4.  The applicant, a Ukrainian national, was born in 1935. He died on 14 November 2005. In a letter of 16 February 2006, the applicant's wife Mrs Y.P. Parkhomenko informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application. 5.  In 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnodon Town Court (the “Krasnodon Court”) against the Duvannaya State Mine (the “Mine”), seeking the recovery of occupational disability arrears. 6.  On 5 May 1995 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Mine to pay the applicant 273,171,500 karbovantsiv[1] (the former transitional currency of Ukraine before September 1996) in occupational disability arrears. On 15 June 1995 the Lugansk Regional Court upheld this decision. 7.  On 22 December 1995 the same court ordered the Mine to pay the applicant 527,638,000 karbovantsiv[2] in occupational disability arrears. 8.  By two separate decisions of 25 October 2000, the Presidium of the Lugansk Regional Court, following the protest lodged by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Lugansk Region, quashed the above judgments and remitted both cases for a fresh consideration. 9.  On an unspecified date the applicant's claims were joined. On 16 May 2002 the Krasnodon Court rejected them. On an unspecified date the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 16 May 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 10.  On 18 December 2002 the Krasnodon Court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 13,854.11[3] in occupational disability arrears and other payments. On 22 April 2003 the court rejected the Mine's request for leave to appeal against the judgment of 18 December 2002 for failure to comply with procedural formalities. 11.  On 24 April 2003 the Krasnodon Court submitted two writs of execution for the judgment of 18 December 2002 to the Krasnodon Town Bailiffs' Service for initiation of enforcement proceedings. 12.  On 12 May 2003 the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings. 13.  Pursuant to the order of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of 23 January 2003 the Mine became a structural division of the Krasnodonvugillya State Enterprise. 14.  On 27 October 2003 the Krasnodon Court changed the debtor in the enforcement proceedings and ordered the Krasnodonvugillya State Enterprise to pay the applicant the award of 18 December 2002. 15.  Pursuant to the order of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of 8 June 2004 the Krasnodonvugillya State Enterprise was reorganized into the Joint-Stock Company “Krasnodonvugillya”. 16.  On 2 August 2004 the Krasnodon Court changed the debtor in the enforcement proceedings and ordered the JSC “Krasnodonvugillya” to pay the applicant the award of 18 December 2002. 17.  On 29 September 2005 the Bailiffs' Service requested the applicant to provide them with his bank account information in order to transfer the judgment debt. The applicant did not reply. 18.  Between 29 September 2005 and 1 February 2006 the whole amount of the judgment debt due to the applicant was transferred to the Bailiffs' Service's account and became available for payment. 19.  On 7 November 2006 the Bailiffs' Service were informed about the applicant's death. On the same date the enforcement proceedings were suspended until determination of the applicant's heirs. 20.  As the applicant's heirs failed to lodge with the Krasnodon Court a motion to change a creditor in the enforcement proceedings, the judgment debt owed to the applicant remains with the Bailiffs' Service.


6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Athens. 7.  Since 1986 the applicant lives and works in Greece. He is married to a Greek woman and possesses a valid stay and work permit. 8.  On 8 September 1998, at approximately 07.00 p.m., the applicant and two other Syrian nationals accompanied a friend to the Ano Patissia police station in order to report a robbery. Having waited for a long time to be attended to, the applicant started complaining. He alleges that he was then brutally beaten on his head by a police officer, Mr Georgantzis, while another police officer, Mr Giannopoulos, was holding him still. Other police officers to whom he turned for help insulted him and locked him in an empty office for three hours. The applicant alleges that the behaviour of the police officers changed when they realised that he was legally settled in Greece. Then the applicant was allowed to leave the police station. He went immediately to the regional hospital where he was examined by a doctor at approximately 11 p.m. He obtained a medical certificate by Dr. Kremlis, an otolaryngologist specialist, which read as follows:
“[The applicant] was examined at the out-patients' department of the otolaryngology clinic on 8 September 1998 reporting a recent beating. The patient complains of buzzing, ear-pain and hearing loss in the left ear. From the clinical examination it was found that he has signs of an ecchymosis on the left zygomatic area and signs of blood on the left side of the auditory duct, which came from the injury to the area around the eardrum membrane. The extent of the damage will be determined upon completion of the remaining otoscopy tests, as the present condition does not appear to be severe.” 9.  Following the incident the applicant suffered from headaches and dizziness. On 16 September 1998 he was diagnosed as suffering from “perforation of the left ear (eardrum)”. A month later a doctor from the same hospital ascertained “an almost complete restoration of the perforation that had been noted a month ago at the tympanic membrane of the left ear”. 10.  The applicant currently suffers from hearing loss in both ears and vertigo. He has undergone several medical examinations and treatment over the last years. On 30 August 2002 a university medical doctor declared that the applicant's working capacity had diminished by 80% on account of vertigo and impaired hearing; the respective significance of these two factors was not specified. As a consequence, he was unable to accomplish any manual work. 11.  On 14 September 1998 the applicant reported the incident to the Minister of Public Order. 12.  On 10 July and 20 November 2000 the Chief of the Greek Police fined Mr Georgantzis and Mr Giannopoulos 100,000 drachmas (293 euros) and 50,000 drachmas (147 euros) respectively. He considered that the above police officers had caused bodily harm to the applicant. 13.  On 27 October 2000 Mr Georgantzis appealed against that decision but his appeal was dismissed by the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal on 30 November 2001 (decision no. 2602/2001). 14.  On 9 September 1998 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against Mr Georgantzis and Mr Giannopoulos and also against the chief of the police station, Mr Moukas. Following a preliminary inquiry, the authorities dropped the criminal charges against Mr Giannopoulos and Mr Moukas. On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Georgantzis for causing serious bodily harm. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party claiming a specific amount by way of damages. He produced before the court the medical reports which had recorded his injuries. Several witnesses were heard. 15.  On 19 February 2002 the three-member Athens Court of Appeal sitting as a first instance court found Mr Georgantzis guilty of serious bodily harm and sentenced him to four months' imprisonment. The court found that it had been clearly and unequivocally established by the medical reports and the other evidence before it that Mr Georgantzis had first punched the applicant and then violently slapped him on the face, causing him a scratch of approximately 3 x 0.5 cm on the left temple and a perforation of his left eardrum. It also found that Mr Georgantzis' defence “had not been sincere and did not agree with the facts” (decision no. 2048/2002). Mr Georgantzis appealed. 16.  The appeal trial took place on 18 December 2002 before the five-member Athens Court of Appeal. The court heard several witnesses, among whom Mr Giannopoulos and Mr Moukas. It found that it had not been established that the accused had beaten the applicant. It stressed that it had reached that conclusion on the basis of the statements of Mr Giannopoulos and Mr Moukas and of three additional eye-witnesses, one of whom was another colleague of the accused. It considered that the medical reports produced by the applicant were not “safe criteria for the defendant's guilt, mainly because they are directly contrary to the testimonies of the above witnesses who testify with their own knowledge and perception that the defendant did not hit [the applicant]; therefore the injuries referred to [in the medical reports] could have been caused by another reason, taken also into account that the deafness complained of [by the applicant] existed before the incident, as stated by [two eye-] witnesses”. Thus, the appeal court, by a majority, acquitted Mr Georgantzis. However, two judges opined that in view of all the evidence produced before the court the accused should have been declared guilty (decision no. 1861/2002). 17.  On 19 February 2003 the applicant, who did not have the right to appeal in cassation under domestic law, asked the Public Prosecutor to bring the case before the Court of cassation. On 24 February 2003 the latter dismissed his request. 18.  On 4 September 2003 the applicant brought an action for damages against Mr Georgantzis in the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance. 19.  On 30 June 2004 the court rejected his action (decision no. 7820/2004). 20.  On 29 September 2004 the applicant appealed to the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal. The proceedings are still pending.


4.  The applicants were born in 1978, 2001 and 1997 respectively and live in Istanbul. The first applicant is the wife and the second and third applicants are the children of Mr Yusuf Kaba, who was an officer in the Turkish Navy and died of cancer in 2003. According to the applicants, Mr Kaba's exposure to asbestos at Hasköy Dock had caused his cancer. They were also concerned about the allegedly inadequate treatment he received at the GATA military hospital. 5.  Following Mr Kaba's death, on 22 August 2003 the applicants initiated compensation proceedings in the Military Supreme Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence. They requested a total of 650,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 400,000 euros (EUR) at the time) in both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In their application, the applicants complained that Mr Kaba's death was the result of the asbestos levels at Hasköy Dock and stated that he had not received adequate medical treatment at the GATA military hospital. In their submissions the applicants relied on the medical records of the applicant, a report on the asbestos levels at Hasköy Dock and an expert report. The applicants also requested legal aid for the court fees. In their legal-aid claim they submitted documents attesting to their poor financial situation. The official documents attested that the applicants had no income. 6.  On 19 November 2003 the Military Supreme Administrative Court, without giving any reason, decided that the applicants did not qualify for legal aid. The applicants were notified that they had to pay TRL 8,758,870,000 (approximately EUR 5,000) in court fees within one month for the proceedings to be continued, and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings. In January 2004 the applicants again requested legal aid to pay the court fees. On 21 January 2004 the Military Supreme Administrative Court refused to grant the applicants legal aid, once again without giving reasons. The applicants were requested to pay the fees due within one month in order to be able to continue the proceedings. They were warned that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings. 7.  On 22 April 2004 the applicants requested a rectification of the decision dated 21 January 2004. Subsequently, on 26 April 2004 the applicants' lawyer also lodged a request with the Military Supreme Administrative Court and requested clarification (tavzih) of the decision dated 21 January 2004. In his request the applicants' lawyer referred to the relevant statements of means provided by the domestic authorities. He further stated that while lodging the case he had submitted the relevant medical records concerning Mr Yusuf Kaba, a report on the asbestos levels at Hasköy Dock and an expert report, and that this evidence should be sufficient to prove that they had a well-founded case. 8.  On 12 May 2004 the Military Supreme Administrative Court examined both requests and decided that, as the decision dated 21 January 2004 was not a final decision on the merits of the case, a rectification or a clarification request was not possible under domestic law. The court also decided to discontinue the compensation proceedings because the applicants had not paid the necessary court fees. This decision was served on the applicants on 4 June 2004.


