5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Șopârlița. 6.  On 30 June 2013 the applicant’s sister called the emergency services and reported that the applicant was causing a disturbance in respect of his family (a făcut scandal ȋn familie). Two police officers from the Bobiceşti police, C.B. and M.D.B., were dispatched to the applicant’s home. 7.  Once they arrived at the applicant’s home, the police officers proceeded to handcuff him in order to take him to the police station, because they claimed that he was aggressive towards them. The officers immobilised him and pushed him to the ground with his face down, even though he was not resisting arrest. They handcuffed him with his hands behind his back, dragged him towards a police car, and banged his head against a metal gate owned by a neighbour, M.V. 8.  The Government acknowledged that the police officers had put the applicant to the ground and had forcibly handcuffed him. They stated, however, that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and of being thrown against a metal gate by the police officers were contradicted by the available evidence. The evidence proved that his injuries were not caused deliberately by the police officers. 9.  On 30 June 2013 one of the police officers who had been dispatched to the applicant’s home produced a contravention report, and fined the applicant 1,000 Romanian lei (RON – approximately 230 euros (EUR)). According to the report, the applicant had offended his father, had been inebriated, and had admitted his actions. The report was signed by the applicant. 10.  From 1 to 3 July 2013 the applicant was in Bagdasar‑Arseni Emergency Hospital in Bucharest. According to a medical report produced upon his discharge from hospital, he was diagnosed with a cervical spine injury and a minor cranial cerebral trauma. 11.  On 3 July 2013 the applicant’s father lodged a criminal complaint against police officers C.B. and M.D.B., on the grounds that they had physically abused his son. On 12 September 2013 the applicant took up (şi‑a ȋnsuşit) the criminal complaint lodged by his father against the police officers. 12.  On 14 August 2013 the Olt prosecutor’s office interviewed the applicant’s father with regard to the circumstances of the case. He stated, inter alia, that his son had not been suffering from a psychological illness. On the day of the incident the applicant had been inebriated and had made a scene, but he had not hurt either of his parents. Neither parent had called the police, and the applicant’s father was unaware of who could have done so. The police officers had produced a contravention report in the applicant’s name and had asked him to sign the report without informing him why. The applicant had complied and had signed the contravention report. Subsequently, he had agreed to accompany the police officers to the hospital, but had informed them that he needed to go inside the house to get dressed. The police officers had stopped him from entering the house, pushed him to the ground with his face down, and handcuffed him. Afterwards, they had dragged him away and banged his head against a metal gate owned by M.V. When they had put the applicant in the ambulance he had had blood on his face, and they had left him in the ambulance face down and wearing handcuffs. The following day, Dr B. from the psychiatric unit of Slatina Emergency Hospital had informed him (the applicant’s father) that his son had been seriously beaten, and that he had been transferred to a different hospital because he had suffered a cervical spine injury. 13.  On 12 September 2013 the Olt prosecutor’s office interviewed the applicant. In his statement, inter alia, he asked the investigating authorities to also interview his mother and N.B. with regard to the incident. He also stated that he had signed the contravention report produced by the two police officers, even though he had not been informed by them about its content. One of the police officers had travelled with him in the ambulance. That officer had refused to remove his handcuffs and had punched him in the face. 14.  On the same date the Olt prosecutor’s office interviewed both the applicant’s mother and N.B. His mother stated, inter alia, that the police officers had not allowed her son to get dressed, had chased him through the courtyard, and had tripped him. After he had fallen to the ground they had twisted his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. Because the applicant had been agitated after he had been handcuffed, and had refused to accompany the police officers, they had repeatedly banged his head against the gate owned by M.V. One of the police officers had travelled with the applicant in the ambulance and had continued to beat him until he had been asked by the medical staff in the ambulance to stop the violence. 15.  N.B. stated, inter alia, that he had been on the street on the day of the incident and had seen two police officers handcuff the applicant. Afterwards, they had grabbed him by his hands and had banged his head repeatedly on the gate owned by M.V. N.B. further stated that he had worked with the applicant, and he had not been suffering from any psychological condition or drinking alcohol. 16.  On an unspecified date in 2013 the Olt prosecutor’s office asked the Olt County Forensic Medical Service to examine the available medical documents and produce a forensic expert report in the case. The prosecutor’s office asked the forensic service to determine: the applicant’s injuries and their cause; the number of days of medical care needed for healing; if there was a direct link between the applicant’s injuries and their cause; and if the injuries could also have been caused by something other than intentional force. 17.  On 31 October 2013 the Olt County Forensic Medical Service examined the applicant and the available medical documents. 18.  On 18 November 2013 the Olt County Forensic Medical Service produced a forensic expert report. It noted that on the day of the incident the applicant had been transferred by ambulance to Slatina Emergency Hospital because he had been extremely agitated and his breath had smelled of alcohol. Subsequently, he had been transferred to the hospital’s psychiatric unit and had been sedated. The following day he had started complaining of pain in his cervical spine area, and of paralysis of his right hand. He had been examined and had been diagnosed with a cervical spine injury. The interdisciplinary medical examination carried out by, inter alia, a neurologist, a surgeon and an orthopaedist had not identified any signs of trauma. Eventually, the applicant had been admitted to a specialist hospital and had been operated on in relation to the cervical spine injury. 19.  The forensic report concluded that the applicant’s injury could have been caused on 30 June 2013. Most probably, the injury had been caused by a forced rotation movement of the neck when the applicant had been immobilised and handcuffed. No signs of trauma specific to intentional force had been identified on the applicant’s head, body or limbs during the interdisciplinary examinations carried out after his admissions to Slatina Emergency Hospital and Bagdasar-Arseni Emergency Hospital. The applicant had needed seventy to eighty days of medical care from the moment of his injury. 20.  On 10 January 2014 a prosecutor attached to the Olt prosecutor’s office decided not to open a criminal investigation against the two police officers for abusive behaviour, on the grounds that their actions had lacked the elements of an offence. The prosecutor held that a third party had called the emergency services at the applicant’s sister’s request, because the applicant, who had a history of psychological problems and who had been drunk, had been aggressive and had endangered his own life and safety and that of his family. Once police officers C.B. and M.D.B. had arrived at the scene of the incident, they had asked the applicant to calm down and accompany them to the police station. The applicant had refused the police officers’ demand, and had become aggressive and had verbally abused them. 21.  The prosecutor further held that the applicant’s father had confirmed the fact that the applicant had been drunk at the time of the incident. However, his statements that his son had not been aggressive and that he had been unaware of the identity of the person who had called the emergency services had not been confirmed by the rest of the evidence adduced in the file. Moreover, in such a case, it would have been highly unlikely that an individual would call the emergency services for no reason. According to the prosecutor, those arguments were also supported by the fact that, in the medical report produced by the psychiatric unit of Slatina Emergency Hospital, where the applicant had been taken after the incident, it was stated that the applicant was suffering from a polymorphic personality disorder, which was aggravated by alcohol consumption. Also, his father had acknowledged that the applicant would generally act normally when he was sober, but transformed into a verbally and physically aggressive person once he drank alcohol. 22.  The prosecutor also held that the applicant was known in his village as a violent and aggressive person with psychological problems. He had been investigated in relation to several other criminal files concerning alleged violent acts committed against the members of his family, and for theft, but the investigations had been discontinued after his parents had withdrawn their complaints. 23.  The prosecutor noted that, according to the reports describing the police officers’ intervention and the use of force and handcuffs, once the officers had arrived at the applicant’s home they had realised that he was drunk, and they had been forced to immobilise him and take him to Slatina Emergency Hospital. Also, according to the available medical documents, the applicant had been transferred to the hospital by ambulance, he had been extremely agitated, and his breath had smelled of alcohol. Subsequently, he had been transferred to the hospital’s psychiatric unit and had been sedated. The following day he had started complaining of a cervical spine injury, which had eventually required surgical treatment. In addition, according to the information provided by the psychiatric unit of Slatina Emergency Hospital, since 1998 the applicant had repeatedly been admitted to the unit for similar reasons. 24.  The prosecutor held that the conclusions of the forensic expert report produced on 18 November 2013 contradicted N.B.’s and the applicant’s parents’ testimonies that the applicant’s head had repeatedly been banged against M.V.’s gate by the police officers. 25.  By referring to Article 34 §§ 1 and 2 of Law no. 218/2002, but expressly citing the relevant provisions of Article 33 §§ 1 and 2 of the same aforementioned Law, the prosecutor further held that, given the available evidence, the police officers had not injured the applicant deliberately. His injuries could have been the result of a forced rotation of his neck, which could have happened at the moment when he had been immobilised by the officers. Also, the police officers had stated that they had not hurt the applicant, and had confirmed that he had been drunk, and that he had been transported and admitted to hospital. 26.  The applicant challenged the decision of 10 January 2014 before a more senior prosecutor. 27.  On 29 January 2014 a more senior prosecutor attached to the Olt prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s challenge as ill-founded, and upheld the decision of 10 January 2014. 28.