4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Gorlice. 5.  The applicant served in the army between 1988 and 1989 and was dismissed due to his health problems. He maintained that his physical and mental health problems resulted from his military service. 6.  On 27 December 1995 he applied for a military disability pension. On 8 February 1996 the Social Insurance Authority refused to grant his request. On 20 February 1996 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Kraków Regional Court. 7.  On 19 March 1996 the Regional Court requested an expert opinion concerning the applicant’s health. On 8 May 1996 the expert submitted his opinion. Subsequently, the court requested that two additional medical opinions be prepared. 8.  On 14 June 1996 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to admit another expert opinion. 9.  On 25 June 1996 another expert submitted her opinion to the court. 10.  On 24 July 1996 the Regional Court forwarded two expert opinions to the applicant for comment. The applicant’s lawyer submitted his observations on 14 August 1996. 11.  On 20 August 1996 the Regional Court held a hearing. The applicant submitted documentation on his medical treatment, which was subsequently forwarded to the medical experts. On 24 September 1996 and 5 November 1996 two experts submitted their supplementary opinions. 12. On 2 December 1996 a hearing was held. 13. On 18 December 1996 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the experts’ opinions and demanded a new opinion to be prepared by the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Krakow. 14.  On 22 January 1997 the Regional Court requested that the applicant be examined by specialists in laryngology, neuropsychiatry and internal medicine of the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Krakow. 15.  On 14 July 1997 the court requested the Institute to accelerate the preparation of their opinion and to return the applicant’s medical records to the court. On 8 August 1997 the Institute of Forensic Medicine submitted their opinion. 16.  On 14 August 1997 the court forwarded the opinion to the applicant’s lawyer for comment. 17.  On 22 September 1997 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to extend the time-limit for submitting his observations due to his illness. 18.  On 2 October 1997 a hearing was held. 19.  On 18 October 1997 the applicant challenged the expert opinion of 8 August 1997 and requested an additional medical examination. He also submitted an opinion prepared by a privately commissioned expert. The court refused to admit this opinion as evidence in the case. 20.  On 25 November 1997 the Institute of Forensic Medicine submitted a supplementary opinion in which they maintained their previous conclusions. On 9 January 1998 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to extend the time-limit for submitting his observations as the applicant was to undergo another examination. 21.  A hearing was held on 16 February 1998. 22.  On 20 February 1998 the applicant challenged the presiding judge. The court rejected his motion on 10 March 1998. 23.  On 23 February 1998 the applicant informed the court that he had revoked his lawyer’s power of attorney as he could no longer afford private legal representation. 24.  On 18 May 1998 applicant requested that the hearing scheduled for 28 May 1998 be adjourned because of his medical examination planned for that day. On 28 May 1998 the court adjourned the hearing until 26 June 1998. 25.  On 10 June 1998 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court requested the Kraków Regional Court for the case file of the proceedings as its examination was necessary to conduct proceedings for compensation against the State Treasury instituted by the applicant and pending at that time before the Nowy Sącz Regional Court. 26.  On 16 June 1996 the Kraków Regional Court rejected the request because the next hearing in the case would be held very shortly. 27.  On 26 June 1998 the Regional Court held a hearing and delivered a judgment, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Social Insurance Authority of 8 February 1996. 28.  On 31 August 1998 the applicant appealed against the judgment. 29.  The Regional Court in Krakow transferred the case file to the Krakow Court of Appeal on 21 September 1998. 30.  Between 10 and 23 March 1999 the case file was forwarded to the Przemysl District Court before which another of the applicant’s claims for compensation was pending at that time 31.  On 14 April 1999 the applicant requested the Court of Appeal to accelerate the examination of his appeal. On 20 April 1999 the President of the court replied that since his case concerned pension matters, the hearing would be scheduled sooner than would normally have been the case. 32.  On 8 June 1999 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 28 July 1999 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. 33.  On 19 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal as being ill-founded.


5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. 6.  On 9 May 2007 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava V District Court (Okresný súd) seeking a ruling declaring that a meeting of flat owners in a block of flats held on 24 April 2007 was contrary to the law, and that the decisions adopted at that meeting were void.
The defendant of the action was an entity with legal personality referred to as a community of owners of residential and non-residential premises in the given building (“the defendant”). Such entities are officially registered with the local District Authority (obvodný úrad). The defendant was so registered with the District Authority in Bratislava. 7.  On 2 January 2008 a submission was made to the District Court by a lawyer indicating that he was acting on behalf of the defendant and informing the court that on 14 December 2007 the defendant had ceased legally to exist. In that connection he submitted a letter from the District Authority which indicated that the defendant had been struck out of the relevant register on that date, the context being that the administration of the building was no longer the responsibility of the defendant and that that responsibility had been transferred to a specialised agency. 8.  On 24 January 2008 the applicant requested that a hearing scheduled before the District Court for 28 January 2008 be postponed sine die. She submitted that she had just learned of the striking out of the defendant by consulting the relevant register, and that she would make a further submission once she had analysed the situation, for which she needed time. The hearing scheduled for 28 January 2008 was accordingly adjourned. 9.  On 3 March 2008 the District Court discontinued the proceedings, on the grounds that the defendant had ceased to exist and had no legal successor. In particular, the District Court held that neither the individual owners of the flats in the building nor the newly contracted administration agency could be considered as having succeeded to the defendant’s position in the proceedings. 10.  On 20 March 2008 the applicant appealed (odvolanie), raising two principal arguments.
First, she submitted that the administration agency was the successor to the original defendant, and that consequently the proceedings should have continued against it.
Second, even assuming that the first contention was not correct, the court should not have terminated the proceedings but should rather have stayed them pending the outcome of another set of proceedings before the same District Court, in which a decision was being contested which had been taken at another meeting of the flat owners on 11 September 2007, to the effect that the defendant should be wound up (zrušenie). If that other set of proceedings ended with a ruling declaring the winding up of the original defendant void, its striking out of the given register would lose basis and the proceedings could continue against that defendant. More details about those other proceedings are set out below (see paragraphs 18 et seq.). 11.  On 30 May 2008 the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the first-instance decision, noting that the defendant had been struck out of the relevant register and had thereby lost capacity to be a party to the proceedings, in which situation there was no alternative to a discontinuance of the proceedings. The relevant legal provisions were referred to, but no reasons were offered for the latter conclusion. 12.  On 7 July 2008 the applicant appealed on points of law (dovolanie), relying on Article 237 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 99/1963 Coll., as amended) (“the CCP”), under which such an appeal was admissible if the courts had prevented a party to the proceedings from pursuing a case before them. In particular, she argued that the Regional Court had provided neither any factual nor legal grounds for its conclusion, as a result of which it was not amenable to review. In addition, she pursued and further developed the same line of argument as in her appeal. 13.  On 7 May 2009 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible, holding that the shortcomings alleged by the applicant did not fall within the purview of Article 237 (f) of the CCP. This applied specifically to the alleged deficiency in the Regional Court’s reasoning and the alleged errors of fact and law in the lower courts’ decisions.
In addition, in so far as the applicant had contested an error of procedure in that the courts had failed to stay the proceedings rather than to terminate them, the Supreme Court held that staying the proceedings was an option and not a duty of the court concerned, and that the fact that the present proceedings had not been stayed did not make out the admissibility ground cited by the applicant.
As the appeal was not admissible, the Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the case. 14.  On 17 August 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). She directed the complaint against all three levels of the ordinary courts and pursued and further developed in principle the arguments described above.
She considered that the discontinuance of the proceedings had been unlawful, submitted that it had been a mistake of the ordinary courts not to have examined the merits of her claim, and argued that this had amounted to a breach of her rights of access to court and to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 15.  On 16 December 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It considered it separately with reference to the individual levels of ordinary jurisdiction involved.
As regards the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings leading to the Regional Court’s decision of 30 May 2008, it held that the applicant had failed to submit her complaint within the statutory time-limit of two months.
As regards the Supreme Court, it observed that the central argument in the applicant’s appeal on points of law was the alleged error of law. In that regard, it went on to hold, inter alia, that:
“The Supreme Court ... rightfully emphasised ... that, as there were no grounds on which the applicant’s appeal on points of law would be admissible, it was not possible for it to review the merits of the Regional Court’s decision. The Supreme Court did not exclude in a binding manner that the decision of the Regional Court was the result of a wrongful legal assessment of the matter, nor did it exclude the possibility of there having been another error in the proceedings before it which had resulted in a wrongful decision on the merits.” 16.  Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court found that, as regards the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Court had given relevant reasons for its decision and that that decision was not arbitrary.
