted that the period of the applicant’s detention had reached the 2-year statutory time-limit (Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and criticised the trial court for not having indicated any particular circumstances which would justify the prolongation beyond the statutory time-limit. However, it held that the prolongation was justified on account of other significant obstacles to progress in the proceedings, namely the fact that one of the defendants had failed to appear at the hearing which had led to the adjournment of the trial. The Court of Appeal also noted that although the bill of indictment had been filed on 10 July 2000, the trial court listed the first hearing only for 16 May 2001. 11.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on 28 November 2001 (until 15 March 2002), on 13 March 2002 (until 30 April 2002) and on 24 April 2002 (until 30 September 2002). In all those decisions the Court of Appeal relied on the same grounds as had been given in the earlier decisions. 12.  The trial court held 20 hearings in the period from 16 May 2001 to 19 September 2002. On 23 September 2002 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. The applicant, who remained in detention, appealed against the first-instance judgment. 13.  On 22 October 2003 the Lublin Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and ordered a retrial. 14.  It appears that the applicant’s detention was prolonged on further unspecified dates. On 7 May 2004 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 31 December 2004. The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on 3 December 2004 (until 31 March 2005), on 29 March 2005 (until 30 September 2005) and on 19 September 2005 (until 31 December 2005). In all those decisions, the Regional Court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and the likelihood of a heavy sentence being imposed. 15.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 3 December 2004 to prolong his detention. He argued, in particular, that the Regional Court had failed to explain why other non-custodial measures were considered insufficient in his case. On 21 December 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the contested decision. It agreed with the applicant that the reasons given by the Regional Court were very brief and general. However, referring to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, it held that the applicant’s continued detention served the public interest of protecting society, given that the applicant had been charged with the homicide of two women, having first cruelly treated them. 16.  In its decision of 20 April 2005 upholding the decision of 29 March on the prolongation of the applicant’s detention, the Court of Appeal held that his continued detention on the basis of Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remained valid. Having regard to the nature of the alleged offences, it held that Article 258 § 2 established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on an accused might induce him to obstruct the proceedings. 17.  On 5 October 2005 the Court of Appeal, having examined the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 19 September 2005 on prolongation of his detention, ordered the applicant’s release under police supervision. It also imposed a ban on leaving the country. The Court of Appeal had regard to the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand and the fact that the process of hearing evidence was very advanced. In those circumstances, it was not necessary to prolong further the applicant’s detention. The Court of Appeal also noted that despite the significant length of the applicant’s detention, the Regional Court had failed to ensure the diligent conduct of the trial and, in particular, had not held hearings at reasonable intervals. Furthermore, it observed that the reasons for the continued detention as given by the Regional Court in its decision of 19 September 2005 were very terse. The applicant was released on 6 October 2005. 18.  The Regional Court held 22 hearings in the period from 28 January 2004 to 11 April 2006. The proceedings are still pending.


4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Innsbruck. 5.  On 23 September 1997 the applicant instituted divorce proceedings against his wife, A., before the Innsbruck District Court (Bezirksgericht). 6.  On 16 January 1998 the District Court dismissed A.'s request for legal aid (Verfahrenshilfe). 7.  Hearings were held in the divorce proceedings on 4 and 27 February 1998. 8.  On 6 November 1998 a further hearing was held in the divorce proceedings, in the course of which A.'s lawyer asked the court to adjourn the hearing in order to examine whether a guardian should be appointed to represent A. He considered that there were strong indications that she was mentally ill and lacked full legal capacity. Subsequently, in separate proceedings, a guardian was appointed for her. 9.  A further hearing in the divorce proceedings was fixed for 7 April 1999 and, at the request of A.'s lawyer, postponed until 21 April 1999. During the hearing on 21 April 1999 A.'s guardian stated that he was unable to approve the previous steps taken in the proceedings. 10.  