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 29 January 2014 before the Slatina District Court. In his written submissions he argued that the forensic expert report produced in the case was incomplete and superficial. The report had failed to determine if his injury would have been possible considering the physical characteristics of the parties involved in the incident and the standard procedure which had to be followed in cases of handcuffing. Also, the report had not explained how the forced rotation of his neck had happened, as he would not have made such a painful movement instinctively. In addition, the prosecutor’s office had wrongfully dismissed his parents’ and N.B.’s testimonies, as those witnesses had confirmed the police violence, and the forensic report had acknowledged that his injury had most probably been caused as a result of the forced rotation of his neck. Consequently, the applicant argued that the available forensic expert report had to be complemented by another report (completat), and that the second report had to be submitted for the approval of a higher review commission. 29.  The applicant further argued that none of the circumstances set out in sections 1 and 2 of Article 34 of Law no. 218/2002 had applied in his case. Also, even assuming that he had resisted immobilisation, as claimed by the authorities, the handcuffing measure could only have been taken against him if there had been a reasonable suspicion that his behaviour could endanger the police officers’ physical integrity or lives. Even assuming that such a situation had existed, the police officers had still had a lawful duty to use their handcuffs without seriously injuring him. 30.  Lastly, the applicant contended that the prosecuting authorities’ conclusion that the police officers had not hurt him intentionally had been ill‑founded, given that the officers had indirectly acted with intent. In particular, they had foreseen the result of their actions, and even if they had not intended that result, they had accepted that it was a possibility. 31.  On 12 March 2014 the Slatina District Court referred the case to the Balş District Court for examination. 32.  By a final judgment of 9 April 2014 the Balş District Court, sitting in private as a pre-trial chamber judge, and without the parties being present, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the more senior prosecutor’s decision and upheld that decision. It noted that it had notified the parties about the date of the hearing, but they had failed to submit written observations. The court held that the Olt prosecutor’s office had correctly established that officers C.B. and M.D.B. had not committed the offence of abusive behaviour. Also, the available forensic report did not need to be complemented by an additional report or submitted for approval. The forensic report had examined extensively the available medical evidence, and had concluded that no evidence of trauma as a result of deliberate force had been identified on the applicant’s head, body or limbs during the multidisciplinary examinations. 33.  The court further held that, according to the available medical evidence, the applicant had been in an extreme state of psychomotor agitation, and the cranial X-ray had not shown any post-traumatic injury of the skull. Consequently, the court considered that the existence of a minor cranial cerebral trauma had not contradicted the conclusions of the forensic medical report, which had taken that trauma’s presence into account. 34.  The court also considered that it had been unnecessary for the forensic expert report to explain how the forced rotation of the applicant’s neck had happened, given that the victim would not have made such movements instinctively, because he had been drunk and extremely agitated at the time of the incident, and his behaviour could not have been compared with the normal behaviour of another person. 35.  The court further considered that the prosecutor had correctly dismissed the testimonies in the case, given that, according to the forensic expert report, no trauma as a result of deliberate force had been identified, and the forensic pathologist had had the opportunity to consider the possibility of the applicant’s head being banged repeatedly against a metal gate. 36.  The court held that it was true that the police officers had had a duty to use their handcuffs without seriously injuring the applicant. However, the applicant’s injuries had not been the direct result of the police officers’ actions. They had occurred in circumstances where he had been drunk, violent and extremely agitated, and therefore the police officers could not have controlled their actions towards him. 37.  The court also held that the violent actions towards the applicant had been carried out by the police officers within the framework of their work duties. In addition, the actions had been lawfully justified in order to alleviate the danger the applicant had represented to society and himself, given that he had been drunk, agitated and aggressive, and had been suffering from an organic personality disorder as a result of drinking alcohol. The police officers had not acted with the intent of hitting or hurting the applicant. His injuries had been the result of his immobilisation and handcuffing measures to stop his aggressive actions and transport him to the hospital. Therefore, the police officers’ actions had been justified. 38.  On 22 October 2014 the applicant underwent a medical examination at a private medical establishment, the Medical Civil Association for the Brain. According to a medical report produced by that establishment, the applicant had an organic personality disorder with “polymorphic decompensation” (decompensare polimorfă). The report noted that the applicant’s symptoms included a moderate intrapsychological tension, concentration difficulties, mixed insomnia and a low resilience to frustration and annoyances. It further noted, inter alia, that the applicant had repeatedly been admitted to psychiatric hospitals, had poor social and family support, and persistent symptoms for which he was receiving treatment. 39.  On 6 January 2015 the applicant underwent a medical examination at Schitu-Greci Psychiatric Hospital, because he was suffering from psychomotor agitation, a conflicted personality disorder, headaches, dizziness and mixed insomnia. According to a medical report produced by the hospital, he was diagnosed with an organic personality disorder and received treatment for his condition. The report also noted that alcohol and coffee consumption, as well as conflict, amounted to risk factors in relation to the applicant’s medical condition. 40.  On 26 May 2015 a neurologist attached to Bagdasar‑Arseni Emergency Hospital in Bucharest produced a medical report in respect of the applicant’s medical condition, following his operation for his cervical spine injury. According to the report, inter alia, the applicant continued to experience movement difficulties. Consequently, the report considered it appropriate that the applicant’s ability to work be assessed by a local expert commission, with a view to his potential retirement. 41.  On 8 June 2015 the Caracal branch of an office specialising in expert medical assessment of a person’s ability to work, which was attached to the Olt Retirement Agency, acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from a serious functional deficiency and had completely lost his ability to work.


5.  On 25 March 2004 the applicant company concluded a contract with Univerzal Banka AD (hereinafter “the bank”), a private institution based in Belgrade. Under the terms of this contract, the applicant company acquired a debt belonging to the bank resulting from a final court judgment of 28 December 1999. That judgment was rendered against a socially-owned company called Mehanizacija (hereinafter “the debtor company”) with its seat in Vladičin Han. On 29 August 2000, upon the bank’s application to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and the debtor company subsequently paid a part of the judgment debt. 6.  On 14 April 2005, upon the applicant company’s application to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court again ordered the full enforcement of the judgment in question. 7.  On 26 July 2005 the applicant company concluded a settlement with the debtor company, which was later annulled following an application by the debtor company by a decision of the Leskovac Commercial Court of 22 January 2009. That decision became final on 3 March 2010. 8.  On 24 December 2001 the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant company specified amounts. 9.  On 2 February 2005, upon the applicant company’s application to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment. 10.  On 1 March 2010 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company. As a result, all of the other ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor company were stayed. 11.  The applicant company duly reported its claims based on the above-mentioned judgments. 12.  On 15 October 2010 the Leskovac Commercial Court recognised a part of the applicant company’s claims and instructed the applicant company to initiate civil proceedings in respect of the remainder. 13.  On 29 May 2012 the Leskovac Commercial Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant company and dismissed the remainder of its claims. That decision was upheld by the Commercial Appeals Court on 25 October 2013. The domestic courts found that the contract which the applicant company had concluded with the bank (see paragraph 5 above) entitled it only to the recovery of the amount paid for the transfer of the debt owed to the bank in question, not the judgment debt itself. 14.  The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.


4.  The applicant was born in 1977. He has served sentences in several prisons. On 21 April 2015 he was released from Târgu-Jiu Prison. 5.  The applicant alleged that while detained in cell no. 5 of Târgu‑Jiu Prison for eight days, between 1 October and 9 October 2013, he had not had an individual bed and had therefore been forced to sleep on the cold floor on two blankets. As a consequence, the renal disease from which he suffered had been re-activated and he had experienced intense pain. 6.  On 3 October 2013 he had been examined by a prison doctor and had been prescribed medical treatment. However, he had been unable to submit any evidence in this connection as the prison authorities had rejected his requests for a copy of his medical records. He submitted instead an old medical certificate stating that on 23 September 2012 he had been hospitalised in the Nephrology Department of Slatina Hospital suffering from renal colic. 7.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the post‑sentencing judge asking for an individual bed. 8.  His complaint was examined on 15 October 2013. The applicant informed the judge that he had eventually been given a bed, but only after nine days. The post-sentencing judge took note that the applicant had obtained an individual bed; he did not draft an interlocutory judgment, but merely noted that the complaint had been withdrawn. 9.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Gorj District Court seeking compensation in connection with the lack of an individual bed for eight days in cell no. 5 of Târgu-Jiu Prison. 10.  On 12 November 2013 the Târgu-Jiu District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as inadmissible without examining its merits on account of the fact that the applicant had not submitted an interlocutory judgment by the post-sentencing judge in connection with his complaint.