5.  The first applicant, a limited liability company, was incorporated on 6 September 1995 by a decision of the Didube District Court of Tbilisi, Georgia. The second applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Tbilisi. 6.  In 1995 the Amat Shipping Company Limited and the second applicant founded a limited liability company called Amat-G, the applicant company, in Georgia. The second applicant was appointed general manager of that company. 7.  Amat-G imported fish products from African countries to Georgia. In the years 1996-98, the company paid more than 1,000,000 United States dollars (USD) (approximately 970,874 euros (EUR)[1]) to the State budget in taxes and was considered by the State Tax Department to be a “large tax payer”. 8.  In 1998-99 Amat-G supplied the Georgian Ministry of Defence with various types of fish products at different prices. 9.  However, the Ministry of Defence paid only part of the amount due to Amat-G. 10.  On 29 October 1999 the applicants brought civil proceedings against the Ministry of Defence in the Tbilisi Regional Court for breach of contract and consequential damage, claiming a total of 662,526 Georgian laris (GEL) (EUR 296,771). 11.  In a judgment of 6 December 1999, the Panel for Civil and Commercial Affairs of the Tbilisi Regional Court partly allowed the action of the applicant company, ordering the Ministry of Defence to pay the company compensation of GEL 254,188 (EUR 113,860). 12.  The judgment was never challenged and became binding on 6 January 2000. 13.  On 22 March 2000 the applicants appealed to the execution department of the Ministry of Justice, requesting the immediate enforcement of the judgment. 14.  On 23 March 2000 the enforcement officer of the execution department ordered the Ministry of Defence to pay the applicant company, voluntarily, within one month. 15.  Upon the expiry of that period, the enforcement officer initiated the forcible execution procedure against the Ministry of Defence. He sent the centre of expertise of the Ministry of Justice a list of non-military buildings that could be put up for sale by tender in order to discharge the debt. However, that was the only step taken and the judgment of 6 December 1999 remained unexecuted. 16.  On 10 July 2000 the Ministry of Defence appealed to the Tbilisi Regional Court, seeking a stay of execution of the judgment of 6 December 1999, in accordance with the provisions of Article 263 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Regional Court dismissed the ministry's request on 3 August 2000, concluding that “postponement of the enforcement would negatively affect the applicant company's interests and violate the principle of an equitable and adversarial hearing”. The ministry was consequently obliged to enforce the judgment without delay, yet it still failed to pay the debt. 17.  During the same period, Amat-G signed a contract with the Amat Shipping Company Corporation on 19 January 2000 for the lease of a ship at a monthly rate of USD 45,000 (EUR 43,689). 18.  On 20 January 2000 Amat-G contacted the Ministry of Defence, explaining that the money owed to it by the ministry was the only means which the applicant company had to pay for the lease of the ship. The applicant company waited eight months in vain to obtain payment of the debt from the Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile, the bill for the lease of the ship had risen to USD 511,200 (EUR 496,311). Amat-G also claimed that it had lost USD 1,344,421 (EUR 1,305,263) in business profits as a result of the ministry's failure to pay the debt on time. In addition, the applicant company faced a tax bill of GEL 41,213 (EUR 18,460). 19.  For these reasons, in September 2001 Amat-G brought an action before the Panel of Administrative Law and Taxation Affairs of the Tbilisi Regional Court against the Ministries of Defence, Justice and Finance, in order to hold them collectively responsible for the harm caused by the non-execution of the judgment of 6 December 1999, in accordance with Article 411 of the Civil Code. The company claimed damages of USD 1,855,621 (EUR 1,801,574) and GEL 41,213 (EUR 18,460). 20.  The Regional Court dismissed the claim on 20 February 2002 on the basis of the provisions of Article 412 of the Civil Code. 21.  On 10 July 2002 the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the applicant company's appeal against the Regional Court's decision of 20 February 2002. 22.  The judgment debt of 6 December 1999 has still not been paid, some five and a half years later.


4.  On 25 December 1997 the applicant became a member of the executive board of Yurtbank, and subsequently on 25 March 1998 he was appointed as Director General of the bank. 5.  On 19 August 1998 Yurtbank founded the Yurt Security Offshore Bank in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”). Subsequently, Yurtbank branch offices in Turkey started collecting deposits to be transferred to offshore accounts in the “TRNC”. 6.  On 4 October 1999 the applicant resigned from his post as Director General and subsequently on 30 November 1999 he resigned from membership of the executive board. 7.  On 21 December 1999 the Committee of Ministers decided to transfer the management and control of Yurtbank to the Savings Deposits Insurance Fund (Tasarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu). As result, a new executive board was set up and an inspector was appointed to study the administration of Yurtbank. 8.  On 6 October 2000 the inspector submitted his report. Following an inspection of all the bank’s accounts, the inspector found it established that the Yurt Security Offshore Bank owed 32,898,662,376,959 Turkish liras (TRL), 5,105,982 US dollars (USD) and 7,514,387 German marks (DEM) to account holders. The report stated that these sums had been used by Yurtbank to provide loans to companies owned by Mr A.B., the main shareholder of the bank. The applicant’s name was also included in the list of persons who had authorisation to make the transfers. It was however stressed that the inspection had not revealed any direct or indirect responsibility on the part of the applicant in the impugned transfers. 9.  On 2 November 2000 the new executive board filed a criminal complaint against the former board members, including the applicant. It was alleged that fifteen people, including the applicant, had established a criminal organisation to commit fraud. The complainants stated that the former board members had set up an offshore company with the aim of collecting deposits which they subsequently used to provide irregular loans. In that connection, it was indicated that the deposits collected for the offshore account had never been transferred to the “TRNC”. 10.  On 14 November 2000 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of aggravated fraud. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant signed, he had been informed of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. In the form it was further noted that legal assistance could not be provided to persons accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts. 11.  On 17 November 2000 the applicant was questioned without a lawyer present. In his police statement, the applicant explained that although he had been the Director General of the bank, he had not been directly involved in offshore banking activities, which were administered by a separate directorate. He stated that Yurtbank had acted as a correspondent bank for Yurt Security Offshore Bank. He explained that he had not put pressure on the managers of branch offices to collect deposits for offshore accounts but had known that the managers received bonus payments depending on the number of deposits they had collected for offshore accounts. He further explained that, using the deposits saved in offshore accounts, the bank had signed loan contracts with companies which were owned by the main shareholder of the bank, Mr A.B. In concluding these loan agreements, the bank had not requested any security and the agreements had been concluded on the basis of verbal authorisation, without any documents being submitted. The applicant stated that when he had become aware of the illegal activities he had quit his post as Director General of Yurtbank. 12.  On 21 November 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. Before the public prosecutor, and without a lawyer present, the applicant repeated his police statement. When the applicant was brought before the investigating judge, the judge allowed the applicant’s lawyer to enter the hearing room. However, he was not allowed to take the floor or advise the applicant. During questioning, the applicant repeated his police statement and pointed out that there was no legislation or court decision that banned offshore banking activities. Following questioning, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. 13.  On 10 January 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court against thirty accused persons, including the applicant. The prosecutor accused the applicant of forming a criminal organisation and of committing aggravated fraud under Articles 313 and 504 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 765 – now repealed). In this connection it was alleged that a company owned by Mr A.B. had constructed real estate and that before the construction was finished the persons intending to buy the properties had been provided with real estate loans by Yurtbank, in which Mr A.B. was the main shareholder. In the process of concluding these loan agreements, the requisite legal documents and security had not been requested from the potential buyers, and by granting irregular loans the accused persons had allegedly committed fraud. It was also alleged that offshore banking activities had been used as a cover in order to provide illegal and irregular loans to the companies owned by the bank’s main shareholder, Mr A.B. 14.  On 19 March 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court held its first hearing. In the presence of his lawyer, the applicant submitted his written defence submissions to the court. He stated that he accepted the statements taken from him in custody and pleaded not guilty. 15.  On 18 June 2001 the applicant was released pending trial. 16.  Following a change in the domestic legislation, the case was transferred from the Istanbul State Security Court to the Istanbul Second Assize Court on 24 December 2001. 17.  At a hearing held on 10 October 2002 the trial court appointed three experts. In particular, the experts were asked to clarify whether irregular loans had been provided to companies owned by the main shareholder of the bank; whether the accused board members could be held responsible for those allegedly illegal transactions; and whether in providing the loans the bank had complied with the domestic legislation and obtained the prior authorisations and documents that were legally required. The experts were further asked to investigate the legality of the offshore activities of Yurt Security Offshore Bank. On 14 July 2003 the experts submitted a lengthy report to the court. At the outset, they pointed out that there was no domestic legislation which banned offshore banking activities in Turkey and that the establishment of Yurt Security Offshore Bank had been in line with domestic law and the “TRNC” legislation. 18.  At a hearing held on 4 December 2003, the court ordered another expert report. On 13 January 2004 the report was submitted to the court. The experts concluded that, in the circumstances of the present case, it could not be concluded that the accused persons had committed aggravated fraud. In that connection they referred to the fact that when depositors opened offshore accounts it was clearly indicated in the relevant documents that these were offshore accounts, and therefore the depositors should have been aware of the fact that their deposits were not protected by the Savings Deposits Insurance Fund. 19.  