In order to establish how long A. had lacked legal capacity and to what extent this had affected the previous proceedings, the District Court, on 12 May 1999, appointed Dr H., a psychiatrist, as an expert. On 7 October 1999 the expert submitted his report. On 26 November 1999 this report was discussed by the parties before the District Court. 11.  On 7 January 2000 the District Court declared the proceedings void because A. had been incapable of following the proceedings conducted so far. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 3 March 2000 the Regional Court (Landesgericht) dismissed his appeal. 12.  On 11 April 2000 the applicant requested the District Court to serve the petition for divorce on A.'s guardian. 13.  On 7 June 2000 the District Court scheduled a hearing in the fresh proceedings. The hearing was postponed and eventually took place on 20 September 2000. In the course of that hearing the District Court decided what evidence was to be taken. The applicant objected to the appointment of Dr H. as the expert as he considered him biased. 14.  A further hearing was fixed for 21 November 2000 but, at the applicant's request, was adjourned until 1 December 2000. 15.  Meanwhile, in August 2000, A. requested an interim injunction on the payment of maintenance. The District Court stayed these proceedings pending the receipt of expert opinions on A.'s legal capacity. Proceedings were resumed in December 2003. The request was eventually refused at second instance by the Regional Court on 30 April 2004. 16.  A., represented by her guardian, also requested an interim measure to prevent the applicant from selling parts of the real property that he had acquired during their marriage. This request was partly granted by the District Court on 7 December 2000. On 23 March 2001 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by A. against that decision. 17.  Meanwhile, on 9 January 2001, the applicant had requested the District Court to hear witnesses in the main proceedings. 18.  On 27 February 2001 Dr H. commented on the applicant's allegation of bias. On 18 June 2001 the District Court appointed another expert, Dr K., to prepare a report on the legal capacity of A. prior to 1996. 19.  Between 19 April 2002 and 4 November 2002 the expert was repeatedly urged by the District Court to submit his report. Although the AKH hospital, where Dr K. had worked until the summer of 2002, repeatedly told the District Court that the file, together with the expert report, had already been sent to the court, the court had not received it. Enquiries with the post office were also to no avail. Eventually, on 13 November 2002, Dr K.'s report, dated 13 February 2002, arrived at the District Court. 20.  Following comments made by the parties on Dr. K.'s report, the District Court returned the report to him on 15 January 2003, ordering him to supplement it. 21.  On 28 April 2003 the applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings (Fristsetzungantrag) under Section 91 of the Court Act, because the expert had not yet submitted his new report. The applicant also challenged the judge, alleging bias. 22.  On 18 June 2003 the expert, Dr K., submitted his supplemented report attesting that A. had lacked legal capacity at the relevant time. On the same day the District Court dismissed the applicant's challenge concerning the judge. 23.  On 31 July 2003 the applicant requested the District Court to issue an injunction prohibiting A. from selling, encumbering or mortgaging real estate without his agreement. On 29 August 2003 the District Court dismissed that request. 24.  On 25 September 2003 a further hearing took place in the divorce proceedings. At the applicant's request, the District Court appointed a further expert (Obergutachter), Dr N. from Munich (Germany). The expert report by Dr N., dated 22 January 2004, was served on the applicant on 18 March 2004. 25.  Thereupon the applicant requested that this expert also supplement his report on certain points. Dr N. submitted his supplementary opinion on 16 December 2004. 26.  On 9 August 2004 the case was assigned to a new judge. 27.  On 3 February 2005 a further hearing took place, at which A. requested the hearing of twenty-two witnesses. On 8 August 2005 the applicant requested the hearing of a further ten witnesses. The District Court heard witnesses on 21 April 2005, 14 July 2005, 24 November 2005, 1 December 2005, 15 December 2005, and 4 July 2006. In addition, four witnesses were heard by other courts on letters rogatory between 29 September 2005 and 11 May 2006. 28.  After the parties had already been heard by the District Court on 15 December 2005, the applicant, on 23 March 2006, requested to be heard once more. This hearing took place on 4 July 2006. Thereupon the District Court closed the taking of evidence and decided that the judgment was to be given in writing. 29.  On 12 October 2006 the District Court dissolved the marriage between the applicant and A. on grounds of mutual fault, while holding that A.'s fault prevailed. 30.  On 29 March 2007 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by A. against the divorce judgment. 31.  On 26 June 2007 the Supreme Court rejected an extraordinary appeal (außerordentliche Revision) by A. This decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 31 July 2007.