In particular, it also noted that, should the other set of proceedings end with a ruling declaring the winding up of the defendant void, this would create for the applicant the opportunity to seek reopening of the proceedings in her case. Future examination of that case on the merits thus could not be completely excluded. However, at the same time, the Constitutional Court noted that even if the winding up of the defendant were to be declared void, this would not automatically mean that the defendant would legally come into existence once more. The coming into being of a legal entity such as the defendant required incorporation, which in turn necessitated a decision of the District Authority, and could not result directly from a judicial decision. 17.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 5 February 2010. 18.  On 26 September 2007 an individual brought proceedings against the above-mentioned defendant as well as the above-mentioned newly appointed management agency, seeking a ruling declaring void a decision to wind up the defendant taken at a meeting of flat owners in the block held on 11 September 2007 (see paragraph 10 above). 19.  After the first dismissal of the action was quashed following the claimant’s appeal, the action was again dismissed by the District Court on 4 April 2012 and, following the claimant’s appeal, by the Regional Court on 19 March 2014. 20.  On 14 July 2014 the claimant challenged the judgments last mentioned by way of a complaint to the Constitutional Court.
The complaint appears to be still pending.


5.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1966, 1962 and 1957 respectively and live in Baku. 6.  The first applicant, Mr Panah Huseyn (also sometimes referred to as Panah Huseynov), was a prominent member of the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan. The second applicant, Mr Rauf Abbasov (commonly known as Rauf Arifoglu), was a prominent member of the Müsavat Party and the editor-in-chief of the opposition-oriented newspaper Yeni Müsavat. The third applicant, Mr Arif Hajili, was a deputy chairman of the Müsavat Party. The fourth applicant, Mr Sardar Mammadov (commonly known as Sardar Jalaloglu), was a deputy chairman of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan. 7.  The respective political forces with which the applicants were affiliated were founders of the election coalition Bizim Azerbaijan, formed with the aim of supporting the main opposition candidate, Mr Isa Gambar, the chairman of the Müsavat Party, in the presidential elections of 15 October 2003. 8.  Mr Gambar lost the elections of 15 October 2003. 9.  On the evening of election day a group of opposition supporters gathered in front of the Müsavat Party’s headquarters in the centre of Baku, claiming victory for their candidate in the election. At that time there were some violent altercations between opposition supporters and the security forces. 10.  At around 2 p.m. on 16 October a number of opposition supporters started gathering near the State Carpet Museum, in the centre of Baku, to protest against the election results. The crowd then started moving towards Azadliq Square, the main square in the city. It was reported that, on the way, some people in the crowd began damaging cars, buildings, benches and other urban constructions. It was also claimed that the organisers of this unauthorised demonstration and certain leaders of the opposition parties were inciting their followers to violence. 11.  It has been claimed that some police officers who had been deployed at Azadliq Square were attacked by some of the demonstrators. Shortly thereafter large numbers of riot police and military personnel, fully equipped with helmets, shields and truncheons, arrived in the square with the aim of dispersing the demonstration. The situation quickly escalated into public disorder and violent clashes occurred between the crowd and the police. It was widely reported that the authorities used excessive force indiscriminately against anyone who happened to be in the area in question. 12.  The applicants, among other persons, were considered by the State authorities to be the organisers of the demonstration. At around 2.30 p.m. all of the applicants, except Mr Mammadov, had appeared on a tribune in Azadliq Square. Mr Hajili gave a speech to the people gathered in the square, while the two other applicants did not. Mr Mammadov was in the headquarters of his political party at that time and, according to his own statements, was unable to go to Azadliq Square (although he wished to do so), because the exits from the headquarters were reportedly blocked by State security forces. 13.  At around 6 p.m. the demonstration was completely dispersed. Several hundred people were arrested during the events of 16 October and in their aftermath. 14.  On 16 October 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 80308) concerning the events of 15 and 16 October 2003. More than a hundred persons arrested in connection with those events were eventually prosecuted in the context of those proceedings. The proceedings concerned only the actions of the organisers of the demonstration and those participating in it, and it appears that no criminal or other form of investigation was carried out in connection with the allegations of excessive use of force by the police and military units during the dispersal of the demonstration (see Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 23 and 114, 2 April 2009). 15.  In the context of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings, on the dates specified below all of the applicants were arrested and charged with criminal offences. 16.  The first applicant, Mr Panah Huseyn, was arrested at his home on 18 October 2003 by a number of police officers of the Organised Crime Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the OCD”). He was taken to the OCD’s detention facility. 17.  According to the second applicant, Mr Rauf Abbasov, on 17 October 2003 several police officers in plain clothes unsuccessfully attempted to arrest him. Thereafter, in order to avoid being arrested, the applicant sought refuge in the Norwegian Embassy until 21 October 2003. He left the Embassy after he received assurances from the police that he would not be arrested. However, on 27 October 2003 he was arrested and taken to Detention Facility no. 1. 18.  As for the third applicant, Mr Arif Hajili, on 21 October 2003 the Nasimi District Court remanded him in custody, on the basis of a request by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The applicant was not present personally and was not represented at that hearing. On 24 October 2003 he was arrested pursuant to the detention order. 19.  The fourth applicant, Mr Sardar Mammadov, was arrested at his home on 18 October 2003 and taken to the OCD (see Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, §§ 6-14, 11 January 2007, for a more detailed description of the circumstances of the fourth applicant’s arrest and detention). 20.  Following their arrests, the first, third and fourth applicants were not given immediate access to a lawyer (see section B.4 below). 21.  All of the applicants were formally charged with offences of “organising public disorder” and “use of violence against State officials” under Articles 32.2, 220.1 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code. On the basis of relevant requests by the Prosecutor General’s Office, all of them were remanded in custody pursuant to a court order, with their detention subsequently being extended until the trial. 22.  The first applicant was kept in the OCD’s detention facility until 22 October 2003. Thereafter, he was transferred to another detention facility. According to him, during the five days of his detention in the OCD he was repeatedly ill-treated. He was also informed that several of his relatives, including his brother, had been detained. He was not allowed access to a lawyer until 23 October 2003 (see below). After his transfer to another detention facility, for an unspecified period of time he was kept in solitary confinement and was not allowed to possess writing accessories, books, a radio or newspapers. 23.  In February 2004 the first applicant, together with several other detained persons (none of whom are applicants in the present case), lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office, alleging that they had been ill-treated during the first few days of their detention and seeking to have criminal proceedings opened against the perpetrators. On 14 February 2004 their complaint was rejected as unsubstantiated. In particular, in respect of the first applicant, it was noted that he had not made any allegations of ill-treatment in the immediate aftermath of his initial questioning, that the various allegations he had made at different times had been inconsistent, and that, when given the opportunity to undergo an examination by a forensic expert, he had refused to do so, stating that there were no injuries on his person. It was concluded that no evidence of ill‑treatment had been produced. 24.  During the trial proceedings (described in section C. below), the first applicant complained before the trial court that he had been tortured in the OCD. Responding to a number of specific questions put to him in connection with his allegations, he mentioned that he had been handcuffed and punched in his chest and kidneys and that it had been hinted to him that his son would be ill-treated, but he expressly refused to provide any further details of the alleged torture, stating generally that he had “never seen such cruelty”. He also refused to mention any names of the alleged perpetrators because “they were not important people”, and instead accused the President, the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Head of the Presidential Administration of “making orders” to ill-treat him. He also mentioned that, from what he had heard, many other people had also been ill-treated. It appears that the trial court dismissed his complaints of ill-treatment as unsubstantiated. 25.  According to the second applicant, during the first thirty-six days of his detention in Detention Facility no. 1, he was held in a single cell and was not given access to writing materials, books, newspapers or a radio. 26.  The fourth applicant’s ill-treatment was the subject of an earlier case examined by the Court (see Mammadov, cited above). 3.  Pre-trial investigation, severing the applicants’ case from criminal case no. 80308, and completion of the pre-trial investigation 27.  Throughout the period from the beginning of the criminal proceedings until 1 March 2004, the investigation into the accusations against the applicants, as well as other accused persons, was carried out within the framework of criminal case no. 80308. 28.  On 1 March 2004 the head of the investigation team issued a decision severing a new criminal case (no. 80365) from criminal case no. 80308. The new case concerned seven accused persons in total, including the four applicants and Mr I. Agazade, Mr I. Ibrahimov and Mr E. Asadov. The following reasons were given for the decision:
“The investigation has gathered sufficient evidence to prove the named persons guilty of having committed the offences with which they are charged. The criminal prosecution in respect of the other accused persons is continuing ...