On 15 January 2004, pursuant to a change in the banking legislation, the Istanbul Eighth Assize Court became the competent specialised court to deal with cases concerning the Banking Activities Act (Law no. 4389), and the applicant’s case was accordingly transferred to that court. The new court requested a third expert report in order to calculate the damage sustained by the third-party interveners. In a report dated 14 October 2004, the experts pointed out that from 21 December 1999 onwards the accused persons, including the applicant, had been responsible for a total sum of TRL 15,832,536,971,373. 20.  In the course of the hearings, several witness statements were taken, including from the managers of branch offices, who testified that they had been pressurised into collecting deposits for the offshore accounts. The applicant and his co-accused also submitted several legal opinions to the court drafted by university professors, attesting to the legality of offshore banking activities. 21.  On 17 December 2004 the Istanbul Eighth Assize Court delivered its judgment. It held in the first place that it could not be established that the accused persons had intended to form a criminal organisation. It accordingly acquitted them of this charge. As to the accusations that the applicant had been involved in aggravated fraud on two counts, namely by providing illegal real estate loans and by using offshore banking activities to cover up fraudulent loans, the court found the applicant guilty as charged under Article 504 § 3 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 765). The applicant was accordingly sentenced to a total of five years and ten months’ imprisonment and a fine. In delivering its judgment, the court based its findings on the bank’s inspection reports, the expert reports, the police statements of the applicant and his co-accused, and witness statements. The court found it established that in his capacity as Director General of Yurtbank the applicant had given authorisation for the granting of irregular loans to companies which were owned by Mr A.B. 22.  On 7 February 2005 the applicant appealed. 23.  On 22 April 2005 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion on the merits of the case. This opinion was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 7 June 2005. After holding a hearing, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in so far as it concerned the term of imprisonment, stating that the sentence should be reassessed in the light of the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) that had entered into force in June 2005. It also upheld the acquittal of the applicant on the charge of forming a criminal organisation. 24.  The case was accordingly remitted to the Istanbul Eighth Assize Court. On 29 September 2005 the applicant requested the court to hear evidence from several witnesses, including directors of the bank and certain experts, in particular a certain İ.F. The court rejected his requests on the same day, stating that the proceedings were at a stage where no more evidence was necessary. Nevertheless, at a hearing held on 27 October 2005 the witness İ.F. was heard and he made submissions regarding offshore banking. In his testimony, İ.F. explained the development of offshore banking and maintained that, in his opinion as an expert, the acts in question had not constituted an offence at the time when they were committed by the applicant. 25.  On 29 November 2005 the first-instance court delivered its judgment. In lengthy reasoning, taking into account the decision of the Court of Cassation, it decided to sentence the applicant to one year and fifteen days’ imprisonment and a fine for providing illegal real estate loans, and then suspended this sentence. As to the charge of aggravated fraud through offshore banking activities, the court sentenced him to two years and one month’s imprisonment and a fine under Article 158 § (f) of the new Criminal Code, indicating that this was the most favourable provision applicable to the applicant’s case. In this connection, it was noted that the main shareholder of the bank, Mr A.B., had committed fraud by way of banking activities. The court further stated that although the applicant had not been officially working for the offshore bank, in his capacity as the Director General of Yurtbank he was aware of the fraudulent actions, and had actively participated in the unlawful activities by using Yurtbank’s resources. 26.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of the Assize Court. On 9 February 2006 the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Cassation was notified to the applicant’s lawyer and on 13 April 2006 the applicant submitted his written observations in reply. 27.  On 19 October 2006 the Court of Cassation discontinued the proceedings concerning the suspended sentence in respect of illegal real estate loans, holding that the statutory time-limit had expired. The appeal court further upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the applicant’s conviction for aggravated fraud by way of banking activities.


4.  The applicants were born, respectively, in 1949 and 1946 and live in Zaporizhzhya. 5.  On 18 September 2000 Mrs F. lodged a claim with the Leninskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the Leninskyy Court”) against the applicants, requesting it to determine how the parties should use their adjacent plot of land. 6.  On 11 January 2002 the court delivered a judgment. On 8 April 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld it. On 16 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 7.  On 11 July 2005 the Leninskyy Court delivered a judgment. On 8 December 2005 the Court of Appeal amended it. On 13 December 2006 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 8.  On 19 October 2007 the Leninskyy Court rejected the claim of Mrs F. as unsubstantiated. On 20 May and 26 November 2008, respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld that judgment. 9.   According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicants’ or all parties’ absence or following the applicants’ requests. The applicants disagreed stating that they had attended all hearings. Nineteen hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of other parties, absence of a judge or an expert or because the courts needed to collect additional documents. Four forensic examinations were ordered and lasted for about one year. 10.  On 10 October 2000 the applicants lodged a claim with the Leninskyy Court against Mrs F., seeking the elimination of obstacles in using the impugned plot of land. On an unspecified date Mr and Mrs E. joined the proceedings as co-respondents. 11.  Between 5 October 2001 and 16 January 2006, 14 November 2006 and 31 January 2007 and between 22 February 2007 and 5 June 2008 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the first set of the proceedings. Between 1 June and 14 October 2006 the proceedings were suspended with a view to allowing the successors of Mr and Mrs E., who had died in January and April 2006, to take part in the case. 12.  On 25 June 2009, following a friendly settlement reached by the parties, the Leninskyy Court discontinued the proceedings. The applicants did not appeal against that decision. 13.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings three hearings were adjourned due the applicants’ or all parties’ absence or following the applicants’ request. Two hearings were adjourned due to the respondent’s absence. One forensic examination was ordered and lasted for about four months.


7.  On 15 April 1997 the applicant company filed a claim against the Best-Sat company in the Bielsko-Biała District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The value of the claim was PLN 246,969.86. The claim resulted from Best-Sat’s refusal to pay the applicant company’s invoice issued on 8 October 1995 for the construction of a TV cable network, in accordance with the contract concluded between the parties. The applicant company requested that its claim be considered in a summary procedure (postępowanie nakazowe). 8.  On 24 April 1997 the District Court decided that the case should be considered in the ordinary procedure as it did not fulfil the legal conditions for the summary procedure. On 14 May 1997 the applicant company filed with the Bielsko-Biała District Court an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against the decision of 24 April 1997. Subsequently, the court ordered the applicant company to pay a court fee of PLN 2,789.60 for the consideration of its interlocutory appeal. On 10 June 1997 the applicant filed with the Bielsko-Biała District Court an application for an exemption from that fee. However, on 21 July 1997 the District Court dismissed that application. The applicant filed another, apparently unsuccessful, interlocutory appeal against the decision of 21 July 1997, claiming that the company was on the brink of insolvency as a result of its enforceable claims not having been satisfied by the Best-Sat company. 9.  On an unspecified later date, the case was transmitted to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) in order to be considered in the ordinary proceedings. On 3 February 1998 the Regional Court ordered the applicant company to pay a court fee of PLN 13,948.49 for lodging its claim. 10.  On 17 February 1998 the applicant company filed with the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court an application for an exemption from the fee, pursuant to section 113 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It stated that the amount of the fee was considerably beyond its means. It also submitted that, for the first 10 months of 1997, it had made net profits of only PLN 7,695.37, while the company’s assets amounted to PLN 31,366.98, but consisted mostly of claims to be satisfied. 11.  The applicant company stressed that it had no possibility to dispose of its assets promptly in order to secure funds to pay the court fee and, even if that were possible, it would lead to the winding up of the company. It further argued that the lack of funds to pay the court fee did not result from any fault in its activities or from a negligent failure to secure funds for the litigation. It also maintained that its claim resulted from work done over the past few years which had dominated the activities of the company. Consequently, it did not have other possibilities to secure sufficient funds from other contracts. 12.  On 2 March 1998 the Regional Court ordered the applicant company to produce a number of documents concerning its financial situation. The relevant documents were submitted to the court as enclosures to a letter of 16 March 1998. In the same letter the applicant supplemented its application for exemption from the court fees. It stated that it had three enforceable claims, including two against the Best-Sat Company which were the subject of the pending litigation. The third claim, although enforceable as of 25 November 1997, had not been satisfied. The applicant company stated that its fixed assets of PLN 11,670.90 were necessary to continue the running of its business and, if disposed of, the company would have to be wound up. The plaintiff also submitted that in 1997 it had made net profits of PLN 2,723.19, which were used to set off the losses made in 1995 and 1996. 13.  On 25 May 1998 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court rejected the application. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:
“At the request of the court, the plaintiff has submitted its balance sheets as of 30 November 1997 and of 30 March 1998, as well as a bank statement regarding its accounts as of 17 March 1998. In the court’s view the above documents prove unequivocally that the plaintiff makes profits from its business, as evidenced by the balance on its bank accounts for the period between December 1997 and March 1998. It should also be pointed out that the plaintiff has gross profits (przychód) from its business activity estimated at PLN 26,322.95, including gross profits from the sale of goods and materials in the amount of PLN 2,365.81.