5.  The first and second applicants were born in 1984 and 1982 respectively and live in Vienna. The third applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Switzerland. 6.  The following summary of the background of the case and the events in Austria is based on the submissions by the applicants. The account of the investigation in Austria is based on the submissions by both parties. 7.  The applicants are all nationals of the Philippines. The first and third applicants were recruited in 2006 and 2009 respectively by an employment agency in Manila to work as maids or au pairs in Dubai (United Arab Emirates). The second applicant travelled to Dubai in December 2008 for the same purpose, at the suggestion of the first applicant, not via an agency. All of the applicants had their passports taken away by their employers. During the course of their work in Dubai, they allege that they were subjected to ill-treatment and exploitation by their employers, who also failed to pay them their agreed wages and forced them to work extremely long hours, under the threat of further ill-treatment. 8.   In late 2006 the first applicant contacted an agency in Manila in order to find a job abroad. She is a single mother with one daughter who was eight months old at the time. She signed a contract in which she agreed to work for a family in Dubai for two years, from December 2006 until December 2008. The contract also stipulated that she would be paid 700 United Arab Emirates dirhams (AED – approximately 150 euros (EUR) at that time) per month to work for eight hours each working day. Upon her arrival in Dubai the first applicant was taken to her employers, who were two sisters or sisters-in-law sharing one large residence with their families. One of them took possession of her passport. 9.  For most of the initial two-year contract the first applicant was not subjected to physical abuse or direct threats of harm by her employers, and she was paid regularly. However, she had to work from 5 a.m. to midnight throughout the initial two-year period. Her duties included looking after her employers’ children, preparing meals, cleaning the house, doing the laundry and numerous other jobs around the house and garden. During the first nine months she was required to perform this work seven days per week without a single day off, and was not allowed to leave the house unsupervised. She was not allowed to have her own telephone and was only allowed to call her family in the Philippines once a month, the costs of these calls being deducted from her wages. Further, the first applicant was forbidden from speaking to any of the other workers from the Philippines in their native language. She was constantly hungry, as she was generally only given the family’s leftover food. Only when she accompanied the family to the supermarket approximately once a month was she allowed to buy some basic food for herself. 10.  After approximately nine months, the first applicant faced the first punishments by her employers. She was forced to sleep on the floor when they found out that she had been talking to another employee from the Philippines in their native language. When she became ill after sleeping on the cold floor, her employers prevented her from buying medicine or contacting a doctor; instead, she had to continue working the same hours. 11.  Towards the end of her two-year contract, the first applicant’s employers informed her that they wished her to stay, and offered her better pay, more days off and a telephone of her own, as well as permission to visit her family, provided that she recruited someone to take over her job while she was away. The first applicant finally agreed to extend her contract and returned to the Philippines for three months. Owing to the incentives and the prospect of improved working conditions, she asked the second applicant to take over her role in Dubai during the time she was away. 12.  While the first applicant was in the Philippines, she received threats from her employers that if she did not return to Dubai to work, she would be banned from ever going back there, and the second applicant would be subjected to ill-treatment. The first applicant therefore returned to Dubai in April 2009. 13.  After she returned to Dubai, she was taught how to drive. After she failed her first driving test, she was forced to pay for further lessons and tests out of her own salary, with four further driving tests costing AED 700 each, a month’s salary. While she was driving, one of her employers hit her on the shoulder on a number of occasions to force her to speed up. The employer also started to slap or hit her regularly for no or little reason. She also repeatedly threatened to let her husband hit the first applicant if she did not follow her orders or made any mistakes. 14.  The first applicant accompanied her employers on trips to Europe, Australia, Singapore and Oman, where she spent significant amounts of time locked up in hotel rooms or under the close supervision of her employers. She only had to visit one embassy in person to obtain entry documents, and that was in relation to a trip to London, at which time she was ordered by her employers to lie about her work conditions. When they arrived in London, the first applicant was not allowed at any time to leave the apartment in which they were staying. 15.  The second applicant was married with three young children in the Philippines. Her husband had no regular work. Because she expected better pay in Dubai, she agreed to work for the same employers as the first applicant. The employers in Dubai arranged a visiting visa for her, under false pretences. As a result of this arrangement, the second applicant did not approach the employment agency in the Philippines and did not have a written contract with her employers. Her understanding was that she would get AED 700 per month, which would be paid directly to her family in the Philippines. 16.  In December 2008 the second applicant started to work in Dubai. After the first applicant returned to the Philippines for three months in January 2009 (see paragraph 11 above), the employers significantly changed their conduct towards the second applicant. They threatened not to pay her family if she made any mistakes. They refused to let her leave Dubai, including by refusing to return her passport and ordering her to repay them her travel costs and related expenses. They also told her that she would be put in prison if she ran away or went to the authorities in Dubai for help. They physically and emotionally abused her, and there was one incident when one of her employers struck her across the shoulder using significant force. She was also forced to work from around 5 or 6 a.m. until midnight or 1 a.m. the following day. 17.  Between April 2009 and June 2010 the violent and threatening behaviour of the employers increased. The second applicant was punched by one of her employers on one occasion, and in another incident the employer aimed a hard slap at her face, but instead struck her across the shoulder. 18.  The third applicant’s family were desperate for money to pay for crucial medical treatment for her brother. Therefore, in 2009 she contacted an employment agency in the Philippines and was offered work as a maid in Dubai. She was informed that she would be earning between AED 800 and 1,000 (approximately EUR 160 to 200 at that time) per month, roughly twice her salary in the Philippines. Upon her arrival in Dubai in 2009 she had to hand over her passport and mobile phone to someone supposedly working for the employment agency. She was told that these items would be returned to her when she finished her work in Dubai. 19.  The third applicant was working for a family member of the first and second applicants’ employers. The applicants got to know each other, as the two families met every Friday. They secretly shared their experiences on these occasions. 20.  The third applicant was also bound by working hours going from 6 a.m. to midnight. Her employer forced her to clean her car in the sun and in unbearable heat, and she was prohibited from going to the toilet without letting her employer know. She was only allowed to call her family in the Philippines once a month, and only in the presence of her employer. She did not receive any remuneration at all for the first three months of her employment. Afterwards, she only received approximately AED 750 per month, less than what had been agreed. On one occasion she was slapped by her employer, and on a different occasion she witnessed another employee being hit over the head. 21.  When the third applicant told her employer that she wished to return to the Philippines, she was told that she would have to pay the cost of the flight and the agency fees, which her employer knew she could not afford at that point. Her employer also made it clear that, in any event, her passport would not be returned to her until she had completed at least nine months of work in Dubai. Subsequently, the third applicant was too scared to ask to leave Dubai again, owing to her fear that her employer would take her earnings from her or refuse to return her passport for an even longer period. 22.  On 2 July 2010 the applicants’ employers took them along on a short holiday trip to Austria. The applicants all stayed at the same hotel in the city centre of Vienna. The applicants slept in their own, separate apartment together with the female children. The male children slept in the same apartment as their parents. As in Dubai, the applicants had to take care of all of the employers’ children and perform numerous other domestic duties. They were still required to work from approximately 5 or 6 a.m. until midnight or even later. The third applicant was regularly shouted at by her employer, for example if she failed to get all the children ready early every morning. In addition, their employers woke the first applicant up at around 2 a.m. and forced her to cook food for them. Furthermore, the first applicant was forced to carry the employers’ twenty suitcases into the hotel by herself. While the applicants were in Austria, their passports remained with their employers. In the hotel in Vienna in which the applicants were staying, they became acquainted with N., an employee at the hotel who could speak Tagalog, the first applicant’s mother tongue. 23.  When the applicants accompanied their employers to a zoo one or two days after their arrival in Austria, one of the children went missing for some time. One of the employers started screaming at the first and third applicants in a manner which the applicants had not experienced before. The first applicant found the level of verbal abuse extreme, and this was a particularly distressing and humiliating experience for her. The employer threatened to beat the third applicant, and said that “something bad” would happen to her if the child was not found safe and well. By this stage, the third applicant had formed the impression that this employer, of whom she lived in a constant state of fear, was a dangerous person who might try to hurt her very badly. She had the feeling that the violence towards her was likely to escalate at any time. Therefore, she believed that something bad was going to happen to her if she remained with the family. Similarly, the first applicant believed that they could not live with their conditions of work any longer, and did not want to risk waiting to see what happened if they travelled with their employers from Vienna to London, as they were scheduled to do. The applicants therefore decided to speak to N., the Tagalog-speaking employee at the hotel, to see whether she could help them. 24.  The night following the incident – that is, two or three days after their arrival in Austria – the applicants left the hotel with the help of N., who had organised a car to pick them up in a side street near the hotel and take them to a “safe place”. The applicants subsequently found support within the local Filipino community in Vienna. 25.  In April or May 2011, approximately nine months after they had left their employers, the applicants contacted a local NGO called “LEFÖ” for assistance in reporting their ill-treatment, abuse and exploitation to the police. LEFÖ is actively involved in the fight against trafficking in human beings in Austria. It is financed though government funds, in particular for the provision of assistance to victims of trafficking. In July 2011 the applicants decided to turn to the Austrian police and filed a criminal complaint (Strafanzeige) against their employers. They explained that they had been the victims of human trafficking. On 11 and 21 July and 17 August 2011, accompanied by representatives of LEFÖ, they were interviewed at length by officers from the Office to Combat Human Trafficking (Büro für Bekämpfung des Menschenhandels) at the Federal Office of Criminal Investigations (Bundeskriminalamt). In their report, the officers concluded that the offences had been committed abroad. 26.  The applicants were informed that their employers had also made allegations about their conduct, alleging, inter alia, that they had stolen money and a mobile phone from them when they had fled the hotel. Those allegations were subsequently formally recognised by the Austrian authorities as false. The applicants all expressed their willingness to actively cooperate with the authorities and to engage in criminal proceedings against their employers. 27.  On 4 November 2011 the Vienna public prosecutor’s office (Staatsanwaltschaft Wien) discontinued the proceedings under Article 104a of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – hereinafter “the CC”) relating to human trafficking (see paragraph 35 below), pursuant to Article 190 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung – hereinafter “the CCP” – see paragraph 36 below). On 14 November 2011 the public prosecutor gave a short written decision with reasons for the discontinuation of the proceedings. In the public prosecutor’s view, the offence had been committed abroad by non-nationals, and did not engage Austrian interests within the meaning of Article 64 § 1 (4) of the CC. 28.  On 30 November 2011 the applicants lodged an application to continue the investigation (Fortsetzungsantrag) with the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Straflandesgericht Wien). They submitted that Austrian interests had indeed been engaged, and that their employers had continued to exploit and abuse them in Austria. In their view, the elements of the crime punishable under Article 104a § 1 (2) of the CC had been present. 29.  The Vienna public prosecutor’s office then submitted a statement to the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, specifying its reasons for discontinuing the investigation. There had been no indication in the case file that any of the criminal actions exhaustively listed in Article 104a of the CC had occurred in Austria, particularly since the offence had already been completed in Dubai (zumal das Delikt bereits in Dubai vollendet wurde), and the accused were not Austrian citizens. Furthermore, from the applicants’ statements (looking after children, washing laundry, cooking food), it did not appear that they had been exploited in Austria, especially since they had managed to leave their employers only two to three days after their arrival in Vienna. 30.  On 16 March 2012 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court dismissed the applicants’ application. The relevant parts of the decision read (translation from German):
“The decision to discontinue [criminal proceedings] requires – by implication – that the facts of a case are sufficiently clear, or a lack of indication that investigations would be promising.