The especially large volume of material in the case file and the large number of incidents comprising the case would make it necessary to prolong the pre-trial investigation and pre-trial detention. This would create difficulties in ensuring the rights and lawful interests of the accused persons in respect of whom sufficient evidence has been obtained and, at the same time, would result in an unacceptable delay in referring the case to the trial court.
Accordingly ... it is appropriate to sever a new criminal case from criminal case no. 80308 ..., to complete the pre-trial investigation in respect of the severed case and to refer it to the trial court.” 29.  It appears that the pre-trial investigation in respect of criminal case no. 80365 was formally declared completed on the same day, 1 March 2004. 4.  Legal representation of the applicants throughout the proceedings, and their lawyers’ access to the investigation file upon completion of the pre-trial investigation 30.  Below is the information on the legal assistance received by the applicants, the lawyers who represented them, and the circumstances in which they were given access to the investigation file after completion of the pre-trial investigation and before the trial proceedings, inasmuch as this can be discerned from the material available in the case file.
(a)  The first applicant 31.  Following his arrest on 18 October 2003, the first applicant, Mr Huseyn, was not allowed access to a lawyer until 23 October 2003. From that date on, he was represented by Mr M. Hadi. 32.  Following the completion of the pre-trial investigation on 1 March 2004, the applicant and his lawyer, Mr Hadi, were given access to the prosecution’s case file and on 6 April and 15 April 2004, respectively, they signed a record on familiarisation with the material in the case file. According to the applicant, his lawyer was granted access to the entire case file for only one working day. 33.  Subsequently, starting from an unspecified date during the trial, Mr Huseyn was also represented by another lawyer, Mr S. Panahov.
(b)  The second applicant 34.  After his arrest, the second applicant, Mr Abbasov, was represented by a State-appointed lawyer. The lawyer was subsequently replaced by three lawyers whom the applicant retained in October and November 2003. One of these lawyers was Mr T. Karim. 35.  It appears that, following the termination of the pre-trial investigation, Mr Karim was given access to the case file and signed a record on familiarisation with the material in the file, dated 15 April 2004. Mr Abbasov himself was also given access to the case file. According to him, he was given less than 100 hours to study the file, which was insufficient to become fully familiar with all the evidence, consisting of twenty-two volumes of documents (amounting to more than 6,200 pages) and twenty-two video cassettes (each containing about two and a half hours of video material). 36.  On 27 May 2004, at one of the preliminary hearings in the Assize Court, which had commenced on 7 May 2004 (see paragraph 44 below), Mr Abbasov lodged an application refusing the services of all three lawyers representing him on the ground that these lawyers had not been able to defend him adequately. He requested leave to defend himself in person but, according to the Government, subsequently asked for a new lawyer. On 4 June 2004 the Assize Court accepted the application and decided that the applicant should be provided with a new State-appointed lawyer. The lawyer, Mr S. Panahov, was appointed at some date around 8 June 2004. During the trial, another lawyer, Mr E. Guliyev, was retained by the applicant.
(c)  The third applicant 37.  Following his arrest on 24 October 2003, the third applicant, Mr Hajili, was not allowed access to a lawyer until 27 October 2003. From this date on, it appears that he was represented by a number of lawyers throughout the proceedings. 38.  Following the completion of the pre-trial investigation on 1 March 2004, the applicant and several of his lawyers (Mr M. Shahmarov, Mr N. Safarov, Mr M. Hadi and Mr O. Kazimov) were given access to the prosecution’s case file. On 6 April the applicant, and on 15, 16 and 17 April 2004 each of the lawyers, signed a separate record on familiarisation with the material in the case file.
(d)  The fourth applicant 39.  Mr V. Khasayev was appointed as Mr Mammadov’s lawyer on 18 October 2003. 40.  On 21 October 2003 Mr Khasayev complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office, by telegram, that he had not been allowed to meet the applicant. Eventually, he was able to meet the applicant for the first time on 22 October 2003. 41.  There is no information in the case file as to whether Mr Khasayev or the applicant were given access to the prosecution’s case file following the completion of the pre-trial investigation. 42.  As noted above, more than one hundred persons were prosecuted, in the framework of criminal case no. 80308, for their involvement in the events of 15 and 16 October 2003. Subsequently, this case was split, dividing the accused persons into fifteen separate groups (one of which groups comprised the newly severed criminal case no. 80365 concerning the applicants), and each group was tried separately. The first fourteen trials concerned the cases of those who were accused of participating in mass disorder and use of violence against officials. All those trials were conducted by either the Assize Court or the Sabail District Court and were completed in March and April 2004. All the defendants in those trials were found guilty and were sentenced to either imprisonment, suspended periods of imprisonment or restriction of liberty. 43.  The fifteenth and last trial in criminal case no. 80365 concerned the persons who were accused of organising the mass disorder, including the four applicants in the present case. This trial took place after the first fourteen trials. 44.  The trial was conducted by the Assize Court. It commenced with several preliminary hearings, the first of which took place on 7 May 2004.  The three-judge panel hearing the case was composed of Judges M. Ibayev (presiding), S. Aleskerov and J. Jumaliyev. 45.  During a preliminary hearing on 12 May 2004, the applicants’ lawyers complained to the Assize Court about an alleged danger to their personal safety, notifying the court about an incident which had taken place after the preliminary hearing of 7 May 2004. According to the lawyers, six of them had been harassed and assaulted by a number of police officers outside the courthouse when they were giving an interview to a television journalist. To support this allegation, two of the lawyers produced some items of clothing damaged during the altercation and photographs depicting the incident. They characterised the alleged incident as a form of undue pressure put on them by the authorities and asked the court to take measures to ensure their personal safety. The presiding judge replied that the court could not be concerned with any incidents taking place outside its courtroom and that the lawyers should use the relevant avenues of redress if they wished to complain about any alleged harassment outside the court hearings. The court nevertheless decided to notify “the relevant authorities” about the lawyers’ allegation. However, from the material available in the case file, it is unclear which specific steps were taken by the court in this regard. 46.  Furthermore, the first applicant, Mr Huseyn, lodged an application objecting to the participation in the trial of one of the Assize Court’s judges, Judge Ibayev, noting that the judge’s son worked at the Prosecutor General’s Office and was subordinate to the head of the investigation team dealing with his case. The other defendants joined the application. On 24 June 2004 the Assize Court rejected the application, finding that, although Judge Ibayev’s son indeed worked at the Prosecutor General’s Office, he had never been personally involved in the applicants’ case. 47.  Subsequently, the first applicant, joined by other defendants, also objected to the participation in the trial of Judge Aleskerov. They pointed out that Judge Aleskerov was the brother of Mr N. Aleskerov, an investigator from the Prosecutor General’s Office who, during the period from 19 October 2003 to 26 January 2004, had been a member of the investigation team dealing with the applicants’ case. The first applicant argued that, owing to Judge Aleskerov’s brother’s direct involvement in the case, he would not be able to hear the case as an impartial judge. On 28 June 2004 the Assize Court rejected that application, noting that Mr N. Aleskerov had indeed been one of the forty-three members of the investigation team working on criminal case no. 80308. However, he had been removed from the team on 26 January 2004. Subsequently, after the new case no. 80365 (concerning the applicants) had been severed from case no. 80308, Mr N. Aleskerov had not been included in the investigation team dealing with this new case. For these reasons, the Assize Court concluded that claims concerning the lack of impartiality of Judge Aleskerov could not be objectively justified. 48.  Throughout the trial in the Assize Court, the applicants lodged a number of other applications. According to them, the court’s interim decisions rejecting those applications were either not given to them or were made available to them only after significant delays. Moreover, the applicants requested permission to verify the transcripts of court hearings after each hearing in order to be able to comment on alleged irregularities and “falsifications” contained in them. However, they were given access to the transcripts only at the very end of the trial. 49.  During the course of the trial, the Assize Court examined large volumes of testimonial evidence, as well as video recordings and other materials. Below is a brief summary of the evidence heard and the manner in which it was ultimately assessed in the Assize Court’s judgment.