Furthermore, according to the balance sheet of 3 March 1998, the plaintiff company has significant fixed assets (majątek trwały) in the amount of PLN 7,192.67, and current assets (majątek obrotowy) in the amount of PLN 31,067.97.
The examination of the above documents leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff can afford to pay the court fees because it has sufficient funds.
It should also be pointed out that, in case of a lack of such funds, the plaintiff could obtain them by means of partners’ surcharges (dopłaty) since it is a limited liability company.
All the other expenses of the plaintiff should be treated by it on equal terms with the expenses which are necessary to pursue its claims...” 14.  On 4 June 1998 the applicant company filed an interlocutory appeal against the decision of 25 May 1998 with the Katowice Court of Appeal. It submitted that the District Court had made a mistake in calculating the amounts of fixed and current assets because the figures relied on were from 1 January 1997, but the value of the assets had decreased since then. As of 31 January 1998 the amount of fixed and current assets was estimated at PLN 5,019.27 and PLN 18,494.77 respectively. The applicant company argued that the combined value of all its assets only slightly exceeded the amount of the court fee, and that, if the latter had to be paid in that amount, the company would be forced to wind up. 15.  The applicant company further pointed out that the fixed assets consisted of office equipment which was necessary to run the business, whereas its current assets consisted mostly of reserves of materials necessary to provide services to clients and claims which were the subject of separate litigation. Thus, even assuming that the value of current assets exceeded the amount of the court fee, it could not be presumed that the former could be disposed of in order to provide the funds necessary to pay that fee. 16.  The applicant company also contested the Regional Court’s view that all expenses should be treated equally, and pointed out that any surplus would be used to pay taxes since failure to do so could result in prosecution. Finally, the applicant observed that the unpaid invoice which gave rise to the present claim related to work done by the applicant company over a period of two years, which had dominated the applicant’s business during that period. That was, to a large extent, the reason why the applicant company had been unable to secure funds for possible litigation expenses. Lastly, the applicant company, in principle, agreed with the Regional Court’s view as to the possibility of obtaining additional funds by means of partners’ surcharges. However, relying on section 113 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it stressed that a legal person was entitled to exemption from court fees if it proved that it did not have sufficient funds. 17.  On 31 July 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as follows:
“According to the plaintiff’s documents, its financial situation deteriorated only in 1998. However, it emerges from the documents produced in support of the statement of claim that the plaintiff’s claim results from work done between 1993 and 1995, since the notice to pay for that work is dated 16 January 1995. From that it unequivocally follows that the plaintiff could have secured the funds necessary for the pursuance of its claims prior to 1996 when its financial situation deteriorated, and when, as it transpires from its balance sheets, its assets and gross profits from the sale of goods and materials had been at the level which had been referred to in the contested decision.
The Court of Appeal also does not subscribe to the plaintiff’s view that, if at the current moment the plaintiff does not have sufficient funds to pay the court fee, then it can successfully request to be exempted ... under section 113 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
As follows from the established case-law of the Supreme Court, and also the case-law of this Court of Appeal, the possibilities of paying the court fees by a legal person should be assessed in the larger context not only of the funds currently held but also those that could possibly have been secured. When the plaintiff holds a current bank account, where its turnover is recorded, and that turnover still in December 1997 was of significant volume, then there are no reasons to assume that the plaintiff could not take out the necessary loan in order to obtain the funds needed to pursue claims of the very significant value of PLN 246,969.86. Obviously, interest will be charged on such a loan, but there are no grounds to hold that the cost of such a loan should be borne by the taxpayers, which would happen if exemption from court fees was granted...
The Court of Appeal also fully shares the Regional Court’s argument that, since the plaintiff is a limited liability company, the obligation of the partners to make appropriate surcharges in order to secure funds to cover expenses related to the assertion of claims should be taken into consideration...” 18.  The applicant company did not pay the required court fee. On an unspecified later date, the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court ordered that the applicant company’s statement of claim be returned to it, which meant that its claim was of no legal effect. 19.  According to the applicant company’s tax return for 1997, in that year it made net profits of PLN 4,484.70.


4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1951, respectively, and live in Odessa. 5.  From 1976 until 1996 the second applicant worked for the Chernomorska Penitentiary Institution no. 74 (“the colony”). He was provided with a room in a hall of residence, which was situated on the site of the colony and had the same postal address. He resided there until 1991. Afterwards, the applicants lived together in the first applicant's flat. The second applicant is still entitled to reside in the colony and it remains his registered place of residence. 6.  In September 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa against the colony and the local post office. They alleged that letters addressed to them by domestic and international courts, which had been delivered to the address of the second applicant, had been unlawfully opened and read by the defendant institutions. The applicants sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 7.  On 29 March 2001 the court rejected the applicants' claims. It established that the colony had opened two letters addressed to the applicants: the letter of 27 October 1998, sent by the Starokyivskyy District Court of Kyiv to the first applicant, and the letter of 24 August 1998, sent by the European Court of Human Rights to the second applicant in the context of his previous application to the Court (no. 44997/98, declared inadmissible on 26 October 1999). 8.  The court held that, pursuant to Article 28 of the Correctional Labour Code of 1970 and section 7 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act of 1993, the administration of the colony had been authorised to monitor all correspondence delivered to it. Since the room of the second applicant was situated on the premises of the colony, his correspondence had been dealt with by its administration in accordance with the rules applicable to detainees' correspondence. The court also found that the administration had acted in accordance with the Instruction on the processing of documents in the organs of the Ministry of the Interior and the Instruction on the organization of the monitoring of correspondence of persons held in penitentiary institutions and pre-trial detention centres, issued by the Ministry of the Interior on 22 June 1993 and 28 May 1999, respectively. The court further stated that the letter addressed to the first applicant had been opened also due to the fact that there had been a detainee with the same name in the colony. The court concluded that the interception of the applicants' correspondence had not violated their constitutional rights. 9.  On 19 July 2001 the Odessa Regional Court upheld the first-instance court's decision. On 15 May 2002 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' request for leave to appeal in cassation.


4.  On 8 February 1977 affiliation proceedings were brought in respect of the applicant before the then Košice City Court. 5.  On 30 November 1988 the Košice Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment delivered on 15 September 1987. 6.  The Košice II District Court, to which the case fell to be examined, experienced difficulties in obtaining the evidence. This was mainly due to the fact that the person who was supposed to be the applicant’s father was a Belgian national and that he had refused to co-operate with the court. 7.  On 22 September 1995 the Constitutional Court found, in proceedings under Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have the case examined without undue delays. 8.  On 16 January 1996 the Košice II District Court dismissed the action. On 6 May 1997 the Košice Regional Court quashed the judgment and sent the case back to the first instance court. 9.  On 16 June 2000 the Košice II District Court delivered a new judgment by which it dismissed the action. On 17 July 2000 the applicant appealed. 10.  On 16 August 2002 the Košice Regional Court overturned the first instance judgment in that it found that the defendant was the applicant’s father. As to the remainder of the action including the maintenance and the court fee, the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and sent the case back to the latter. 11.  On 5 November 2002 the defendant filed an appeal on points of law.
The proceedings are pending.