There is no reason for further prosecution if, on the basis of the ... results of the investigation, a conviction is no more likely than an acquittal ...
According to Article 64 § 1 (4) of the CC, if Austrian interests have been harmed by the offence or the perpetrator cannot be extradited, Austrian criminal laws apply independently of the criminal laws of the place where the crime was committed, for example in relation to the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Article 104a of the CC. Owing to the fact that the applicants spent approximately three days in Vienna, the conditions regarding the fulfilment of the elements of the crime under Article 104a § 1 (2) of the CC have not been met, since the relevant acts relating to the exploitation of labour must be committed over a longer period of time; therefore, the commission of the offence in Austria is ruled out.
The jurisdiction of the Austrian criminal-law enforcement authorities cannot be deduced from Article 64 § 1 (4) of the CC either.
Austrian interests are engaged if either the victim or the perpetrator is an Austrian citizen, or if the criminal acts have a concrete connection to Austria, or if an obligation arises under international law in relation to the prosecution of certain offences. Austrian interests are, in any event, engaged if a criminal offence under Articles 102, 103, 104 or 217 of the CC is committed against an Austrian citizen, or if Austrian funds or Austrian securities (Wertpapiere) are the subject of offences under Article 232, or Article 237 in conjunction with Article 232, of the CC.
The applicants’ argument that the elements of the crime under Article 104a of the CC had also been fulfilled in Austria therefore fails, and the plea that the alleged criminal actions against them by their employers in Dubai ... would lead to an obligation on the part of Austria under international law is likewise not convincing. In relation to the present case, [this latter argument] also cannot be inferred from the quoted [Supreme Court] judgment no. 11 Os 161/81, which affirmed that Austrian interests had been damaged as a result of the import into Austria of a large amount of narcotics for transport...”
This decision was served on the applicants’ counsel on 23 March 2012. 31.  In January 2013 two of the three applicants lodged a civil claim against their employers with the Vienna Labour and Social Court (Arbeits‑und Sozialgericht) in order to claim their wages. However, they alleged that because of the high risk of having to pay the costs of the proceedings because the employers did not reside in Austria, they withdrew the action. 32.   The NGO LEFÖ not only assisted the applicants in filing a criminal complaint against their employers, but also supported them in applying for a special residence permit in Austria for victims of human trafficking, under the former section 69a of the Residence Act (Niederlassungs- und Aufenthaltsgesetz – see paragraph 46 below). 33.  All three applicants were granted a residence permit for special protection purposes in January 2012, valid for one year initially. Subsequently, because of their progressing integration, they were granted other types of residence permits with longer periods of validity. 34.  The applicants were officially registered in the Central Register (Melderegister) from the point when LEFÖ started supporting them. A personal data disclosure ban was enacted on the Central Register for their protection, so that their whereabouts would not be traceable by the general public.


5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Pyatigorsk. 6.  The applicant took part in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. He was subsequently registered disabled by Ukrainian authorities, becoming entitled to various social benefits. 7.  In September 1999 the applicant settled in Russia. The welfare authorities rejected re-establishing the applicant’s disability status. The applicant challenged the rejection before the courts. 8.  On 30 August 2005 the Pyatigorsk Town Court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the Administration of Labour and Social Security of the Population of Pyatigorsk to issue a certificate of benefits. 9.  On 20 September 2009 the judgment became final. 10.  On 18 October 2005 the applicant was issued with the certificate of benefits. 11.  On 1 November 2006 the Presidium of Stavropol Regional Court allowed the defendant authority’s application for supervisory review and quashed the judgment of 30 August 2005, considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law. The case was remitted for fresh consideration. 12.  On 13 December 2006 the the Pyatigorsk Town Court discontinued the proceedings since the parties failed to appear.


5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Boscana. 6.  At the time of the events the applicant was a police officer. In December 2006 he and another police officer, V.G., arrested two suspects (A.C. and A.V.) on the street and took them to a police station. Since one of the suspects resisted arrest, the police officers used force to make him get into their car. At the police station one of the police officers allegedly kicked one of the suspects in the chest. Both police officers were charged with the offence of ill-treating the suspects. 7.  According to the statements made by the victims to prosecutors, only officer V.G. ill-treated A.C. at the police station by kicking him in the chest. Therefore, on 10 August 2007 the charges against the applicant were dropped. However, on 24 September 2007 that decision was annulled and the applicant was again charged with ill-treating one of the victims during the arrest. 8.  During the court proceedings, the two victims submitted that they had been approached by the two police officers on the street and had been asked to accompany them to the police station. As one of the victims (A.V.) had resisted, the officers had struggled with him and forced him into the car. According to the statements of several witnesses, the two victims were intoxicated. One of the witnesses stated that A.V., who was tall and well‑built, had refused to get into the car. The police officers had handcuffed him and had had to punch him in the stomach to make him bend over and enter the vehicle. It does not appear that A.V. suffered any injuries. A.V. submitted that the police officers had continued beating both of them, even after they had got into the police car. A.C. did not confirm that statement. According to the victims, the police officers had taken some personal items off them, including their wallets, immediately after the arrest. 9.  At the police station, the personal items were returned to the victims. According to A.C., he noticed after checking his wallet that his money was missing. He asked V.G. where the money was and, instead of receiving an answer, he received a kick in the chest. V.G. then kicked A.V. as well. A.C. later discovered that he had suffered a fractured rib from the kick. 10.  A.V. made two different and contradictory statements during the court proceedings. He at first submitted that both the applicant and V.G. had kicked him at the police station after he had asked where his wallet and documents were, but later submitted that only V.G. had hit him, using a machine gun for that purpose. Moreover, he submitted that he had not lodged a formal criminal complaint about the alleged ill-treatment and was only involved as a witness in the proceedings. He also stated that he did not have a clear memory of what had happened because of his acute state of intoxication. 11.  In a judgment of 21 May 2009 the Buiucani District Court found that the police officers had used force during the arrest but that the force had not been disproportionate in the circumstances. It acquitted both the applicant and V.G. in respect of that episode. As far as the ill-treatment at the police station was concerned, the court acquitted the applicant and found V.G. guilty of kicking A.C. in the chest. It based its conclusion on the statements of the victims, the accused and witnesses and on medical documents. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed. 12.  On 18 January 2010 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal lodged by the Prosecutor’s Office and reversed the judgment of the first‑instance court. The applicant was convicted as charged and given a three-year suspended prison sentence. In the process of examination of the appeal, the Court of Appeal did not question the suspects, victims or witnesses again, but only cited some of the statements they had made before the first-instance court. In particular, the Court of Appeal cited the part of A.V.’s statement where he had accused both police officers of ill-treating him at the police station. The rest of his statement was not mentioned. The suspects and the victims were also asked to state whether or not they agreed with the appeal by the Prosecutor’s Office against the judgment of the first‑instance court. 13.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In his submissions to the Supreme Court of Justice the applicant’s lawyer argued, inter alia, that the applicant’s conviction had been contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the Court of Appeal had neither examined the case file nor heard him, the victims or witnesses in person. 14.  On 25 February 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, finding, inter alia, that in the circumstances of the case it had not been necessary for the Court of Appeal to examine the witnesses again because their statements had not been contested by the defendants. As to the objection that the Court of Appeal had not heard the defendants or the victims in person, the Supreme Court considered that asking them whether they agreed with the appeal had been sufficient to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. Moreover, the Supreme Court argued that the parties had not wished to submit new evidence. 15.  One of the members of the panel of judges of the Supreme Court wrote a dissenting opinion, expressing the view that a new examination of the victims and witnesses before the Court of Appeal had been imperative to ensure the fairness of the proceedings and concluding that the proceedings had not been fair within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. 16.  The applicant also lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing that there had been a breach of Article 6 of the Convention. However, on 27 October 2011, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal.