(a)  Witnesses for the prosecution 50.  The majority of prosecution witnesses were police officers deployed at Azadliq Square on 16 October 2003. The investigation also produced records of pre-trial questioning of some of the persons who had been convicted at earlier trials in connection with the events of 15 and 16 October 2003, and a number of other civilian witnesses.
(i)  Evidence concerning the events of 15 and 16 October 2003 in general, which did not directly implicate the applicants 51.  It appears that the absolute majority of prosecution witnesses were called to merely provide a general description of the events of 15 and 16 October 2003 in order to establish the fact of public disorder. Their testimonies were aimed at showing that the demonstrators had collected clubs, stones and other objects from the headquarters of the Müsavat Party and other opposition parties, that they had used these objects as weapons against the police and military forces and that they had damaged a variety of public and private property. These witness testimonies did not directly mention the applicants as either organisers of or participants in those violent actions. In addition, the prosecution produced some expert evaluations of various forms of damage to private and public property.
(ii)  Statements by police officers directly implicating the applicants 52.  As to the applicants’ specific role in the events of 16 October, in order to establish that they had directed and incited the demonstrators’ violent actions, the prosecution produced pre-trial depositions of several police officers who had specifically described, inter alia, how they had seen the applicants arriving at Azadliq Square on 16 October 2003, publicly proclaiming the election victory of I. Gambar and inciting the demonstrators to violence from the tribune in the square. 53.  Prior to the scheduled examination of these witnesses, on 5 August 2004 the first applicant, joined by all the other defendants, complained that the pre-trial depositions of some of those witnesses had been identical word for word and asked for this evidence to be excluded. He pointed out that, according to the relevant records, some of these depositions had been taken by the same investigator at the same time on the same day. He argued that this was either physically impossible or in breach of Article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which required that witnesses be questioned separately, and that, in either case, this evidence should not be admitted. It is not clear whether the Assize Court ever gave any decision concerning this objection, but it admitted the relevant depositions as evidence. 54.  At the trial hearings, each of the police officers concerned testified separately and was cross-examined by the applicants and their lawyers. In particular, police officer V.N. stated, inter alia, that when the public disturbance had started at Azadliq Square, some of the defendants, including the second and third applicants, had been inciting the crowd to violence and making such declarations as “Isa [Gambar] has been elected President, we are now in power, do not be afraid of anyone, soon we will overtake the entire city, resist anyone who confronts you...”. 55.  From the record of the court hearings, it appears that, during the cross-examination, the defence were able to reveal a number of alleged inconsistencies between the accounts given by V.N. during the hearing and in his pre-trial deposition (concerning such specific details of his testimony as, for example, whether he had actually seen any of the defendants appear on the tribune or not, or whether any of the defendants had actually used any phrases such as “Beat the police!”). The defence read out V.N.’s pre‑trial deposition at the hearing with the aim of pointing out these alleged inconsistencies. Likewise, according to the defence, cross-examination of most of the other witnesses of this type revealed alleged inconsistencies between their statements at the trial and in their pre-trial depositions. As appears from the transcript of the trial hearings, when confronted with these alleged inconsistencies, some of the witnesses stated that their pre-trial statements had not been properly recorded, while others reverted back to their pre-trial statements and retracted any inconsistent statements which they had made during the hearing prior to cross-examination. 56.  It appears from the transcript of the court hearings that more than ten witnesses of this type were heard. In its judgment of 22 October 2004 the Assize Court separately summarised the testimonies of six of those witnesses and relied on them as proving the applicants’ guilt. The judgment addressed neither the objections raised by the applicants as to the admissibility of these witness testimonies, nor any objections concerning the inconsistencies allegedly revealed in their testimonies during cross‑examination by the defence.
(iii)  Statements by previously convicted participants in the demonstration directly implicating the applicants 57.  The prosecution also relied on testimony obtained during pre-trial questioning from a number of other persons convicted in connection with the events of 15 and 16 October. These persons had already been convicted at first-instance trials conducted by the Assize Court in March 2005. Inasmuch as this can be discerned from the Assize Court’s judgment of 22 October 2004 in the applicants’ case, the court relied on testimonies of five witnesses of this type. 58.  According to the records produced by the prosecution, in the course of questioning as accused persons at the pre-trial investigation stage of criminal case no. 80308, these persons had described, in various degrees of detail, that they had witnessed the applicants at Azadliq Square inciting the demonstrators to violent resistance during the events of 16 October 2003. 59.  During the trial hearings, these witnesses were called to be questioned about their pre-trial statements. According to the relevant trial transcripts and the Assize Court’s judgment of 22 October 2004, having taken to the witness stand at the oral hearings, four of these witnesses openly retracted their pre-trial statements against the applicants, noting that they had been forced to make those statements under torture, ill-treatment and other forms of duress applied to them during their pre-trial detention. 60.  In reply to these allegations, the Assize Court noted that the witnesses’ complaints of ill-treatment had been addressed at their own respective trials and had been found to be unsubstantiated. The court found that, since these witnesses’ statements had already been relied on as sound evidence at those trials, the assessment of this evidence was a “res judicata matter”. In such circumstances, the court decided to accept these witnesses’ pre-trial statements as good evidence, and refused to attach weight to the fact that the witnesses had subsequently retracted them at their own trials and at the applicants’ trial.
(iv)  Statements by other witnesses directly implicating the applicants 61.  The prosecution also submitted depositions of several other civilian witnesses who had not been convicted in connection with the events of 16 October 2003. According to the records produced by the prosecution, during the pre-trial investigation these witnesses had made statements similar to those made by the witnesses mentioned above. However, again, during the questioning at the public hearing, at least three of those witnesses retracted their earlier statements and claimed that they had been forced to make them under threat of ill-treatment or by means of actual ill-treatment. 62.  According to the trial transcript, witness N.N. noted that he had been detained for a period of several days after the events of 16 October 2003 and, during that time, had been coerced into giving false testimony against the defendants (mostly against the second applicant). He noted that he had been threatened with prosecution and imprisonment for participating in the events of 16 October 2003, had been refused any water during his questioning and had otherwise been intimidated with the purpose of making him sign a pre-printed witness statement prepared by an investigator. 63.  In order to assess the allegations of ill-treatment made by these witnesses, the Assize Court heard evidence from investigators and police officers who had questioned them. They stated that they had not ill-treated these witnesses during pre-trial questioning. Furthermore, the court noted that the witnesses’ pre-trial statements were corroborated by other evidence. On that basis, the court found that the allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded and that, therefore, the statements contained in the pre-trial depositions of these witnesses should be accepted and relied on as evidence incriminating the applicants.
(b)  Witnesses for the defence 64.  The Assize Court partially granted the applicants’ requests to obtain the attendance of witnesses prepared to testify on their behalf. From the judgment, it appears that more than twenty such witnesses testified. Most of these witnesses were the applicants’ political companions or other persons affiliated with their political parties. 65.  In its judgment, the Assize Court summarised all of these persons’ testimonies noting that all of them denied that the applicants had carried out the specific acts attributed to them, such as planning any violent actions in advance, verbally inciting the crowd to violence or organising the distribution of clubs and stones to demonstrators. It further noted that the witnesses had insisted that, on the contrary, the police had used excessive violence against the demonstrators and that, in their speeches, the applicants had called the demonstrators to refrain from attacking the police and responding to any provocation. 66.  The Assize Court then went on to dismiss these testimonies as unreliable, using the following reasoning:
“Having examined the testimonies of these witnesses heard at the request of [the defendants], the court established that, as indicated above, these persons were members or employees of the [political] parties headed by the defendants and, as they worked with [the defendants], they were persons subordinate to and associated with [the defendants]. Some of their statements were even contradictory. In particular, while replying to the questions, [N.H.] stated, on the one hand, that the people speaking from the tribune had not been inciting people to violence and, on the other hand, that he had not heard the speeches as he had been standing 70-100 metres away from the tribune and had not been able to even see who had been speaking. [N.Y.] stated that she had been at the square by herself, while [E.P.] stated that [N.Y.] had been there with him.
Moreover, the circumstances described by them have been refuted by the above-mentioned comprehensive, reliable and mutually corroborative evidence consisting of testimonies of victims and witnesses, video recordings, material evidence and court judgments in force. Therefore, the court considers that [the defence witnesses’] testimonies are groundless.”