5.  The applicants are:
1) Mr Akhmed Ismailov, born in 1949,
2) Mr Alkhazur Ismailov, born in 1985,
3) Mr Shamil (also spelled Shamal) Ismailov, born in 1995,
4) Ms Ruman Sokayeva (also spelled as Rumani or Khumana Sakayeva), born in 1963,
5) Mr Aslambek Merzhoyev (also spelled as Aslambek Merzhuyev), born in 1990,
6) Ms Kheda Merzhoyeva (also spelled as Kheda Merzhuyeva), born in 1981,
7) Ms Zalina Merzhoyeva (also known as Aset Merzhoyeva), born in 1979,
8) Ms Petimat Ismailova, born in 1964,
9) Ms Kheda Idrisova (also known as Ismailova), born in 1981,
10) Mr Ramzan Ismailov, born in 1982,
11) Ms Khazan Ismailova, born in 1984,
12) Ms Larisa Ismailova, born in 1986,
13) Ms Laila Ismailova, born in 1990,
14) Mr Rizvan Ismailov, born in 1992,
15) Ms Tanzila Ismailova, born in 1994,
16) Mr Iles (also spelled as Ilez) Ismailov, born in 1995,
17) Ms Medna Ismailova, born in 1997,
18) Mr Ibragim Ismailov, born in 1999,
19) Ms Makka Ismailova, born in 2001,
20) Ms Markha Ismailova, born in 2001,
21) Ms Liman Ismailova, born in 2003. 6.  The applicants are four families of Russian nationals who live in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. All four applicant families are related to each other. The first applicant is the father of Aslambek (also spelled as Aslanbek) Ismailov, who was born in 1979, and Aslan Ismailov, who was born in 1981. The second applicant family consists of applicants 2-4. The fourth applicant is the wife of Khizir Ismailov, who was born in 1962; applicants 2 and 3 are his children. The third applicant family consist of applicants 5-7, who are the children of Yusi Daydayev, who was born in 1953. The fourth applicant family consists of applicants 8-21. The eighth applicant is the wife of Yaragi Ismailov, who was born in 1956; applicants 9-21 are his children. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  At the material time the town of Achkhoy-Martan was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. Checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The applicant families lived close to each other in two households situated at no. 15a and no. 22 in Orekhova Street, Achkhoy-Martan. The first house was located about 500 metres away from the nearest federal forces checkpoint. 9.  On the night of 13-14 January 2003 the first applicant, his sons Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov and other relatives were sleeping at home at 15a Orekhova Street.  At about 4 a.m. an APC (armoured personnel carrier) with a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms drove through their gate. About ten men got out of the APC and ran into the house. They spoke Russian without accent and were wearing masks and helmets. They neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. The family members thought they were Russian military servicemen. 10.  The servicemen searched the house; they neither explained to the residents what they were looking for nor asked for identity documents. They took Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov into the yard, kicked them and threw them into the APC. The brothers were not allowed to put on any warm clothing. The officers ignored their mother's questions concerning the reason for her sons' being taken away. 11.  The first applicant's wife ran after her sons into the street. She saw several APCs, a military Ural car and groups of Russian military servicemen standing along the street. The vehicles were parked next to different houses with their engines running. The soldiers, who were waiting next to the vehicles, threatened to kill the locals if the latter went outside. The vehicles with the first applicant's sons drove away to an unknown destination.
b. Abduction of Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev 12.  At the material time the second and fourth applicant families lived at 22 Orekhova Street. Their household consisted of three dwellings in one yard. It was situated about 300 metres away from the first applicant's house and a few hundred metres away from the nearest Russian military forces checkpoint. 13.  On the night of 13-14 January 2003 Yusi Daydayev was visiting the applicants and staying in the first house. Khizir Ismailov and his family were sleeping in the second house; Yaragi Ismailov and his family were in the third one. 14.  At about 4 a. m. a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into Yusi Daydayev's house. It appears that the men beat him up, as the applicants heard him screaming. 15.  Another group of intruders knocked on the door of the second house. When Khizir Ismailov opened the door, they rushed in, forced everyone to lie down on the floor and took Khizir Ismailov away. 16.  The last group of four armed men broke into the third house and took away Yaragi Ismailov. The intruders asked the eighth applicant to bring his passport. While she went to fetch it, the men took her husband outside. The eighth applicant attempted to follow them, but the intruders drove away. None of the men were allowed to put on warm clothing. 17.  The intruders who raided the household at 22 Orekhnova Street and took away Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev were wearing masks and helmets. They spoke unaccented Russian and used swear words. They neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. The applicants thought they were Russian military servicemen. 18.  According to the applicants and their neighbours, eight APCs and a military Ural car were parked in Orekhova Street while Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev were being taken away. 19.  It appears that after Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev were taken away the military vehicles drove towards Samashki village and stopped in the area of the local wheat processing plant, where Russian troops were stationed. 20.  On 23 January 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan district court granted the eighth applicant's claim and declared Yaragi Ismailov a missing person as of 15 January 2003. 21.  The description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction of the applicants' relatives is based on the following documents: an account by Mr V.R. given on 3 August 2005; an account by Ms Z. Kh. given on 3 August 2005; an account by the fourth applicant given on 14 August 2005 and an account by the first applicant's wife Ms M. D. given on 14 August 2005. 22.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. According to their submission “at about 4 a.m. on 14 January 2003 unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks, who were driving Ural vehicles and APCs, arrived at Orekhova Street in Achkhoy‑Martan, Chechnya, abducted and took away from house no. 15 Aslanbek Ismailov, who was born in 1979, and Aslan Ismailov, who was born in 1981, and from house no. 22 Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev.” 23.  On 23 January 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan district court declared Yaragi Ismailov a missing person with effect from 15 January 2003. 24.  Immediately after her relatives were taken away the eighth applicant called the Achkhoy-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD) and complained that they had been abducted. The officers told her that they could not do anything about it. 25.  In the morning of 14 January 2003 the applicants complained to a number of State authorities, including the ROVD, the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor's office (the district prosecutor's office), the Achkhoy‑Martan district department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and the Achkhoy-Martan district military commander's office (the district military commander's office), that their relatives had been abducted. 26.  Since 14 January 2003 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies. They have been supported in their efforts by the SRJI NGO. In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to their relatives' detention and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. Mostly these enquiries have remained unanswered, or purely formal replies have been given in which the applicants' requests have been forwarded to various prosecutors' offices. The applicants submitted some of the letters to the authorities and the replies to the Court, which are summarised below. 27.  In the morning of 14 January 2003 a group of representatives of the district prosecutor's office examined the crime scene and questioned the witnesses. 28.  On 17 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Aslambek Ismailov, Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The criminal case file was given the number 44009. 29.  On 17 March 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that on an unspecified date the investigation in criminal case no. 44009 had been suspended for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators. 30.  On 21 March 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's complaint about his relatives' abduction to the district prosecutor's office for examination. 31.  On 31 March and 24 April 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on 23 January 2003 the district prosecutor had instructed the investigators to take a number of additional operational search measures to establish the whereabouts of the abducted men and identify the perpetrators. The text of the letter of 31 March 2003 also stated:
“....the investigation established that the applicant's relatives had been abducted by unidentified servicemen in military vehicles; however, the investigators were unable to establish to which military units these vehicles had belonged.”
 32.  On 30 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that they had examined his complaint about ineffectiveness of the investigation in criminal case no. 44009. As a result, the proceedings had been resumed and the investigators had been instructed to verify the supposition that the abducted men were being detained on the premises of the operational search bureau of the Ministry of the Interior (the ORB) in Grozny ('ОРБ'). 33.  On 24 October 2003 the deputy head of the Achkhoy-Martan district administration wrote to the district prosecutor's office requesting that the investigators find out whether the abducted men were being detained on the premises of the 6th department of the Main Intelligence Service of the Ministry of Defence ('6-й отдел ГРУ') in Grozny. 34.  On 31 October 2003 the deputy head of the Achkhoy-Martan district administration informed the first applicant that the authorities' reply to his request of 24 October 2003 stated that the investigation in criminal case no. 44009 had been suspended on 26 June 2003 for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators; that it had been resumed on 1 October 2003; and that on an unspecified date the investigators had forwarded to the ORB in Grozny a request for assistance in the search for the abducted men. 35.  On 1 November 2003 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in criminal case no. 44009 for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators and informed the applicants. 36.  On 14 January 2004 the Chief Military Prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's complaint about his relatives' abduction to the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (the military prosecutor's office of the UGA) for examination. 37.  On 7 February and 4 March 2005 the military prosecutor's office of the UGA forwarded the first applicant's complaints about the abduction to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 for examination. 38.  On 10 and 12 March 2005 the military prosecutors' offices of military unit no. 20102 and the UGA informed the first applicant that the examination of his complaints had not established any involvement of Russian military servicemen in his relatives' abduction. 39.  On 8 June 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's complaint about the abduction to the district prosecutor's office for examination. 40.  On 28 July 2008 the investigators informed the applicants that on the same date they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators. 41.  The Government submitted that the district prosecutor's office had received the applicants' complaints about the abduction of their relatives by “unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms, who had arrived in APCs”, on 14 January 2003. 42.  On 14 January 2003 investigators from the district prosecutor's office conducted a crime scene examination at nos. 15a and 22 Orekhova Street in Achkhoy-Martan. Nothing was collected from the scene. 43.  