5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Hamburg. 6.  On 26 August 2004 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant and another person in the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) on charges of aggravated fraud under Article 224 §§ 1 and 4 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 14 below). 7.  The applicant was tried in summary proceedings (skraćeni postupak). On 11 February 2009 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court found the applicant and the other accused guilty as charged and sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for four years. She was also ordered, jointly with the other accused, to pay damages to the victims in the total amount of 230,335.22 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 31,100 euros (EUR)). 8.  The applicant appealed against her conviction and sentence, challenging all legal and factual aspects of the case and asking that her conviction be quashed and a retrial ordered. She submitted, in particular, that she had not had fraudulent intentions, but had merely acted as an intermediary between the loan provider and the borrowers in order to earn commission for herself. Moreover, she stressed that the trial judge had erred in the factual findings and had failed to obtain certain evidence requested by her, which meant that some crucial facts had been left undetermined. She also asked that she and her defence lawyer be allowed to appear at the session of the appeal panel. 9.  On 20 January 2011 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru), without informing the applicant or her lawyer, examined the case without holding a hearing. After examining all of the factual and legal issues of the case it dismissed the appeal and upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence. 10.  On 5 April 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining of a lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against her. She contended in particular that she had not been allowed to appear at the session of the appeal panel. 11.  On 29 September 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.


5.  The applicant, Mr Michał Ojczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and is currently in detention in Łódź Remand Centre in Poland. 6.  The parties’ statements relating to the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 17 July 2008 to 8 January 2010 are to a large extent contradictory. 7.  The applicant submitted that he had been detained in Łódź Remand Centre from 17 August 2005 to 26 April 2010. 8.  In their observations, the Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in the remand centre from 17 August 2005 to 17 July 2008 and that from 17 July 2008 to 13 August 2009 he had been detained in Łódź Prison. From 13 August 2009 to 8 January 2010 the applicant had been at liberty on a temporary release, while from 8 January to 26 April 2010 he had again been detained in Łódź Remand Centre. 9.  From 17 August 2005 to 17 July 2008 and from 8 January to 26 April 2010 the applicant was detained in Łódź Remand Centre. 10.  The applicant submitted that for seven months during his detention between 17 August 2005 and 26 April 2010 he had been held in overcrowded cells, where the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum of 3 sq. m. 11.  Official statistics published by the Prison Service (Służba Więzienna) show that during the applicant’s detention from 17 August 2005 to 7 August 2007, overcrowding at Łódź Remand Centre ranged from 20.1% to 35.3%. The figure shows the degree by which the number of prisoners exceeds the maximum allowed capacity of a particular detention facility, which, in turn, is calculated on the basis of the standard of 3 sq. m of cell space per prisoner provided for in Polish law. Overall capacity at Łódź Remand Centre was exceeded on average by 26.8% in that period. 12.  From 8 August 2007 to 7 July 2008 the size of the applicant’s cells varied between 4.76 and 11.69 sq. m and the occupancy rate fluctuated between two and six people. 13.  Official statistics published by the Prison Service show that during the applicant’s detention in Łódź Remand Centre from 8 January to 26 April 2010 there was no overcrowding. 14.  The applicant was detained with a person infected with the hepatitis C virus for three weeks in August 2005. 15.  From January to April 2007 the applicant was held in a cell with an HIV-positive person. 16.  He alleged that the cells had been badly ventilated. The applicant made no other submissions as to the conditions of his detention in the subsequent period. 17.  It appears that the applicant had one hot shower per week and one hour of outdoor exercise per day.
(b)  Facts in dispute
(i)  The Government’s submissions 18.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to inform the Court that from 17 July 2008 to 13 August 2009 he had been detained in Łódź Prison, not in Łódź Remand Centre, and that from 13 August 2009 to 8 January 2010 he had been at liberty.
(ii)  The applicant’s submissions 19.  The applicant submitted that he had been detained in Łódź Remand Centre from 17 August 2005 to 26 April 2010. He argued that that was confirmed by the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) in the written grounds of its judgment of 17 September 2010 (see paragraph 24 below). 20.  Official statistics published by the Prison Service show that during the applicant’s second period of detention, overcrowding at Łódź Prison had ranged from highs of 18.5% in July 2008 and 19.4% in August 2008 to a low of 2.5% in June and August 2009. The overall capacity of Łódź Prison from 17 July 2008 to 13 August 2009 was exceeded on average by 10.4%. 21.  The Government did not contest the fact that the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells in Łódź Prison. 22.  On 25 May 2008 the applicant brought a civil action for infringement of his personal rights on account of the inadequate living conditions in Łódź Remand Centre (between November 2004 and June 2011). The applicant argued that he had been detained in overcrowded cells with space that was below the minimum statutory standard. He claimed 290,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – 37,500 euros (EUR)) in compensation. 23.  On 28 April 2010 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s action. The court found that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells from 17 August 2005 to 26 April 2010. Nevertheless, the applicant had failed to prove that those conditions of detention had had any adverse effects on his health. The applicant appealed. The State Treasury, represented during the proceedings by a professional lawyer, did not submit any objections neither to the period nor to the indications of the prison facilities in which the applicant had been held. 24.  On 17 September 2010 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the above judgment, granted the applicant PLN 6,000 (EUR 1,500) in compensation and dismissed the remainder of his appeal. The court held that the award was adequate redress for the period in which the applicant had been detained in permanently overcrowded cells. The court found that the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells for most of the time of his detention. The domestic court exempted the applicant from paying the costs of the proceedings but ordered him to reimburse part of the legal fees paid by the respondent, a sum of PLN 1,000 (EUR 250). 25.  In a letter dated 15 February 2011, the applicant’s legal aid lawyer issued an opinion that there were no legal grounds to lodge a cassation appeal. 26.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been served with the opinion by his legal aid lawyer on 15 February 2011 and again by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 27 September 2012. The Government attached to their observations a postal slip confirming the February date for the posting of the opinion to the applicant at Łódź Remand Centre.
(b)  The applicant’s submissions 27.  The applicant submitted that the legal opinion dated 15 February 2011 had not been served on him as he had been on a temporary release between 8 February 2011 and 22 February 2012. The applicant submitted a certificate to the Court issued by Łódź Remand Centre confirming the above dates.


6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Bar (Montenegro). 7.  On 6 February and 4 March 2009 the applicant entered Croatia from Montenegro and deposited – on each occasion – the sum of EUR 90,000 with a commercial bank in Dubrovnik, without declaring these amounts to the custom authorities. 8.  On 2 June 2009 the Money Laundering Prevention Office (Ured za sprječavanje pranja novca) informed the Financial Inspectorate of the Ministry of Finance (Ministarstvo financija, Financijski inspektorat, hereinafter “the Ministry”) that on 30 March 2009 the applicant had ordered a transfer of EUR 95,000 from his bank account to the account of a certain Mr S.K. in a bank in the United Arab Emirates. The Money Laundering Prevention Office stated that the funds had originated from the two above-mentioned cash deposits of EUR 90,000 each. 9.  On the same day, 2 June 2009, administrative offence proceedings (prekršajni postupak) were instituted against the applicant before the Administrative Offences Council (Vijeće za prekršajni postupak) of the Ministry for his failure to declare the sum of EUR 180,000 while entering Croatia, an administrative offence as defined in section 40(1) of the Foreign Currency Act and section 74 of the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism Act (see paragraphs 16-17 below). On the same day the Administrative Offences Council ordered the bank to transfer EUR 180,000 from the applicant’s account to the Ministry’s account, to be kept there until the conclusion of the administrative offence proceedings. 10.  On 1 July, 17 August and 17 September 2009 hearings were held before the Administrative Offences Council. In his defence, the applicant explained that he had sold business premises in Montenegro, and that he had intended to use the money gained from that sale to purchase a flat in Podgorica (Montenegro) from a Croatian national, S.K., who had insisted that the money be paid to him from a Croatian bank account. The applicant provided a written copy of the contract of sale in respect of his business premises dated 25 December 2007, and a preliminary agreement relating to the purchase of the flat in Podgorica dated 18 March 2009. 11.  By a decision of 19 October 2009 the Administrative Offences Council found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence in question and fined him 10,000 Croatian kunas (HRK). At the same time, the Administrative Offences Council imposed a protective measure (zaštitna mjera), confiscating the EUR 180,000 pursuant to section 69(2) of the Foreign Currency Act (see paragraph 16 below). The Administrative Offences Council held that the evidence presented did not corroborate the applicant’s defence. In particular, while the applicant had indeed submitted a preliminary agreement relating to the purchase of a flat in Podgorica which had been concluded between himself and S.K., that agreement had been concluded two weeks after the commission of the offence, and the sale price indicated in it (EUR 125,000) did not correspond to the amount he had brought into Croatia. The Administrative Offences Council also held that its decision to apply the protective measure was influenced by the fact that the applicant had been unable to provide sufficient evidence to justify his earlier money transfers to accounts in Tunisia and Jordan belonging to S.K. and S.K.’s wife, totalling EUR 882,900 in the period between 2005 and 2008, and the fact that he had stated that he had opened a non-resident’s account in his name in order to do a favour to S.K., namely in order to transfer money from the sale of S.K.’s wife’s house, deposited on his account, to S.K.’s wife’s accounts. With respect to the scope of the confiscation and the amount of the fine, the Administrative Offences Council held as follows:
“With this type of administrative offence, what is important for the purposes of ordering a protective measure is whether the statements of the accused can be supported by relevant documents. If, in terms of amounts and dates, there is no link between the transfers whereby the accused acquired the funds and the business transactions for which those funds were intended, or if [those transfers] do not have a basis in lawful transactions, the Administrative Offences Council cannot apply section 69(4) of the Foreign Currency Act, which allows that, in particularly justified situations where special mitigating circumstances exist, the authority adjudicating on the administrative offence may decide not to confiscate or confiscate only in part the cash that was the object of the offence.