(c)  Other evidence 67.  In addition, a number of videos depicting the events of 16 October 2003 were viewed during the court hearings. 68.  The videos submitted by the prosecution were intended to show the allegedly violent actions of the demonstrators. Some of the images seen on the videos contradicted the testimonies of certain prosecution witnesses. Some of the defendants’ lawyers (for example, Mr Hadi) claimed that they had seen the video evidence for the first time at the court hearings, as it had not been made available to them by the prosecution before the trial, and that they had therefore been unprepared for the examination of this evidence. 69.  It appears that, following an application by the defence, the Assize Court also admitted additional video evidence submitted by the defence, which was intended to demonstrate the allegedly excessive use of force by the police and military while suppressing the demonstration. 70.  Assessing the video evidence, the Assize Court noted that the video depicted the violent actions of the demonstrators as well as the distribution to them of bludgeons, stones and other “weapons” in an organised manner. 71.  On 29 September 2004 the Assize Court announced that the presentation of evidence was complete and that it would proceed to hear the parties’ oral submissions, inviting the prosecution to make their closing address first. The prosecution asked for an adjournment until 1 October 2004 to prepare their speech. On 1 October the prosecution asked for another adjournment until 11 October 2004. The prosecution delivered their closing address during two hearings on 11 and 12 October 2004. 72.  Following the prosecution’s speech, on 12 October 2004 the court invited the defendants to deliver their respective closing addresses. However, in response to this invitation, almost all of the applicants’ lawyers, taking the floor one after the other, refused to take part in the oral submissions and make a closing address for the defence, providing the court with the following explanations for their refusal. 73.  The first applicant’s lawyer, Mr Hadi, speaking first, noted that, throughout the proceedings, he had not been given adequate time and facilities to prepare his client’s defence. He had not been allowed to fully study the investigation file before the trial and had not been given access to some of the prosecution evidence, such as video recordings, in order to be able to adequately plan his defence tactics. He further noted that, during the proceedings, the defence lawyers had come under various forms of pressure and had even been physically assaulted when arriving at one of the preliminary hearings. He claimed that the lawyers had regularly received various threats from unspecified persons aimed at preventing them from adequately defending the applicants. Although the lawyers had repeatedly brought this matter to the Assize Court’s attention, and had even specifically complained about the incident involving the physical assault on them, the court had failed to take any action and had ignored the difficulties faced by them. He further argued that, in reality, the outcome of the trial had been predetermined and politically motivated and that the trial itself was being held only as a show, since even before its conclusion the President had publicly declared that the applicants were criminals and would be punished. He stated that, in such circumstances, the lawyers themselves felt vulnerable and frightened. He stated that, for these reasons, he was unable to adequately defend his client and was therefore unable to submit an oral argument. He apologised to his clients, the first applicant and Mr Ibrahimov, and noted that it would be best if the defendants were allowed to prepare and deliver the oral arguments themselves. 74.  Mr Panahov, counsel for the first and second applicants, gave a similar explanation. He also noted that he was not able to provide effective assistance to his clients because, inter alia, he had never been given access to the investigation file. He claimed that after the completion of the pre-trial investigation the lawyers had been pressured into signing records on familiarisation with the material in the case file so that the case could be sent for trial quickly. Although he had specifically complained about this during the preliminary hearings, the Assize Court had ignored this matter. Like Mr Hadi, Mr Panahov also noted that the lawyers were concerned for their personal safety, and that this affected their ability to provide adequate assistance to their clients. 75.  Other lawyers concurred with everything stated by their colleagues and gave similar explanations for their refusal to give a closing address. 76.  Following this, the first applicant spoke to the court, on behalf of himself and the other defendants, asking for permission to make their defence speeches in person. He noted that, following their lawyers’ refusal to take part in the oral submissions, they were essentially left without any legal assistance. He requested the court to allow them sufficient time to prepare their closing addresses. 77.  In response, Judge Ibayev stated that the defendants would be allowed to exercise a right of reply (replika). Judge Aleskerov noted that procedural law allowed a defendant to give a closing address in person only if he or she was unrepresented by counsel. Judge Jumaliyev commented that counsel could not shirk their duty to defend their clients. 78.  At the next hearing, on 13 October 2004, the first applicant, on behalf of himself and the other defendants, lodged a formal application in writing, requesting the court to allow them to make their defence speeches themselves. 79.  The court rejected the application as groundless. It noted that the defence lawyers had provided effective and adequate legal assistance to their clients. It further noted that the lawyers had been given ample opportunity to consult the investigation file but had themselves failed to do so, that it was the lawyers’ duty to participate in oral arguments, that they could not refuse to assist their clients at this stage of the proceedings, and that they had no good reason for shirking their duties. 80.  It appears that only the fourth applicant’s lawyers delivered a closing address on behalf of their client, despite the fact that the fourth applicant had joined the first applicant’s request for permission to give the closing address in person. 81.  The Assize Court then proceeded to invite the parties to exercise their right of reply. The prosecution waived that right. 82.  Prior to the defendants’ speeches in reply, the third applicant asked the court not to place any time-limits on them, taking into account the fact that no closing addresses had been delivered on their behalf during the oral submissions. The presiding judge noted that this would be taken into account. 83.  Exercising his right of reply, the first applicant spoke for about two hours. The presiding judge interrupted him three times, reminding him that a reply should be brief (no longer than three to fifteen minutes), and ultimately cut short his speech despite the applicant’s protests. 84.  Likewise, all the other applicants attempted to deliver long speeches while exercising their right of reply, but were interrupted and ultimately stopped by the presiding judge after about an hour, on the ground that a reply should be brief. 85.  Following this, the trial hearings ended after each of the defendants was allowed to speak one more time, in order to make their final plea. 86.  On 22 October 2004 the Assize Court convicted the applicants of organising public disorder (Articles 32.3 and 220.1 of the Criminal Code) and organising acts of violence against State officials (Articles 32.2 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code). 87.  The first and fourth applicants were each sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The second and third applicants were each sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. 88.  In October and November 2004 the applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal against their conviction. In particular, in his appeal, the first applicant complained of, inter alia, breaches of his rights to an impartial tribunal, adequate time and facilities for preparation of his defence, effective representation, equality of arms and presumption of innocence. He also complained of errors by the trial court in the procedure for the admission and assessment of evidence. The second and fourth applicants made similar complaints in their appeals. 89.  The third applicant’s appeal was shorter than those of the other applicants and was phrased in more general language. Among other things, he complained of the following:
“The conviction should be quashed as being illegal, unsubstantiated and unfair and I should be acquitted. In particular: 3.  The judicial examination was carried out in breach of my right to make a closing statement and in breach of my lawyer’s right to make a closing statement. 5.  The factual findings in the judgment have not been proven. ...
The grounds for my claims concerning the illegality, lack of substantiation and unfairness of the conviction will be presented by me at the [appeal] hearings.” 90.  All of the appeals were drafted by the applicants themselves in their own handwriting. 91.  By a decision of 8 November 2004, delivered after a preliminary hearing, the Court of Appeal granted the applicants’ request to hold a public hearing on the merits of their appeals, but rejected their requests to conduct a fresh “judicial examination” of the case by means of renewed cross‑examination of the witnesses and defendants and admission of new evidence. It also decided to provide the applicants with State-appointed lawyers for appeal proceedings, appointing the same lawyers who had represented the applicants at first instance. The extent of the actual assistance provided by these lawyers during the appellate proceedings is not clear. 92.  By a judgment of 19 November 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the Assize Court’s judgment. It reiterated the lower court’s findings and rejected, in one sentence, the complaints made by the applicants in their appeals as unsubstantiated. 93.  The first applicant lodged a cassation appeal against that judgment. The cassation appeal consisted of 206 pages and was drafted by the applicant himself in his own handwriting. The appeal was very detailed in respect of all the alleged defects in the proceedings before the Assize Court and the Court of Appeal. The other applicants also lodged cassation appeals, drafted by themselves in their own handwriting. 94.  On 29 March 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. 95.  In March 2005 all of the applicants were released from serving the remainder of their prison sentences pursuant to a presidential pardon decree. 96.  The applicants submitted a number of publications containing statements by high-ranking State officials and public authorities, which allegedly breached their presumption of innocence. Some of those statements are summarised below. 97.  On 17 October 2003 the Milli Majlis (Parliament) adopted a resolution “on Unconstitutional Actions of the Müsavat, Ümid and Azerbaijan Democratic Parties, and Certain Political Opposition Groups”, denouncing the above-mentioned parties and holding them responsible for “unlawful actions” and mass disturbances resulting in loss of life and injuries inflicted on civilians and members of law-enforcement authorities, as well as for damage to public and private property. Among others, the resolution identified Isa Gambar (the leader of Müsavat), Igbal Agazade (one of the defendants tried together with the applicants) and “a group of other members and supporters of the opposition” as organisers of the above disturbances. The resolution was published in official newspapers. 98.  On 23 October 2003 the official newspaper Xalq Qəzeti published a report by the State-owned press agency AzerTAG concerning a press conference held by the Ministry of Internal Affairs on 22 October 2003. During this press conference, the Head of the Press Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs conveyed the Ministry’s official position concerning the events of 15 and 16 October 2003 and informed the media that criminal proceedings had been instituted in this connection and that a number of persons had been arrested. Among other things, he stated as follows:
“...on 15 and 16 October 2003 the destructive opposition, at the direct instigation of the leaders of the Müsavat, Ümid and Azerbaijan Democratic Parties Isa Gambar, Rasul Guliyev, Sardar Jalaloglu [Mammadov], Igbal Agazade and others, began committing pre-planned unlawful actions which resulted in mass disorder.” 99.  The same issue of the newspaper contained a declaration by the Head of the Sabail District Police Office, denouncing the opposition. The following was stated:
“On 15 and 16 October 2003 certain riotous anarchist and extreme reactionary groups, following direct orders by Isa Gambar, Igbal Agazade and Sardar Jalaloglu [Mammadov], committed terrible criminal acts in Baku. ...