On 14 January 2003 the investigators questioned the fourth applicant; on 21 January 2003 the investigators granted her victim status in the criminal case and questioned her again. The applicant stated that on the night of 14 January 2003 she and her family had been sleeping at home at 22 Orekhova Street. At about 4 a.m. she had heard some noise and gone to the window. She saw a military Kamaz ('Kамаз') lorry next to the house; as it was dark she could not see whether the vehicle had registration numbers. Then someone knocked at the door; her husband Khizir Ismailov opened it and two armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks entered the house. They ordered everyone to lie down on the floor. Having checked the rooms, the armed men left with Khizir Ismailov. One of them took his passport. After that the intruders went to the house of Yaragi Ismailov and took him away in an APC which had arrived at the house. When she went outside she saw the eighth applicant in the yard, who told her that unidentified armed men had also taken their relatives Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev and driven them away in APCs to an unknown destination. After that the fourth applicant ran out in the street and saw a convoy of six or seven APCs and the Kamaz lorry driving away along Sovetskaya Street. 44.  On 17 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office opened criminal case no. 44009 in connection with the abduction of the applicants' relatives and informed the applicants. 45.  On 21 January 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who stated that on 14 January 2003 he had been at work in Grozny. At about 10 a.m. he had learnt that around 4 a.m. the previous night his sons, Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov, his brothers Khizir and Yaragi Ismailov and his brother-in-law Yusi Daydayev had been abducted by unidentified armed men in APCs. From the Government's submission it follows that the applicant was questioned again on 22 January 2003, but the contents of this statement were not disclosed by the Government. 46.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Ms M.D., the mother of Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov, who stated that on the night of 13‑14 January 2003 she had been at home at 15a Orekhova Street with her two sons and daughter. At about 4 a.m. she had gone into the yard and seen an APCs with armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks sitting on top of it. Next to the house she saw her brother-in-law, Khizir Ismailov, several APCs and a lorry with armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks. After that the armed men took her sons Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov outside and drove them away. About ten minutes later a convoy of seven or eight APCs and a lorry drove down the street. The vehicles did not have registration numbers. After that the witness went to her relatives' house at 22 Orekhova Street where she found out about the abduction of her brother Yusi Daydayev and her brothers-in-law Khizir Ismailov and Yaragi Ismailov. 47.  On 21 January 2003 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant, who stated that on the night of 14 January 2003 she and her family members had been at home at 22 Orekhova Street. At about 4 a.m. they had heard screams and noise. Her husband Yaragi Ismailov went outside. He returned and said that military servicemen were on the street. After that two armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks entered the house. They made Yaragi Ismailov lie down on the floor and then ordered him to put his clothing on. The men walked through the rooms and took Yaragi Ismailov, who was barefoot, into the yard where more military servicemen were waiting. 48.  On 27 January 2003 the investigators questioned an officer of the ROVD, Mr U.S. He stated that on the night of 14 January 2003 he had been on duty at the police station. At about 5 a.m. the ROVD received information that unidentified armed men in Ural lorries and APCs had abducted five residents from Orekhova Street that is Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev. The officer immediately informed about it the head of the ROVD, the district department of the FSB and the district military commander's office. After that he sent a group of investigators to the crime scene. Meanwhile, police unit no. 3, stationed next to the cemetery on the outskirts of Achkhoy‑Martan, informed him by radio that a convoy of armoured vehicles was leaving Achkhoy-Martan. About ten to fifteen minutes later the unit reported that the convoy was returning to the settlement. The officer ordered them to watch the convoy's movement. After the convoy drove back into the town, it became impossible to track its movements. According to the information received by the witness from the FSB and the district military commander's office, their units were not participating in a special operation and had not left the base. Therefore, it was impossible to establish the owners of the convoy of armoured vehicles. 49.  On 28 March 2003 the investigators questioned an officer of the ROVD, Mr D.A. He stated that he worked as a district police officer in Achkhoy-Martan. At about 4 a.m. on 14 January 2003 a group of unidentified armed men in APCs and Ural lorries had arrived at Orekhova Street, where from house no. 15a they had abducted Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov and from house no. 22 Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev. In connection with this he and another officer from the ROVD had taken operational search measures; however, it was impossible to establish the whereabouts of the abducted men and the owners of the APCs and the lorries. 50.  On 28 April 2003 the investigators questioned the head of the Achkhoy-Martan administration, Mr S.Kh. He stated that in January 2003 unidentified armed men in APCs and Ural lorries had taken away five residents from Orekhova Street, namely Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev. In connection with this he had taken measures to establish their whereabouts and requested information about the disappeared men from the ROVD and the district military commander's office. However, these agencies did not have any relevant information. 51.  On 25, 26, 28 and 29 April and 5 May 2003 the investigators questioned five officers of the ROVD, all of whom provided similar statements. According to the officers, at the material time they had been serving at checkpoints nos. 1, 2 and 3 located on the bridge over the river Foranga and at a place called Vodozabor. During their duty hours, from 8 a.m. on 13 January to 8 a.m. on 14 January 2003, the APCs and lorries had not passed through the checkpoints. 52.  On 13 May 2003 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who stated that after the abduction he had complained to various law enforcement agencies, but to no avail. He and his relatives had been searching for the abducted men and meeting other people whose relatives had also been abducted. One of these men had informed him that his sons and Yusi Daydayev had been initially detained in Khankala, Chechnya, and then transferred to the Republic of North Ossetia, either to Mozdok or Vladikavkaz. 53.  On 28 September 2003 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor and stated that he had received information about the detention of his abducted relatives on the premises of the 6th department of the ORB ('6-й отдел ОРБ') located on the Staropromyslovskiy main highway in Grozny. The applicant requested that the investigators took measures to verify this information. On the same date the applicant was questioned and reiterated his request. 54.  On 30 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed because it was necessary to take investigative measures and verify the information concerning the detention of the abducted men on the premises of the 6th department of the ORB in Grozny. 55.  On 1 November 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators. 56.  On 26 October 2006 the eighth applicant's lawyer requested that the investigators provide him with access to the entire content of the criminal case file. On 9 November 2006 the investigators partially granted his request, stating that he was allowed to access only the documents reflecting the eighth applicant's participation in the proceedings. The document stated that full access to the case file would be granted only on completion of the investigation. 57.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicants' neighbour, Mr V.M., who stated that on the night of 14 January 2003 he had been sleeping at home, at 19 Orekhova Street in Achkhoy-Martan. At about 4 a.m. he had heard some noise and gone outside. He saw a convoy of seven APCs in Orekhova Street; soldiers were jumping out of the vehicles and taking up combat positions. Several minutes later he heard women screaming. When he saw the servicemen going into the Ismailov family house he thought they were looting and called the police. About five minutes later the convoy drove away towards the centre of Achkhoy‑Martan. There, driving along the central street, the vehicles continued in the direction of Katyr-Yurt in Achkhoy-Martan district. After the servicemen left, he found out that they had taken away his neighbours Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev. 58.  On an unspecified date the investigators received a letter from the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms (“the Envoy”), stating that the first applicant had complained to him about the abduction of his relatives by federal servicemen under the command of colonel L.Ch. 59.  On unspecified dates the investigators forwarded requests to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 in Khankala and the Chechnya FSB, asking whether the abducted men were being detained on their premises. According to the replies, these agencies had not conducted any special operations in Achkhoy-Martan at the material time and had not detained the applicants' relatives. 60.  On unspecified dates the investigators forwarded requests to various law enforcement agencies in Chechnya and the Northern Caucasus, including prosecutors' offices and military commanders' offices, asking for any information these agencies had concerning the abducted men. According to the replies, no information was available; no criminal proceedings were pending against the abducted men, no special operations had been conducted against them, they had not applied for medical help, their corpses had not been found and no custody records were available in respect of them. 61.  On an unspecified date the investigators forwarded a request to the ORB in Grozny, asking whether they had arrested and detained the applicants' relatives. According to the agency's reply, they had not arrested or detained them. 62.  The Government further submitted that although the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Aslambek Ismailov, Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev, it was still in progress and all necessary investigative and operational search measures were being taken to solve the crime. 63.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case no. 44009, providing copies of only twenty-two documents. They stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.


6.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1949 respectively. They live in Urus-Martan in the Chechen Republic. 7.  The applicants are married. They are the parents of Mr Vakha Khavazhovich Abdurzakov, born in 1981. 8.  On the night of 24 to 25 October 2002 the Abdurzakovs were sleeping in their family house at 234 Sheripov Street, Urus-Martan. 9.  At about 3 a.m. on 25 October 2002 barking dogs woke the applicants. The second applicant heard human voices, looked out of the window and saw four armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks. 10.  The second applicant stepped outside the house and saw in the courtyard around thirty armed men who ordered him in Russian to stop. He also heard the engine of an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”). 11.  The armed men ordered the second applicant to raise his hands and entered the house. There they forced him to his knees and searched the house without producing any warrant. Some of them pointed their machine guns at the first applicant. 12.  Meanwhile several armed men entered Vakha Abdurzakov’s room and ordered him to identify himself. The first applicant produced her son’s identity papers. The armed men examined them and ordered Vakha Abdurzakov to rise and took him to the entrance door. When the first applicant begged them not to take her son away, they replied that she should “thank” her neighbours. 13.  The armed men pushed the first applicant into a room and blocked its door with a refrigerator. Then they left the house taking Vakha Abdurzakov with them. 14.  The second applicant unblocked the door and let his wife out of the room. She ran into the street and noticed two UAZ vehicles going towards the town centre. Then she saw two APCs parked nearby. When she had almost reached them they drove away. 15.  In the morning of 25 October 2002 the applicants and their neighbours found bloodstains on the road which led from the applicants’ house to Titov Street, where traces of UAZ tyres were visible. 16.  The applicants concluded that those who had abducted their son were Russian servicemen because they had freely moved around the town during the curfew, had driven military vehicles and had spoken Russian without an accent.