Earlier transfers from [the applicant’s] account and the motives for opening that non-resident’s account also influenced the decision to impose the protective measure ...
In determining the amount of the fine the [Administrative Offences] Council took into account [the applicant’s] admission of guilt and the absence of a criminal record as mitigating circumstances, and the value of the object of the administrative offence as an aggravating circumstance. [Therefore] it imposed a fine which corresponds to the gravity of the offence.” 12.  The applicant appealed by arguing, inter alia, that the imposition of the protective measure of confiscation was disproportionate in the circumstances and therefore contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In so arguing, he referred to the Court’s case-law, in particular to the case of Gabrić v. Croatia (no. 9702/04, 5 February 2009). 13.  By a decision of 23 December 2009 the High Court for Administrative Offences (Visoki prekršajni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Administrative Offences Council’s decision, endorsing the reasons given therein. 14.  The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging, inter alia, a violation of his constitutionally protected right of ownership. 15.  By a decision of 9 December 2010 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the case did not raise a constitutional issue.


4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Kyiv. 5.  In 1995-2002 the applicant was convicted of and served a sentence for aggravated theft and burglary. 6.  On 27 December 2005 and 6 January 2006 the police found the applicant in possession of illegal drugs. 7.  On 20 January 2006 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of drug manufacturing and possession. 8.  On the same day criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and a certain Mr I. for armed robbery committed in a group. 9.  On 23 January 2006 the Kyiv Podilsky District Court (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand until 20 March 2006 on the grounds that he had previous convictions and there was a risk that he would abscond, continue his criminal activities or obstruct the investigation. 10.  On 16 March 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 April 2006, stating that there was no reason to change it and there was a need to carry out investigative actions. 11.  On 27 June 2006 the District Court held a preliminary hearing in the case and upheld the preventive measure imposed on the applicant without giving any reasons or setting a time-limit for it. 12.  On 17 March and 14 July 2008, and 19 January and 23 April 2009 the District Court refused the applicant’s requests for release. 13.  On 17 July 2009 the District Court convicted the applicant of drug possession and armed robbery committed in a group and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. 14.  On 27 July 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration. 15.  On the same day the applicant was released against his undertaking not to abscond. 16.  On 30 September 2013 the District Court sent the case against the applicant to the prosecutor for further investigation. 17.  On 25 April 2014 the charges concerning the armed robbery were separated into a second set of criminal proceedings. 18.  On 29 April 2014 the bill of indictment for robbery was approved and on 3 June 2014 the District Court committed the applicant for trial on that charge. 19.  As at the date of the last communication from the parties to the Court, 5 March 2015, proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the District Court.


6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  The applicant was born in 1984 and moved to live in Russia in the early 2000s. 8.  In 2008 she met A.U., a Russian national, and they started living together in the Krasnodar Region. In 2009 the applicant’s daughter from a previous marriage moved in with them to attend a primary school. On 16 March 2012 the applicant and A.U. married and on 23 August 2012 their son was born. He acquired Russian nationality. 9.  On 30 March 2013 the applicant was returning home by train after a visit to Ukraine, together with the two children. Shortly after midnight on 31 March 2013 the Russian Border Control Service handed her a notice, informing her that she would not be allowed to re-enter Russia, in accordance with the Entry and Exit Procedures Act. The notice did not specify the grounds for that decision. 10.  In April 2013 the applicant’s husband obtained a copy of a decision pronouncing her presence in Russia to be undesirable (“the exclusion order”), which the Consumer Protection Authority (CPA) had issued on 9 June 2012. The text of the order indicated that the applicant’s presence in Russia had been declared undesirable by the Krasnodar regional division of the CPA on 9 June 2012, in accordance with section 25.10 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act. It did not state any facts or reasons for the applicant’s exclusion. It directed the applicant to leave Russia by 22 June 2012 or face deportation and informed her that she would be denied re-entry to Russia, in accordance with section 27 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act. It subsequently transpired that the basis for the exclusion order was that during her pregnancy in 2012 the applicant had tested positive for HIV and that the hospital had reported her HIV-positive status to the CPA. 11.  According to the Government, the Krasnodar division of the CPA sent the exclusion order to the applicant by registered mail on 19 June 2012. They produced a log of registered correspondence which was to be submitted to the post office for dispatch on that date. 12.  The applicant’s husband, acting as the claimant and also as the applicant’s representative, challenged the exclusion order before the Russian courts, claiming in particular that the CPA had disregarded the applicant’s family connections in Russia and her state of health. 13.  On 24 May 2013 the Tsentralnyy District Court in Sochi rejected the claim in summary fashion, repeating verbatim the text of the exclusion order and holding that it was lawful. On 23 July 2013 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment, finding that the applicant’s infection with HIV “created a real threat to the Russian population”. 14.  In the statement of appeal to the cassation instance, the applicant’s husband prayed in aid the position of the Russian Constitutional Court which emphasised the necessity to take humanitarian considerations into account when deciding on the removal of a family member, and on the Court’s case‑law under Article 8 of the Convention. He pointed out that the applicant’s husband and newborn son were Russian nationals, that her daughter was enrolled in a Russian school and that the HIV infection was in a latent stage. On 30 September and 19 December 2013 the Krasnodar Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Russia respectively issued summary decisions, dismissing the application for an examination of the case by the cassation instance. 15.  The applicant and her daughter eventually took up residence in Novogrodovka in the Donetsk Region of Ukraine. Her husband and their son have been living in St Petersburg, Russia. The husband was unable to visit her in the Donetsk Region. 16.  On 12 March 2015 the Constitutional Court ruled on a constitutional challenge brought by the applicant and two other aliens and their Russian spouses against section 11(2) of the HIV Prevention Act, section 7(1)(13) of the Foreign Nationals Act, and section 25.10 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act. The Constitutional Court held that migration laws can lawfully restrict access to Russia by non-Russian nationals whose medical condition might jeopardise public health and pose a threat to national security. It acknowledged the contemporary medical consensus that HIV did not pose a threat to public health because it could not be transmitted merely because of the presence of an infected individual in the country or through casual contact, airborne particles, food or water. The Constitutional Court held as follows:
“1.  To declare that the closely related provisions of section 25.10 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act, section 11(2) of the HIV Prevention Act, and section 7(1)(13) of the Foreign Nationals Act are incompatible with the Russian Constitution ... in so far as they allow [the executive authorities] to declare undesirable the presence of a foreign national or a stateless person whose family permanently resides in Russia, to issue a deportation order or an entry ban, to refuse him a residence permit or to cancel a previously issued residence permit solely because that person is HIV-positive, provided that the person has complied with the legal requirements on HIV-positive individuals relating to the prevention of spreading the infection, and provided that no other circumstances would call for such restrictions. 2.  The federal legislator should – in the light of the requirements of the Russian Constitution and the position of the Constitutional Court, as expressed in the present judgment – introduce the necessary amendments into the existing corpus of laws which would clarify the grounds and the procedure for making decisions relating to the right of HIV-positive foreign nationals or stateless persons to stay and live in the Russian Federation.”