... we are confident that ... the persons who committed crimes ... and oversaw these extreme reactionary acts will bear criminal responsibility and receive deserved punishment. Moreover, we are assured that the Müsavat, Ümid and Azerbaijan Democratic Parties, which organised these criminal actions, will be banned and that the leaders of those political entities (I. Gambar, R. Guliyev, S. Jalaloglu, I. Agazade) will be held criminally liable.” 100.  On 25 October 2003 Xalq Qəzeti published a declaration by the Ombudsperson, in which she criticised the opposition and the actions of the demonstrators during the events of 15 and 16 October 2003 and called upon all compatriots to adhere to civil unity and peaceful behaviour. The declaration was silent about the alleged reports of excessive and repressive use of force by the law-enforcement authorities during or in the aftermath of the events of 15 and 16 October 2003. 101.  On 27 October 2003 Xalq Qəzeti published an almost full‑page‑long “Press statement by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan concerning the events that took place in Baku on 15 and 16 October”. The statement began with praise for the law-enforcement authorities’ success in combating crime in recent years and the Government’s progress in building a democratic State governed by the rule of law. It continued with words of disapproval about the “radical opposition”, which did not “want to accept the positive developments and existing realities” and was attempting to “cast a shadow” on the Government’s successes and to disrupt stability in the country. It further continued:
“The extremist circles of the opposition, having realised in advance that they would lose in the free and fair elections and having become fully assured of this during the voting conducted in a democratic and transparent manner, once again resorted to destructive actions. Leaders of the Müsavat and Ümid Parties Isa Gambar and Igbal Agazade, their supporters, and leaders of the ADP, including Rasul Guliyev, who is under an international search warrant for the crimes committed by him, and Sardar Jalaloglu [Mammadov], as well as other members of that party, have particularly distinguished themselves in this undertaking.
It must be noted that, starting from 1 October, for the purpose of participating in the mass disturbances planned by the [above-mentioned] persons, active members of those parties as well as persons predisposed to crime were brought to [Baku], and money was distributed to some of them in exchange [for their participation].
[The narration continues with a description of the opposition demonstration held on 15 October 2003, where claims of election irregularities and unfairness were first voiced.]
The false accusations and lies deliberately disseminated by the above-mentioned party leaders after the election, as well as their call to [demonstrators] to commit illegal actions, provided an impetus for further actions resulting in a grave breach of public order in the capital. ...” 102.  The statement continued with a detailed description of the events of 15 and 16 October and with a flat denial of any allegations of excessive and repressive use of force by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration, as well as any allegations of torture and ill-treatment of arrested persons. It also stated that only a small number of arrested persons, consisting of the main organisers and perpetrators of the illegal actions referred to, had eventually been prosecuted. 103.  On 30 October 2003 Xalq Qəzeti published an article by the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, entitled “Stability and tranquility in Azerbaijan will be protected, the rule of law will be firmly respected”. Almost the entire article consisted of condemnation and harsh criticism of the political opposition’s actions during the events of 15 and 16 October. The author repeatedly used such descriptions as “criminal”, “reactionary”, “destructive”, “radical” and “violent” with reference to the opposition in general, and in particular to the Müsavat Party and its leader I. Gambar. The author expressly stated that the Müsavat Party, its leaders and other opposition forces supporting them had engaged in “actions of criminal character”, had openly declared their intention to capture State power by unlawful means, had distributed bludgeons to their supporters and had ordered them to engage in violent actions and vandalism and to disrupt the stability of the country. Within the above account, the article contained the following statements:
“... Panah Huseyn[ov] ... threatened bloodshed, and attempted to create a situation of mass psychosis. Not only Panah Huseyn[ov] engaged in such subversive action. While delirious ideas of ‘ripening a revolutionary situation’ came from Isa Gambar and Rasul Guliyev, they were conveyed to society by the likes of Sardar Jalaloglu [Mammadov], Igbal Agazade, Ibrahim Ibrahimli, Arif Haji[li], Rauf Arifoglu [Abbasov] and Flora Kerimova.” 104.  On 5 October 2004, before the Assize Court’s judgment in the applicants’ case was delivered, the official newspaper Azərbaycan published a long interview given by the President to Reuters. Among a wide range of other issues discussed during the interview, the President also made the following statement:
“The attempt of the opposition to change the election results by means of violence was a criminal act. I stress again that the detained persons who are referred to as the opposition are being tried not for being members of the opposition, but for having committed unlawful acts.”