(b) Money demanded from the applicants 17.  Two or three days before 25 October 2002 Ms Yu., an inhabitant of Urus-Martan, had visited the applicants and told them that Russian law enforcement agencies had been told that their son was participating in illegal armed groups and had been planning to detain him. Ms Yu. had said that she would prevent Vakha Abdurzakov’s arrest if the applicants paid her 400 United States dollars (USD). The applicants had declined her offer as they were convinced that their son had not been involved in any illegal activities. 18.  A few days after Vakha Abdurzakov’s disappearance Ms Yu. again visited the applicants and told them that their son had originally been kept in the Urus-Martan temporary department of the interior (“VOVD”) and then transferred to the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district military commander’s office”). She also mentioned names of two persons involved in Vakha Abdurzakov’s disappearance, “Volodya” and “Sergey”, and said that the latter was the head of the Urus-Martan District Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB department”). Later the applicants learned that at the material time the FSB department had been headed by Mr Sergey Konstantinov. 19.  The applicants gave Ms Yu. a parcel with some food and clothing for their son. Later she said that she had transferred the parcel to Vakha Abdurzakov, in detention in the district military commander’s office, and that “Sergey” and “Volodya” had offered to release him for USD 3,000. The applicants did not have the money and promised Ms Yu. that they would consider the offer. 20.  After a certain lapse of time the applicants agreed to pay the money demanded, borrowed USD 2,800 from their acquaintances and gave it to Ms Yu. on 7 January 2003. Nevertheless, they had no news from Vakha Abdurzakov. Ms Yu. explained them that “Sergey” had swindled her out of the money and left Urus-Martan. 21.  At about 3 a.m. on 25 October 2002 unknown armed persons wearing camouflage uniforms entered the house at 234 Sharipov Street, Urus-Martan, apprehended Vakha Abdurzakov and took him away to an unknown destination. 22.  In the morning of 25 October 2002 the applicants visited various law enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan District but received no information on Vakha Abdurzakov’s detention. On the same day they lodged written complaints with the prosecutor’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”), the department of the interior of the Urus-Martan District (“ROVD”) and the Urus-Martan District Court (“the district court”). 23.  In the following months the applicants continued to search for their son and contacted various official bodies, such as the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms (“the Special Envoy”), the President of the Chechen Republic, the Russian Ministry of the Defence and the prosecutors’ offices at different levels. In their applications they described in detail the circumstances of Vakha Abdurzakov’s abduction and asked for assistance in establishing his fate and whereabouts. It appears that those applications were to no avail. 24.  On 3 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Vakha Abdurzakov under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 61146. 25.  On 29 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 61146. 26.  On 14 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 61146 had been suspended for a failure to identify those responsible and that the ROVD had been instructed to search for Vakha Abdurzakov. 27.  On 21 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the Special Envoy’s office that the investigation into Vakha Abdurzakov’s kidnapping had been opened on 3 November 2002, that all requisite investigative measures had been taken and that the ROVD had been instructed to search actively for perpetrators. 28.  On 16 March 2004 the first applicant requested the South Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office to help her to find her son. Her letter was then forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 29.  On 22 April 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded to the district office the first applicant’s letter of 16 March 2004 and ordered that the search for Vakha Abdurzakov be actively pursued. 30.  On 16 June 2004 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 61146 had been suspended and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 31.  On 22 June 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to resume the investigation into her son’s kidnapping, to take the requisite steps to solve the crime, to allow her access to the investigation file and, if necessary, to transfer the case to a military prosecutor’s office. 32.  On 1 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office replied that, despite the requisite investigative measures taken in case no. 61146, the perpetrators had not been identified. They further noted that other measures were being taken and that the investigation would be resumed once new information on the case was obtained. 33.  On an unspecified date in August-September 2004 the investigation into Vakha Abdurzakov’s kidnapping was resumed. 34.  On 2 September 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to question Ms Yu. as a witness. 35.  On 17 September 2004 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 61146 for failure to identify those responsible and informed the first applicant accordingly on 20 September 2004. 36.  On 11 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant’s request to question Ms Yu. On an unspecified date Ms Yu. submitted that Vakha Abdurzakov had been detained in the district military commander’s office and that she had given the applicants’ money to “Sergey” and “Volodya” as a payment for his release. 37.  On 19 December 2005 the first applicant requested the district military commander’s office to help in the search for her son. 38.  On 23 December 2005 the first applicant requested assistance from the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic in establishing her son’s whereabouts. 39.  On 13 January 2006 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office. 40.  On 18 January 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 41.  On 10 July 2006 the first applicant requested an update on progress in the investigation from the district prosecutor’s office. 42.  On 10 September 2007 the first applicant was informed that the investigation in case no. 61146 had been resumed. 43.  On 3 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation of Vakha Abdurzakov’s abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 61146. 44.  On 10 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office requested information on Vakha Abdurzakov’s whereabouts to the FSB Department, the district military commander’s office, the temporary unit of the Ministry of the Interior and military unit no. 6779. According to the replies received, Vakha Abdurzakov had not been detained by those agencies or kept in a temporary detention facility and no criminal proceedings had been instituted against him. 45.  On 29 November 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She submitted that at about 3 a.m. on 25 October 2002 her son had heard dogs barking and had gone into the street. Someone had ordered him not to move and threatened to open fire. Vakha Abdurzakov had gone back inside the house and told the first applicant that there were soldiers in the courtyard. Then unknown armed men in masks had entered the house, asked her son’s last name and demanded his identity papers. Having taken the identity papers and a gold ring, the men had led Vakha Abdurzakov out of the house. 46.  On 4 December 2002 the district prosecutor’s office questioned the second applicant. He submitted that at about 3 a.m. on 25 October 2002 six unknown armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had entered his house, made his son get out of bed and taken his identity papers. 47.  On 3 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation for failure to identify those responsible and informed the first applicant accordingly. 48.  On 23 September 2003 the first applicant informed the district prosecutor’s office that two APCs and two UAZ vehicles had been used by her son’s kidnappers. 49.  On 17 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 3 January 2003 and resumed the investigation because of the necessity to verify newly discovered information. 50.  On 17 September 2004 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation and notified the first applicant accordingly. 51.  On 8 October 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to question Ms Yu. as a witness. 52.  On 11 October 2004 the investigation was resumed to verify newly discovered information. 53.  On 23 October 2004 Mr Yu., Ms Yu.’s son, was questioned. He submitted that in the winter of 2003 the second applicant had told him that Ms Yu. had taken USD 2,800 from him promising that his son would be released but had not kept her word. The second applicant had demanded that Mr Yu. pay him back. Mr Yu. had requested an explanation from his mother who had confirmed that she had taken the money from the second applicant and given it to a policeman of the Urus-Martan District. Mr Yu. could not tell whether his mother was sincere but he had sold his plot of land to pay the second applicant back. 54.  On 11 November 2004 the investigation in case no. 61146 was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators and the first applicant was notified accordingly. 55.  On 25 October 2005 the district prosecutor’s office questioned Ms Yu. She submitted that in August 2002 an acquaintance of hers, a VOVD serviceman named “Sergey” had asked her whether Abdurzakov the Wahhabi was her neighbour. She had replied that the Abdurzakovs were not Wahhabi. A month later Ms Yu. had told the first applicant that the VOVD had had something against Vakha Abdurzakov and mentioned that other people had been buying up materials compromising their children. After Vakha Abdurzakov’s abduction the first applicant had come to Ms Yu. and asked her for assistance. The following morning the two women had gone to the VOVD premises and asked “Sergey” whether the police had detained Vakha Abdurzakov. He had replied that the police had not been involved and promised to check whether the district military commander’s office was implicated. Later that afternoon “Sergey” had told Ms Yu. that Vakha Abdurzakov had been arrested by the FSB department. Some three months later “Sergey” had told Ms Yu. that FSB servicemen had demanded USD 3,000 as a payment for release of Vakha Abdurzakov. Two days later “Sergey” had come to her place and told her that Vakha Abdurzakov would be released in the morning if the sum was paid. The second applicant had given Ms Yu. USD 2,800. She had added USD 200 of her own and given “Sergey” the money. Vakha Abdurzakov had not come home. A few days later Ms Yu. had learned that “Sergey” and “Volodya” had left the Chechen Republic after the completion of their mission. 56.  On 7 September 2007 the decision of 11 November 2004 was quashed and the investigation in case no. 61146 was resumed. The first applicant was notified accordingly. 57.  On 10 September 2007 the first applicant was questioned. She submitted that after her son had been taken away, she had gone into the street and seen two APCs and two UAZ vehicles parked some 500 metres away from her house. The vehicles had been moving in the direction of the town centre of Urus-Martan. The first applicant had not seen the registration numbers of the vehicles. She had spotted her neighbour on the street. When the first applicant had returned home, she had realised that nine shirts, a man’s suit and a gold ring had been stolen. 58.  On 11 September 2007 the first applicant’s neighbour allegedly seen on the night of 25 October 2002 was questioned and submitted that he had not left his house that night and had not heard any military vehicles. 59.  The investigation, although so far fruitless, was ongoing. The law enforcement authorities of the Chechen Republic had never arrested or detained Vakha Abdurzakov on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in his respect. According to the Government, the applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation. 60.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of the investigation file in case no. 61146, providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. 61.  On 21 July 2004 the first applicant complained of unlawful actions of the district prosecutor’s office to the district court and requested that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping be resumed and that she be allowed to study the case file. 62.  On 6 August 2004 the district court established that the district prosecutor’s office had failed to take all possible investigative measures, in particular to question servicemen of the district military commander’s office and other law enforcement agencies, and ordered that the investigation in case no. 61146 be resumed. The remaining claims were dismissed for the reason that under domestic law access to a criminal case file was only permitted upon completion of an investigation. 63.  On 24 August 2004 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 64.  On 9 November 2004 the first applicant complained to the district court about unlawful actions of the district prosecutor’s office, in particular about the decision of 17 September 2004, and requested that the investigation be resumed and steps be taken to solve the crime. 65.  On 16 December 2004 the district court dismissed the first applicant’s claims arguing that the district prosecutor’s office had taken all necessary investigative measures in case no. 61146. 66.  On 26 January 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.