Pending such amendments, the Constitutional Court directed that the executive and judicial authorities be guided by the position it had formulated in the judgment. 17.  On 20 April 2015 the applicant’s husband applied to the Tsentralnyy District Court in Sochi for a reconsideration of the District Court’s judgment of 24 May 2013 on account of the new case-law of the Constitutional Court. On 3 July 2015 the District Court dismissed his application. It found that, lacking the information that the applicant had been receiving antiretroviral therapy, she must be presumed to be a threat to others, including those with whom she had social and casual contact. The District Court also stated that she was not a law-abiding individual because she had given birth to a child in Russia after her presence there had been declared undesirable. 18.  The applicant’s husband appealed and on 22 October 2015 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the above judgment, finding that the District Court had not heeded the position of the Constitutional Court and had incorrectly shifted the burden of proof onto the applicant:
“The Krasnodar office of the Consumer Protection Authority did not produce any evidence of Ms Ustinova’s conviction under Article 122 of the Criminal Code (Infection by HIV) and/or under Article 6.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Concealing the source of HIV infection). Nor did it show that she had breached any obligation which the law imposes on HIV-positive individuals, for instance, by refusing to take antiretroviral therapy. No such information is available in the case file, whereas the court establishes that [the applicant and her husband] are both receiving medical treatment. It follows that the first-instance court’s finding that Ms Ustinova’s presence constitutes a threat to other Russian residents, including those with whom she has had social and casual contact, is erroneous and contradicts the Constitutional Court’s judgment since the mere fact of HIV infection is not a ground for applying such important restrictions on her private life.” 19.  The Regional Court pronounced the exclusion order unlawful and directed the Krasnodar office of the Consumer Protection Authority to redress the effects of the violation. 20.  In response to the Court’s request for additional information of 12 May 2016 (see paragraph 4 above), on 29 June 2016 the Government submitted that the applicant had crossed the Russian border on 17 August 2015. On 18 May 2016 the Federal Migration Service issued her a three‑year temporary residence permit. On 31 May 2016 the Consumer Protection Authority informed the Border Control Service about the annulment of the exclusion order. Lastly, the Government indicated that measures for removing her name from the list of persons who should be refused entry to Russia, “[were] being taken”. 21.  The applicant replied that she had only been able to re-enter Russia by crossing the border between Ukraine and Belarus and by continuing from Belarus to Russia, as there are no controls on the Belarus-Russia border. As of 16 August 2016, she has not been notified that the exclusion order of 9 June 2012 was formally rescinded and that the Border Control database was updated accordingly.


6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Rijeka. He is a professor of theology. As a professor of theology he was qualified to teach Catholic religious education and courses in ethics and culture, as provided under the relevant domestic law (see paragraph 36 below). 7.  On the basis of a proposal from the applicant’s local priest, the archbishop of the Rijeka Archdiocese (Riječka Nadbiskupija) issued the applicant with a canonical mandate (missio canonica) (no. 492/08-2002) authorising him to teach Catholic religious education. 8.  On 1 September 2003, following the intervention of the Catechetical Office of the Rijeka Archdiocese (Katehetski ured riječke Nadbiskupije), the applicant was offered, without having to undergo a public competition, a contract of employment of indefinite duration as a layman teacher of Catholic religious education in two State high schools in Opatija. 9.  The applicant’s appointment was based on the Agreement of 18 December 1996 between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs and the relevant complementary domestic regulations (see paragraphs 32, 40-41, 43-44 below). He was thereby employed in the public service and remunerated by the State. 10.  At the time, the applicant was married to T.F. They had married in a religious ceremony on 14 December 2002 and their marriage had been recognised at the same time by the civil authorities, as provided for under the relevant domestic law (see paragraphs 33 and 38 below). 11.  The applicant’s subsequent divorce from T.F. was registered before the civil authorities, and in March 2006 he married another woman in a civil ceremony. 12.  On 18 April 2006 the Rijeka Archdiocese informed the applicant that his civil marriage to another woman while still bound, in the eyes of the Church, by the religious marriage to his previous wife was contrary to Christian doctrine and disqualified him from teaching religious education. The relevant part of the letter read:
“It has been established that in March this year you concluded a civil marriage although you are still bound by the Sacrament of Matrimony to a third person. The local Catechetical Office of the Rijeka Archdiocese issued you a mandate to teach Catholic religious education in school. Each religious education teacher must demonstrate that he is ‘outstanding in true doctrine and the witness of a Christian life’ (Canon 804 § 2) and must participate in the sacramental and evangelical community of a parish. The new situation does not enable you to do this.
You are therefore invited to explain in writing as soon as possible the manner in which your canonical situation can be harmonised with canonical mandate no. 492/08-2002 and then, by 28 April 2006, to come for a meeting in the Catechetical Office.” 13.  After obtaining the applicant’s explanation of his situation, on 31 August 2006 the Rijeka Archdiocese withdrew his canonical mandate to teach Catholic religious education. 14.  On the same day the Rijeka Archdiocese informed the two schools in which the applicant was employed of the new situation. The relevant part of the letter read:
“We should inform you that on 31 August 2006 canonical mandate no. 492/08-2002 was withdrawn from the teacher of religious education, Petar Travaš.
The canonical mandate was withdrawn under Article 3 § 2 of the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs (Official Gazette-International Contracts no. 2/1997) because of a breach of Canon Law (Canon 804 § 2). Petar Travaš explained his situation in writing.” 15.  On 8 September 2006, relying on section 106 § 1(2) of the Labour Act (regular termination of an employment contract), the schools dismissed the applicant from his teaching job on the grounds that he could no longer be a teacher of Catholic religious education without a canonical mandate. They stressed that it had been impossible to find another position for the applicant or to offer him an alternative post within the schools. The applicant was given two months’ notice and the right to an indemnity. 16.  On 13 October 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Opatija Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Opatiji), challenging the decisions on his dismissal. 17.  On 22 February 2007 the Opatija Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action on the grounds that as stipulated in the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia and the related Agreement between the Government of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference on Catholic religious education in State schools and pre-school institutions, he could not teach Catholic religious education without a canonical mandate. The Opatija Municipal Court also found that the schools had examined the possibility of appointing the applicant to another suitable post, but that as there was no such post, they had justifiably terminated his contract of employment. 18.  The applicant challenged the judgment of the Opatija Municipal Court by lodging an appeal before the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci). He argued that he had not breached the Labour Act or any other relevant legislation and that the Agreement between the Government of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference did not require that a person whose canonical mandate had been withdrawn should be dismissed. 19.  On 17 October 2007 the Rijeka County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the findings and reasoning of the Opatija Municipal Court. 20.  On 18 and 19 February 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) and a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) respectively. He relied, inter alia, on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, and the corresponding provisions of the Constitution, arguing that there had been an unjust interference with his private and family life as a result of the decisions on his dismissal, and that his dismissal had been of a discriminatory nature. He contended, in particular, that the conclusion of a second marriage contract in a civil ceremony could not be a reason for dismissal under the Labour Act or any other State laws. He therefore considered that his dismissal based on the fact that he had divorced his former wife and remarried in a civil ceremony had disproportionately affected his private life. 21.  On 3 December 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as unfounded, endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts. In particular, the Supreme Court stressed that the applicant’s dismissal had been based on the withdrawal of his canonical mandate, which was a necessary requirement for employment as a teacher of Catholic religious education as provided for under the relevant domestic law. The Supreme Court also held that it was not for the schools or the courts to enter into the examination of the reasons for the withdrawal of the applicant’s canonical mandate by the Church. 22.  On 7 February 2009 the applicant supplemented his constitutional complaint by extending his arguments to the judgment of the Supreme Court. He contended in particular that the Supreme Court’s refusal to examine the reasons for his dismissal had essentially deprived him of the possibility to have those reasons effectively challenged in court. 23.  A public hearing was held and on 22 May 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint, finding that there had been no violation of his right to respect for his private and family life, or any discrimination against him. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“10.1.2. It follows from the available material and the [appellant’s] constitutional complaint that the appellant’s first marriage had been concluded in a religious ceremony before an official of the religious community and that [the appellant] was divorced on the basis of a final court decision as provided for under the relevant Croatian law. The Constitutional Court notes that the appellant subsequently concluded a new marriage in a civil ceremony without any restriction imposed by the State. It follows that the State did not inhibit his determination to remarry, nor did it prevent him from remarrying and founding a new family.
Accordingly, the appellant’s right to marry under Article 12 of the Convention and his constitutional right to respect for his family life under Article 35 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention has not been breached.
...
 10.2.2. ... [T[he Constitutional Court starts by observing that the Republic of Croatia and the Holy See concluded an Agreement on education and cultural affairs, signed in Zagreb on 18 December 1996. The Act ratifying that Agreement came into force on 11 February 1997 and thereby this international treaty became part of the internal legal order of the Republic of Croatia with precedence in terms of its legal effects over the [domestic] statutes.
By this Agreement the Republic of Croatia undertook certain obligations which must be abided by and respected. Primarily, it undertook to secure Catholic religious education in all State elementary and high schools and all pre-school institutions as a mandatory class for all those who have chosen that course, under the same conditions applicable to other mandatory classes.
[The Agreement] stipulates that Catholic religious education will be taught by qualified religious education teachers who are suitable for that position, in the opinion of the Church authorities, and meet the requisite legal requirements of the Croatian legislation. It also stipulates that teachers of religious education must hold a canonical mandate (missio canonica) issued by the diocesan bishop, and that withdrawal of the mandate leads to an immediate loss of the right to teach Catholic religious education. Under the Agreement, teachers of religious education are members, together with their pupils, of the educational corps ... The Republic of Croatia undertook to regulate the programme and functioning of Catholic religious education in schools of all types and levels by a special agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference.