5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Ankara. 6.  The applicant, who was a professor of political science at the University of Ankara, had stood for the parliamentary elections of 22 July 2007, in the second electoral district of Istanbul, as an independent candidate. He had not been a member of any political party at the material time. 7.  With a view to a deeper understanding of the background to the present applications, the Court considers it useful to outline the circumstances under which the parliamentary elections of 22 July 2007 took place. Accordingly it will refer to the relevant passages of Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey ([GC], no. 10226/03, §§ 22-26, ECHR 2008), which read as follows:
“22. In early May 2007 the Turkish Parliament decided to hold early parliamentary elections, choosing 22 July 2007 as the date. The decision followed a political crisis resulting from Parliament’s inability to elect a new President of the Republic to follow on from Ahmet Necdet Sezer before the expiry of his single seven-year term of office, on 16 May 2007. In the normal course of events, these elections should have been held on 4 November 2007. 23. Fourteen political parties took part in the elections, which were marked by two characteristics. Firstly, a strong mobilisation of the electorate was observed following the presidential crisis, since the participation rate rose to 84%. Secondly, political parties used two pre-electoral strategies to circumvent the national 10% threshold. The Party of the Democratic Left (DSP) took part in the poll under the banner of the CHP, a rival party, and by that means managed to win thirteen seats. The Party for a Democratic Society (DTP, pro-Kurdish, left-leaning) presented its candidates as independents using the slogan ‘A thousand hopes’; it also supported certain left-wing Turkish candidates. This movement was backed by other small left-wing groups such as the EMEP, the SDP and the ÖDP (the Liberty and Solidarity Party, socialist). More than sixty independent candidates stood for election in about forty provincial constituencies. 24. In the elections the AKP, the CHP and the MHP managed to get over the 10% threshold. With 46.58% of the votes cast, the AKP won 341 seats, 62% of the total. The CHP, with 20.88% of the votes, won 112 seats, 20.36% of the total; however, the thirteen MPs mentioned in paragraph 23 above subsequently resigned from the CHP and went back to the DSP, their original party. The MHP, which polled 14.27% of the votes, won seventy‑one seats, or 12.9% of the total. 25. The strong showing by independent candidates was one of the main features of the elections of 22 July 2007. There were none in the National Assembly in 1980 but 1999 saw them return, when there were three. In 2002 nine independent MPs were elected from a national total of 260 independent candidates. In the elections of 22 July 2007, twenty-seven independent MPs were elected. In particular, more than twenty ‘thousand hopes’ candidates were elected, after obtaining approximately 2.23% of the votes cast, and joined the DTP after the elections. The DTP, which had twenty MPs, the minimum number to be able to form a parliamentary group, was thus able to do so. The independents also included a socialist MP (the former president of the ÖDP), a nationalist MP (the former president of the Great Union Party – BBP, nationalist) and a centrist MP (the former president of ANAP). 8.  In accordance with Article 94 II a) of Law no. 298 as amended under section 24 of Law no. 3270 of 28 March 1986, electors were able to vote in polling stations set up at customs posts for political parties but not for independent candidates, who included the applicant. 9.  In a Decree of 27 May 2007 the Higher Electoral Council (Yüksek Seçim Kurulu) stated that it had chosen 25 June 2007 and 22 July 2007 respectively as the dates for the beginning and end of the parliamentary elections in the polling stations set up at customs posts for nationals who had been resident abroad for over six months. In the Decree the Higher Electoral Council explained that the nationals in question could only vote in those polling stations for political parties. 10.  On 3 July 2007, with reference to Articles 67 and 90 § 6 of the Constitution and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant lodged with the Higher Electoral Council a request for the annulment of the Decree du 27 May 2007. 11.  On 4 July 2007 the Higher Electoral Council dismissed the applicant’s request, on the basis of Article 94 II a) of Law no. 298. It pointed out that this provision could only be modified by a fresh legislative amendment. 12.  Section 52 (1) of Law no. 298 on Elections allowed political parties participating in elections to transmit election broadcasts on national radio and television (TRT), subject to certain restrictions, particularly in terms of airtime. 13.  The Higher Electoral Council oversaw the implementation of the Law, which laid down sanctions for infringements of the provisions on election broadcasts. 14. Election broadcasts were authorised from 15 to 21 July 2007, that is to say during the week before the elections. 15.  According to the applicant, the Law did not allow independent candidates like himself who did not, as a matter of principle, belong to any political party, to electioneer on the national radio and television, or, for that matter, on the private channels. 16.  The applicant stressed that one peculiarity of the 22 July 2007 elections had been the large number of independent candidates standing. He considered that this unprecedented phenomenon had stemmed, firstly, from the 10% electoral threshold imposed during the parliamentary elections, and secondly, from the dissatisfaction felt by most people at the material time with the performance of the political parties, whether in power or in opposition.
...


5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the Leningradskiy Region. 6.  On 27 December 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and robbery. He was allegedly ill-treated by the police upon arrest. 7.  On 5 January 1999 a confrontation between the applicant and the witnesses Mr S. and Mr K took place. The two men stated that they were security guards in an office building and that on 27 December 1998 they had seen the applicant carrying office equipment out of the building. He had been armed with a knife. They had apprehended him and called the police. They had found their colleague stabbed to death in the toilets. The applicant was given the opportunity to put questions to the witnesses. 8.  On 6 January 1999 the applicant was formally charged with aggravated murder and robbery. 9.  On 18 June 2002 the St Petersburg City Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment. It relied on oral statements by Mr S. before the court, the written deposition of Mr K. made at the pre-trial stage, expert reports indicating that the victim’s blood had been found on the applicant’s clothes, and material evidence such as a knife found on his body. 10.  On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment on appeal. 11.  From 29 December 1998 to 14 March 2003 and from 21 June to 6 August 2003 the applicant was held in remand centre no. IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg. 12.  According to the applicant the cells were overcrowded. His cell measured 8 sq. m and housed ten to twelve inmates. The applicant was therefore afforded between 0.6 and 0.8 sq. m of floor space. There were shutters on the windows. 13.  In reply to a complaint by the applicant that the conditions of his detention were appalling, a St Petersburg deputy prosecutor informed him on 1 October 2001 that overcrowding was a systemic problem in all remand centres, including remand centre no. IZ-47/1, and it was not possible to meet the statutory sanitary norm of 4 sq. m per inmate or to provide each inmate with a separate bunk. 14.  According to a certificate dated 7 May 2007 issued by the remand centre administration and submitted by the Government, it was not possible to establish which cells the applicant had been held in, or the number of inmates in those cells, as the registers for that period had been destroyed on expiry of the statutory storage time-limit. 15.  Relying on certificates of the same date from the remand centre administration, the Government further submitted that the applicant had at all times had a separate bunk and had been provided with bedding. All cells were equipped with toilet facilities which were separated from the living area by a partition. Inmates could take a shower once a week. They received wholesome food. The shutters had been removed in the second half of 2002. The applicant had never shared a cell with inmates suffering from tuberculosis. 16.  On 31 December 1998, on his admission to remand centre no. IZ‑47/1, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor and given a chest fluorography examination which revealed no signs of tuberculosis. According to the Government, between January 1999 and October 2002 the applicant was given four more fluorography tests which revealed no pathology in the applicant’s lungs. 17.  On 28 February 2003 a new fluorography test detected changes indicating tuberculosis in the applicant’s lungs. 18.  According to the Government, on 2 March 2003 the applicant was placed in the tuberculosis ward of the remand centre. Following a number of medical analyses carried out in the ward he was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the left lung. He was prescribed treatment and a special diet. 19.  On 14 March 2003 the applicant was transferred to the tuberculosis ward of remand centre no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow, where he remained until 21 June 2003. 20.  On 21 June 2003 the applicant returned to the tuberculosis ward of remand centre no. IZ-47/1. A fluorography test carried out on 17 July 2003 detected an improvement in his condition. 21.  On 6 August 2003 the applicant was transferred to a correctional colony, where he was placed in the prison hospital and received anti‑tuberculosis treatment, 22.  On 2 September 2005 a tuberculosis specialist issued the following diagnosis: “clinical recovery from infiltrative tuberculosis”.


6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bielsko - Biała. 7.  On 8 June 2006 the Bielsko-Biała Social Security Board refused to grant the applicant a disability pension. On 20 March 2007 the Bielsko‑Biała Regional Court dismissed his appeal against that decision. On 9 October 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's further appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 November 2007 and two-month time-limit for lodging of a cassation appeal started to run on that date. 8.  On 9 November 2007 the applicant requested that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to the case for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 27 November 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal granted his request for legal aid and requested the Katowice Bar Association to assign a lawyer to the case. Subsequently, as the first lawyer assigned by the Bar Association suffered from certain health problems at that time, on 23 January 2008 the Katowice Bar Association assigned another lawyer, Mr J.R., to the case. He was served with the letter informing him of the assignment on 28 January 2008. 9.  Subsequently the lawyer requested the Court of Appeal to serve on him its judgment of 9 October 2007. The judgment with the written grounds was served on him on 14 February 2008. 10.  In a letter to the applicant dated 29 February 2008 the lawyer explained in detail why he had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation complaint in the case.


4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Praszka. 5.  On 28 March 1991 the applicant lodged a motion with the Oleśno District Court, claiming a division of inheritance and dissolution of co-ownership of a certain property. 6.  The court held hearings on: 15 May 1991, 28 August 1991, 29 January 1992, 10 April 1992, 18 May 1992, 24 August 1992, 30 September 1992, 23 February 1993, 7 June 1993 and 28 March 1994. 7.  Having regard to the lack of progress in the proceedings, and apparently aiming at obtaining possession of the property by other legal means, on 13 April 1993 the applicant lodged a motion with the Oleśno District Court, claiming acquisitive prescription of half of the property in question. By a decision of 11 May 1994 the Oleśno District Court dismissed her motion. By a decision of 27 September 1994 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed her further appeal and upheld the contested decision. 8.  Further hearings in the dissolution case were held on 3 June 1998, 30 December 1999, 29 March 2000 and 23 May 2000. 9.  The court ordered a number of expert opinions. They were submitted to the court on: 22 December 1991, 3 July 1992, 8 September 1997, 12 May 1998, 16 June 1998, 9 December 1998, 9 February 1999, 16 April 1999, 11 May 1999, 8 October 1999 and 27 November 2000. 10.  By a decision of 10 January 2001 the Oleśno District Court stayed the proceedings due to the fact that one of the parties to the proceedings had died. By virtue of the same decision the court resumed the proceedings, having regard to his heirs' request that the proceedings be resumed. 11.  On 3 June 2003 the Oleśno District Court gave a judgment on the merits. 12.  On 16 December 2003 the Opole Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. 13.  By a decision of 28 June 2004 the Supreme Court declined to examine the cassation appeal, considering that it had not been shown that arguable public interest grounds existed which would justify the examination of the appeal.