5.  The first applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Budapest. The second applicant, Irodalom Kft, is a Hungarian limited liability company, with its seat in Budapest. 6.  Mr Ungváry is a well-reputed historian specialised in 20th century Hungarian history including State security under the Communist regime.
Irodalom Kft is the publisher of the literary and political weekly Élet és Irodalom. 7.  On 18 May 2007 Élet és Irodalom published a study (entitled The Genesis of a Procedure – Dialógus in Pécs) written by Mr Ungváry. The article dealt with the actions of the security service against a spontaneous student peace movement (“Dialógus”) active in Pécs and elsewhere in the country in the 1980s. The author stated inter alia that:
“... the Dialógus-affair had demonstrated ... how closely the Ministry of the Interior and the ‘social organisations’ – which had taken over some State-security functions covertly, in case of necessity – had been intertwined”. 8.  The lead of the article pointed out that the recent scandals exposing former agents acting for the party-State’s security system covered up the fact that most reporting for that system had been done through accidental, social or official contacts (as had been the case with a Mr K., a judge of the Constitutional Court at the material time, elected by Parliament), rather than by actual agents.
The lead contained the following passage:
“From the perspective of informing (besúgás) and repression (megtorlás), Officer J. W. ... and the nine “official contacts” (hivatalos kapcsolat) proved to be a lot more important ... [in the Dialógus-affair], [these official contacts including] Mr K. (today judge of the Constitutional Court)... Their respective responsibilities are of course different.”
The author argued that Mr K., without being an actual agent,
“... was in regular and apparently collegial (kollégiális) contact with the State security, quite often anticipating and exceeding its expectations” ... “and as an official contact, he was busy as an informant (besúgó) and demanding hard-line policies”.
The writing made reference to the role of further contemporary public figures, amongst others the Prime Minister, a member of the European Economic and Social Committee, a former Member of Parliament and a university professor. 9.  In the article, Mr Ungváry relied, inter alia, on documents available in the Historical Archives of the State Security Service archived as a “strictly confidential action plan”. Referring to the above material, he described the role played by leaders of Pécs University – including Mr K., deputy secretary of the local party committee between 1983 and 1988 – in assisting the security operations.
Mr Ungváry characterised Mr K.’s attitude in the Dialógus case as that of a “hardliner”, in comparison to other “social contacts”. He recalled that Mr K. had ordered the removal of Dialógus’s poster, saying that “the country did not need such an ... organisation [i.e. Dialógus]”, and that he had reproached a candidate in the Communist youth organisation’s elections for having been supported by Dialógus. 10.  In its next issue of 25 May 2007 Élet és Irodalom published Mr K.’s statement written in response to the disputed article, denying the allegations. 11.  On 27 May 2007 a television channel broadcast an interview with Mr Ungváry about the article published in Élet és Irodalom. He reiterated his argument that in the previous political system most reporting had been done through accidental, social or official contacts. He argued that providing information, writing reports or removing posters would have qualified as agent activities, and Mr K. had been responsible for at least one of them. He called the latter ‘trash’.
Mr K. initiated proceedings with a view to obtaining a rectification in the press, refuting the applicants’ allegations. His claim was sustained by the courts and the second applicant published a rectification on 22 February 2008. 12.  In April 2008 a reference book co-authored by Mr Ungváry was published outlining the history of the Communist State security and including a chapter with the full version of the article published in Élet és Irodalom. 13.  On 30 April 2008 an interview with Mr Ungváry appeared on an internet news portal concerning the release of the book, where he called Mr K. “a party secretary writing mood reports”. 14.  Mr K. filed a criminal complaint against Mr Ungváry on charges of libel. In the course of the ensuing proceedings the latter apologised for having called him ‘trash’ in the television interview.
The second-instance criminal court was of the view that the statements in question constituted opinions. Mr Ungváry was acquitted on 25 February 2010. 15.  Meanwhile, Mr K. filed a defamation action against both applicants.
On 9 February 2009 the Budapest Regional Court found that Mr Ungváry had infringed Mr K.’s personality rights through his statements made in the study published in Élet és Irodalom, the television interview and the book. The second applicant was found to have violated Mr K.’s personality rights through publishing the study. The court relied on section 84(1) of the Civil Code. 16.  Relying in essence on the findings of fact established in the rectification proceedings (see paragraph 11 above), the court established that Mr Ungváry and the publisher had disseminated false and unproven statements tarnishing the reputation of Mr K. by maintaining that the latter had acted as a quasi-agent during the Communist regime, been an informant of and collaborated with the State security, reported to them and carried out their orders, and been a “hardliner” in 1983.
The court further found that Mr Ungváry had falsely interpreted Mr K.’s political criticism towards a candidate in the Communist youth organisation’s elections as an action motivated by the State security. 17.  The court ordered Irodalom Kft to pay 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 3,500 euros (EUR)) in respect of the article published in Élet és Irodalom. Mr Ungváry was ordered to pay HUF 2,000,000 (EUR 7,000) in damages. 18.  On appeal, on 13 October 2009 the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed this judgment and dismissed Mr K.’s action, holding that the impugned statements were value-judgments with sufficient factual background. However, it found that Mr Ungváry had violated Mr K.’s right to honour by calling him ‘trash’. This part of the judgment became final. 19.  On Mr K.’s petition for review, on 2 June 2010 the Supreme Court reversed the second-instance decision as to the remainder of the case. It found for Mr K., ruling that his personality rights had been violated by the false impression, given by the article in question, that he had been a quasi-agent and an informant during Communist times, collaborated as an ‘official contact’ with the State security and written reports for them, countered the youth organisation official’s election on the secret service’s instigation and demanded hard-line policies in 1983.
The court held that the article had not presented fact-driven conclusions of a historical research but mere defamatory and unsubstantiated statements about Mr K. It further affirmed that the applicants had been required to prove the truth of these allegations but had provided no such factual background.
The Supreme Court observed that there was no evidence that Mr K.’s report within the party hierarchy on the Dialógus-affair had been written on the commission, instruction or expectation of the Ministry of the Interior.
The judgment contained in particular the following passages:
“The concept of the author of the impugned article is in essence that, during [the Communist] regime, the so-called ‘official contacts’ also played an important role in the State security’s activities, in addition to the [actual] agents. It is probably true that the Ministry of the Interior indeed considered certain [officials] as ‘official contacts’. It can also be assumed that some of them occasionally cooperated with the State security as ‘official contacts’, that is, carried out State-security tasks, surveyed, reported – in other words, were active in the manner described by the author as ‘unambiguously incarnating the activities of an agent’. However, it is not possible to deduce from this potentiality the general conclusion that every single [official] acted as an ‘official contact’; consequently, in the absence of proven facts, it is not acceptable to qualify all potentially available personalities [i.e. Communist party secretaries] as ‘official contacts’ actually cooperating with the State security. Public opinion condemns those persons who cooperated with the State security, even if they do not fall within the actual category of ‘agent’ or ‘informant’. Therefore, if someone is characterised, without a proper ground, as actually having carried out such activities, this violates that person’s reputation, according to public opinion. ...
However, [Mr Ungváry] has committed breaches of law also in addition [to the authoring of the article], which themselves have justified – although all the breaches have originated in the article published in Élet és Irodalom – the plaintiff’s claim for non-pecuniary damage. In respect of the statements made in [the television broadcast] and the book, the Supreme Court establishes the further, reasonable non-pecuniary damage due to the plaintiff in the amount of 1,000,000 Hungarian forints.” 20.  The Supreme Court ordered the applicants, jointly and severally, to pay damages in the amount of 2,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 7,000 euros (EUR)) and accrued interest, whereas Mr Ungváry had to pay another HUF 1,000,000 (EUR 3,500) and accrued interest (see paragraph 19 above). The legal costs to be borne by the applicants amounted to approximately EUR 3,300, not including the applicants’ own legal expenses. The plaintiff’s claim as to an obligation on the side of the respondents to publish a compensatory statement was rejected as having been inadequately formulated.