The Constitutional Court considers it necessary to note at this point that the appellant is wrong when he argues that the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs does not require a canonical mandate as a condition for employment and that such a requirement only flows from the Agreement between the Government of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference on Catholic religious education in State schools and pre-school institutions of 29 January 1999. The appellant specifically contends that the Agreement between the Government [of the Republic of Croatia] and the Croatian Episcopal Conference is a bilateral agreement which ‘is not a statute and does not have the status of an international treaty’ and thus could not be binding for [him and the State] nor could it be applied to [his] case, as was done by the [lower] courts.
Although the appellant relies on an erroneous premise that the canonical mandate, as a condition for employment as a teacher of religious education, has been stipulated (only) by the Agreement between the Government [of the Republic of Croatia] and the Croatian Episcopal Conference, it could be held that in essence he considers that the consequences of the withdrawal of the canonical mandate on his contract of employment, and his position of teacher of religious education, are contrary to the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court reiterates that the requirement to hold a canonical mandate in order to teach religious education, and the consequences of its withdrawal (loss of the right to teach Catholic religious education), are provided for under Article 3 of the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs. ... 10.2.3. The Constitutional Court considers it necessary to examine the special requirement stipulated by the Vatican agreements for employment as a teacher of religious education – the canonical mandate.
The Constitutional Court firstly notes that the Government of the Republic of Croatia have so far concluded seven agreements on questions of mutual interest with different religious communities, in particular with:
- the Serbian Orthodox Church in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 163/03);
- the Islamic community in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 196/03);
- the Evangelical Church in Croatia and the Christian Reformed Church in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 196/03);
- the Evangelical (Pentecostal) Church in Croatia, the Christian Adventist Church in Croatia and the Baptist Union of Croatia (Official Gazette no. 196/03);
- the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Croatia, the Croatian Old Catholic Church and the Macedonian Orthodox Church in Croatia (Official Gazette nos. 196/03 and 141/04);
- the Jewish community Bet Israel in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 4/12); and
- the Coordination of Jewish townships in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 4/12).
All these agreements have been concluded under the Act on the Legal Status of Religious Communities (Official Gazette no. 83/02) and they all contain identical provisions concerning, for example, mandatory religious education classes for those who have chosen them, the teaching of these courses under the same conditions as other mandatory courses, and the necessity for teachers of religious education to hold the requisite mandate to teach religious education, which can always be withdrawn ‘for reasons of deficiencies related to the correctness of teaching and personal morality’.
Such a requirement, given the nature of their job and its proximity with the mission of dissemination of the church’s teaching, in the Constitutional Court’s view, is not an excessive burden for persons who have chosen to become teachers of religious education. The assessment of a person’s adequacy [to teach religious education] by the competent church authorities is a concretisation of the freedom of the church’s activity and the right to religious freedom, which [also] includes the right of parents to a religious education of their children. 10.2.4. The enforcement of the obligation undertaken by an international agreement, namely the organisation of Catholic religious education in State elementary and high schools and pre-school education institutions, as provided for under the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs and the Agreement between the Government of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference, brought religious education teachers into the employment system of the Republic of Croatia. Although their employment status is not fully defined by these Agreements, the provisions of the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs in themselves show that the employment status of religious education teachers is a sui generis employment status – in order to teach religious education they must be suitable for that position in the opinion of the Church authorities; they must hold a canonical mandate and the withdrawal of the mandate leads to the loss of the right to teach Catholic religious education.
At the public hearing – on the basis of evidence given by the Director of the Administration for legal affairs of the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of the Republic of Croatia S.S.B., it has been undoubtedly established that the employment of all teachers of religious education was conducted without an open competition, although that has not been provided for under the relevant law. It was only [later], after the public hearing, by section 12 of the amendments to the Act on Tuition and Education in Elementary and High Schools (Official Gazette no. 90/11) that a new section 107 § 10(6) was introduced, which provides that a contract of employment without an open competition may be concluded for the position of religious education teacher.
In June 2000 the Ministry of Education and Sport forwarded to all county offices for education, culture, information, sport and technical culture a letter concerning the employment status of religious education teachers in elementary and high schools; more precisely, concerning their hiring and dismissal.
The letter indicates that a contract of employment is to be concluded with religious education teachers meeting the relevant requirements, and that if the diocesan bishop by means of a decree withdraws the canonical mandate to teach Catholic religious education from a religious education teacher due to deficiencies related to the correctness of the teaching and personal morality, the contract of employment is to be terminated under section 107 of the Labour Act as an extraordinary dismissal. 10.2.5. It therefore follows that the appellant also entered the State education system without participating in an open competition. At the public hearing he stated that, on the basis of the local priest’s recommendation the bishop had given him the mandate, the Ordinary had acted as an intermediary, and the school had given him the employment. Thus, by having the canonical mandate and meeting all other requirements, the appellant and the defendants concluded a ‘classical’ contract of employment under the Labour Act, which does not mention the canonical mandate or the consequences of its possible withdrawal.
At the public hearing, when asked whether he had been aware of the consequences of his conduct on the right to teach religious education, the appellant stated that he had passed the exam in canon law which he could not have passed without learning [also the issues] concerning those consequences. It follows that the appellant knew that his position depended on the mandate given by the diocesan bishop and that he would lose it if the mandate were withdrawn.
Accordingly, although he had concluded a ‘classical’ employment contract under the Labour Act, the appellant could not have expected, after he had lost the canonical mandate as a consequence of entering into a new civil marriage while he was still in a ‘religious’ marriage with a third person, that he would be able to continue to teach religious education. However, he could have expected, irrespective of the internal instructions of the Minister, that the schools where he was employed would take all necessary measures to employ him in another post. This is because the withdrawal of the canonical mandate leads to the loss of the right to teach Catholic religious education and not dismissal or the loss of his degree in theology. Under section 2 of the By-law on the educational level and pedagogical-psychological education of teachers in high schools (Official Gazette nos. 1/86 and 80/99), a degree in theology [opens the possibility] of teaching courses in ethics and culture.
According to the findings of the first-instance court, the defendants had examined the possibility of employing the appellant in another post but, as such a post had not existed, they terminated his contract of employment by so-called regular dismissal, which gives rise to the right to a notice period and an indemnity. In so doing, the defendants acted in the usual manner for terminating a contract of employment by so-called regular dismissal. The Constitutional Court therefore finds that the appellant has not been treated differently from other workers, including employees in schools, in the situation of a termination of a contract of employment by so-called regular dismissal.
The assessment of the lawfulness of the termination of the appellant’s contract of employment was, in the light of the relevant labour law, conducted by the [competent] courts at three levels of jurisdiction. In view of the fact that for the position of teacher of religious education there is a further special requirement, without which it is impossible to conclude a contract of employment (a canonical mandate), and having found that the appellant, due to the withdrawal of [the canonical mandate] no longer met the requirements for teaching Catholic religious education, and the fact that the defendants had tried to find him another post ..., the [competent] courts, in the Constitutional Court’s view, applied a constitutionally acceptable interpretation according to which the appellant’s contract of employment had been terminated in accordance with the relevant law. 10.2.6. Against the above background, in view of the defendants’ conduct following the withdrawal of the appellant’s canonical mandate and in view of the manner in which the competent courts provided him with judicial protection in terms of the State’s obligations under the Vatican agreements, the Constitutional Court finds that the appellant has been afforded sufficient protection of his [employment rights].” 24.  Judge D.K. appended a concurring opinion to the decision, agreeing with the findings of the majority. However, he argued that the Constitutional Court had not sufficiently appreciated the fact that the applicant had voluntarily consented to his position depending on the canonical mandate, which the diocesan bishop was authorised to issue and to withdraw. 25.  The President of the Constitutional Court gave a dissenting opinion in which she argued, in particular, that the normative framework for the employment of teachers of religious education, based on the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs, had not been implemented sufficiently precisely in the relevant domestic employment system, which had left a number of issues undetermined. 26.  The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 27 May 2013. 27.  In March 2010 T.F. applied to the Rijeka First-instance Inter-diocesan Matrimony Court (Interdijecezanski ženidbeni sud prvog stupnja u Rijeci) for the annulment of her religious marriage to the applicant on the grounds that, when entering into the marriage, he had demonstrated “a positive act of the will excluding marriage itself” (see paragraph 45 below, canon 1101 § 2). 28.  On 16 August 2012 the Rijeka First-instance Inter-diocesan Matrimony Court accepted T.F.’s application and annulled her religious marriage to the applicant. The decision was then forwarded for examination to the Zagreb Inter-diocesan Appeal Court (Međubiskupijski prizivni sud u Zagrebu). 29.  The proceedings were held in the applicant’s absence because he had failed to respond to the court’s summons. During the proceedings, an email sent by the applicant to T.F. on 4 December 2009 was admitted as evidence. In the email the applicant stated that if he “could return all other sacraments [he] would gladly do it. This way, if [he] managed to get rid of only one, which, as [they] both knew, never existed, [his] heart would be happier.” 30.  On the basis of the evidence adduced, on 24 April 2013 the Zagreb Inter-diocesan Appeal Court upheld the decision of the Rijeka First-instance Inter-diocesan Matrimony Court annulling the applicant’s religious marriage to T.F.