5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Prievidza. 6.  On 4 August 1999 the applicant was charged with conspiracy and extortion under Articles 9 § 2 and 235 §§ 1 and 2 (b) of the Criminal Code. The charge was based on the suspicion that, acting as part of an organised group and posing as a police officer, the applicant had lured an individual into a car, driven him to another place and forced him at gunpoint to pay an amount of money. Two days later, following his arrest (see below), a lawyer was officially assigned to the applicant. 7.  Between September and December 1999 the investigators assigned to the case heard evidence from and organised a confrontation between the accused, the victim and a witness and obtained other evidence. 8.  On 7 January 2000 the Nitra District Prosecutor indicted the applicant to stand trial in the Nitra District Court (Okresný súd) on the above charge. 9.  On 21 January 2000 the District Court remitted the bill of indictment to the prosecution service for further investigation. It found that the facts had not been established adequately, in particular because it had been overlooked that, at the time of the alleged offence, the applicant had still been on probation following a conviction for an extremely serious offence (obzvlášť závažný trestný čin). It had equally been overlooked that the applicant was also facing prosecution for another extremely serious offence. These facts had to be examined and taken into account in the present case. 10.  On 22 June 2000 an investigator interviewed the applicant again. 11.  On 17 July 2000 the prosecutor filed the indictment again, classifying the applicant as an “extremely dangerous recidivist” as defined by Article 41 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 12.  The applicant requested on 24 July and 21 December 2000 and 30 May 2001 the replacement of his officially assigned lawyers on the ground that he had lost confidence in them. New lawyers were assigned to him on 16 October 2000, 23 April 2001 and 13 September 2001 respectively. The applicant finally appointed a lawyer of his choice, in November 2001. 13.  On 4 June 2001 the applicant's co-accused requested that the case against him be dealt with separately from that against the applicant on the ground that the applicant had deliberately been protracting the proceedings. 14.  On 6 June 2003, after he had been released from detention (see below), the applicant informed the District Court that he could not take part in the proceedings as he was receiving psychiatric treatment. He sent similar letters to the District Court on 13 October 2003 and 14 February 2005. In a letter of 30 October 2003 to the District Court the applicant's psychiatrist confirmed that the applicant was receiving treatment but considered that there was nothing to prevent him from taking part in the proceedings. 15.  Consequently, on 4 March 2005, the District Court appointed a psychologist to report on the applicant's mental health. The report was submitted on 26 May 2005 with the conclusion that the applicant was fit to take part in and able to comprehend the meaning of the criminal proceedings against him. 16.  In the course of the proceedings the District Court held hearings on 13 December 2000, 12 September and 15 October 2001, 23 January, 6 March and 29 May 2002, 22 January 2003, 29 November 2004 and 2 March 2005. Further hearings were listed for 30 March and 9 May 2001 and 22 September 2003. The first of these did not take place as one of the lay judges was unable to attend. The latter two were cancelled without any reasons having been given. 17.  The applicant unsuccessfully challenged on twelve occasions (on 13 December 2000, 27 March, 27 April, 28 May and 17 July 2001, 12 February, 6 March and 23 April 2002, 13 January and 5 September 2003, 1 July and 5 September 2005) the District Court or the Regional Court for bias. Further unsuccessful challenges were lodged by the applicant's co-accused. In substance, it was alleged that, given the background of the case, the judges involved were influenced by the fact that it concerned organised criminal gangs. The applicant also argued that the whole case was a fabrication and that over the recent period he had not had effective legal representation. 18.  The applicant or his lawyers requested on six occasions (25 October 2000, 27 April and 20 November 2001, 28 April, 6 June and 13 October 2003) that a hearing be rescheduled. Further postponements were requested by the applicant's co-accused. 19.  The applicant unsuccessfully complained numerous times to the Prosecutor General, the Ministry of Justice and various other public institutions concerning the manner in which the proceedings against him were being conducted. 20.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. 21.  On 6 August 1999 the applicant was arrested on the above charge. According to the arrest report, the applicant resisted and attempted to escape. The police forcibly entered his flat, used force against him and put him in handcuffs. There is no indication that the applicant suffered any injuries. 22.  Later on 6 August 1999 the District Court heard evidence from the applicant and remanded him in detention under Article 67 § 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) finding that there was a risk that he would abscond. 23.  In the above-mentioned decision of 21 January 2000, which concerned the remittal of the applicant's indictment, the District Court also ruled that the reasons for the applicant's detention persisted. 24.  On 9 and 21 August 2000 the applicant requested that he be released from detention. The requests were dismissed on 27 September 2000 and, on appeal, on 24 January 2001. The courts found that there was a strong suspicion against the applicant and that his continued detention was warranted in view of his “personality, previous way of life, the seriousness of the charge and the potential penalty, the fact that the offence had been committed away from the applicant's place of habitual residence and the fact that during his arrest the applicant had attempted to escape”. 25.  On 19 July 2001 the District Court requested that the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) authorise an extension of the applicant's detention over the two-year time-limit provided for in Article 71 § 2 of the CCP. It was submitted that it had not been possible to complete the proceedings earlier mainly due to the applicant's unfounded repeated challenges of bias and other procedural applications. 26.  On 31 July 2001 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 February 2002. The reasons for his detention as found at the time of remanding him persisted. He was unemployed and was not staying at a fixed address. He was considered an extremely dangerous recidivist, which, according to the Supreme Court, constituted a further ground for his detention under Article 67 § 1 (c) of the CCP as there was a risk that he would continue engaging in criminal activities. It had not been possible to complete the proceedings earlier and it was in the interests of justice that the applicant remained detained. There was no hearing held before the Supreme Court and no appeal was available against its decision. 27.  In the meantime, on 6 and 20 July 2001, the applicant lodged two requests for release with the Supreme Court. He argued, inter alia, that since 30 May 2001, when he had expressed a lack of confidence in his lawyer, he had in fact had no legal representation, whereas such representation was mandatory. The requests were transmitted to the District Court by which they fell to be determined at first instance, on 12 and 30 July 2001, respectively. 28.  The District Court dismissed the applicant's requests for release of July 2001 on 15 August 2001. On 27 August 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal and on 14 September 2001 the District Court transmitted the appeal to the Nitra Regional Court (Krajský súd) for determination. The latter court returned the case file to the District Court without a decision because the District Court had failed to secure service of a copy of the challenged decision on the applicant's new lawyer. On 2 October 2001 the District Court retransmitted the applicant's appeal to the Regional Court, which dismissed it on 3 October 2001. The case file was returned to the District Court on 18 October 2001. 29.  Both the District Court and the Regional Court examined the applicant's detention in private sessions (neverejné zasadnutie). The session before the Regional Court was attended by the public prosecution but not by the defence. Both courts “were of the view” that the applicant was still under a strong suspicion. They considered that, in view of his personality, his life thus far, the fact that he was suspected of having committed an extremely serious intentional offence away from the applicant's place of habitual residence and the fact that he was potentially facing a heavy penalty, the risk that the applicant would abscond persisted. A general reference to the previous decisions, but not to any specific facts, was made. 30.  On 24 January 2002 the District Court again requested an authorisation for the extension of the applicant's detention. It was argued that it had not been possible to complete the proceedings earlier mainly due to the applicant's unfounded repeated challenges of bias, rejecting his lawyers and other procedural applications. 31.  On 30 January 2002 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 31 July 2002. It held that the previous reasons for detaining him remained valid. It was observed that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious offence after having been released on licence following a conviction for robbery. For reasons related to the nature of the case as well as the applicant's repeated challenges of bias, it had not been possible to complete the proceedings earlier. The interests of justice still required that the applicant remain detained. 32.  On 27 March 2002 the applicant requested release. The request was dismissed on 3 May 2002 and, on appeal, on 28 August 2002. However, in the meantime, on 31 July 2002, the Regional Court decided that the applicant should be released and he was, on the last-mentioned date. 33.  On 20 April 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He directed the complaint against the District Court and argued that the proceedings before it had been too lengthy. 34.  On 28 September 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It observed that the length of the proceedings had been due to the applicant's numerous and repeated procedural applications, which could not be imputed to the District Court, whose conduct of the proceedings had been active and expeditious.