6.  The applicants are:
(1) Mr Magomed Abdulvadudovich[1] Elsiyev, born in 1941,
(2) Mr Isa Noshayevich Demelkhanov, born in 1956,
(3) Mr Vakhid Boltiyev, born in 1937,
(4) Ms Petimat Dzhamaldiyevna[2] Nakayeva, born in 1954,
(5) Ms Shurka Abubakarova, born in 1939,
(6) Mr Khozhbaudi Abdul-Vakhitovich Mandiyev, born in 1957,
(7) Ms Zavra Saidselimovna Demilkhanova, born in 1961, and
(8) Ms Shakhadat (also spelled as Shakhadad) Alieyvna Agmerzayeva, born in 1962. 7.  The applicants live in the village of Tsotsi-Yurt, in the Kurchaloy district of Chechnya. The applicants’ relatives have been detained and subsequently disappeared. 8.  On 31 August 2002 the Russian military troops surrounded the village of Tsotsi-Yurt (also known as Oktyabrskoye). Between 1 and 8 September 2002 they carried out a large-scale special security operation in the village. The military, under the command of General Studenikin (also spelled as Studenkin), based their headquarters and a temporary filtration point on the outskirts of the village. The filtration point, known to the local residents as “the flour mill” and “the brigade”, consisted of an old barn, a former repair station and a fenced yard. Military division no. 4 (4-я дивизия) was among the units which participated in the special operation. At least 86 persons were apprehended during the operation and taken to the filtration point by “AvtoZak” vehicles (GAZ-53 lorries equipped for transportation of detainees), one of which had the registration number 112 BM 61.
(b)  Apprehension of Salakh Elsiyev and subsequent events 9.  The first applicant is the father of Mr Salakh Magomedovich Elsiyev, who was born in 1972. 10.  On 2 September 2002 the Elsiyevs were at home, at 21 Shosseinaya Street, in the village of Tsotsi-Yurt. At about 3 p.m. two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and a UAZ car arrived at their house. The vehicles’ registration numbers were covered with mud. 11.  The first applicant went outside. Twelve or thirteen armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks, equipped with portable radio systems and armed with Stechkin pistols and machine guns, entered the yard and ordered the first applicant to prostrate himself. He disobeyed their order. The men forced him against the wall and asked how many men were in the house. The first applicant named his son and himself. 12.  The servicemen entered the house, dragged Salakh Elsiyev outside and put him on the ground. When the first applicant requested the soldiers to explain what was happening, one of them pointed a Stechkin gun at him and ordered him to keep silent. Three or four servicemen entered the Elsiyevs’ house and searched it. They did not produce any search warrant. 13.  The servicemen searched Salakh Elsiyev, then put him in the APC and drove away in the direction of the western outskirts of the village, where the special operation’s headquarters were stationed. The apprehension of the first applicant’s son was witnessed by the first applicant’s neighbour, Mr Sh.G., who provided a witness statement similar to that of the first applicant. 14.  On 3 September 2002 the first applicant and his wife went to the filtration point. They saw that the apprehended men were being kept in the barn. From the date of Salakh Elsiyev’s apprehension the applicant went to the point every day, waiting for the release of his son. In the morning of 7 September 2002 the first applicant returned to the filtration point and saw that all the military vehicles had left in an unknown direction.
(c)  Apprehension of Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov and Akhmed Demilkhanov 15.  The second applicant is the father of Mr Iskhadzhi Isayevich Demelkhanov (also spelled as Demilkhanov), who was born in 1980. The seventh applicant is the mother of Mr Akhmed Musayevich Demilkhanov (also spelled as Demelkhanov), who was born in 1984. Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov and Akhmed Demilkhanov are cousins and grandchildren of Mr Nozha (also spelled as Nazha) Demelkhanov, who also lives in Tsotsi-Yurt. 16.  At about 7 p.m. on 2 September 2002 two APCs and an infantry battle vehicle (“BMP”) arrived at the second applicant’s house in Vostochnaya Street (the house did not have a number). Around thirty men in camouflage uniforms, some of whom were wearing masks, entered inside. They did not introduce themselves. They were armed with machine guns and grenade launchers and spoke unaccented Russian. 17.  The men took all the family members outside and lined them up along the wall. Then the servicemen searched the house and took several items of the family’s property. Having spent about an hour at the applicant’s house, they drove away. 18.  Fearing for their sons’ safety, the second and seventh applicants sent Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov and Akhmed Demilkhanov to the house of their grandfather, Mr Nozha Demelkhanov. 19.  At about 11 a.m. on 3 September 2002 a Ural and a UAZ vehicle arrived at Nozha Demelkhanov’s gate at 61 Gagarina Street in Tsotsi-Yurt. Ten to twelve armed men rushed into the house, forced its residents outside, ordered the younger men to undress and checked their identity papers. Then the servicemen put Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov and Akhmed Demilkhanov on the ground, beat them with gun butts and loaded them into the UAZ vehicle. 20.  According to a witness, whose name was not disclosed by the applicants out of fear for his safety, for three days following their apprehension Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov and Akhmed Demilkhanov were kept in an “AvtoZak” vehicle parked next to the old mill house.
(d)  Apprehension of Adam Boltiyev 21.  The third applicant is the father of Mr Adam Vakhidovich Boltiyev, who was born in 1980. 22.  At about 9 a.m. on 3 September 2002 two APCs arrived at the Boltiyevs’ house at 1 Rechnaya Street in Tsotsi-Yurt. A group of servicemen in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns and knives, got out of the vehicles and entered the applicant’s house. They did not introduce themselves. 23.  The servicemen checked the Boltiyevs’ identity documents. Adam Boltiyev produced a certificate confirming that his passport was being exchanged. The servicemen decided to take him with them. The third applicant insisted on accompanying his son. Then the servicemen took Adam Boltiyev and the third applicant to a Ural lorry and drove them to the old mill house. 24.  Upon arrival at the filtration point the servicemen ordered the third applicant and his son to lie down on the floor. For several hours the Boltiyevs were not allowed to move. In the evening of 3 September 2002 the servicemen ordered the third applicant to leave and promised to release Adam Boltiyev in a few hours. The third applicant returned home. He has not seen his son ever since.
(e)  Apprehension of Dzhabrail Debishev 25.  The fourth applicant is the mother of Mr Dzhabrail Abdulovich Debishev, who was born in 1977. 26.  At about 9 a.m. on 3 September 2002 an APC pulled up in front of the fourth applicant’s house at 5 Ovrazhnaya Street in Tsotsi-Yurt. A group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms emerged from the APC, entered the house, ordered the family members to go outside and demanded their identity documents. The soldiers also searched the house and the yard. 27.  After examining Dzhabrail Debishev’s papers the servicemen loaded him into the APC. The fourth applicant followed her son and got into the vehicle, but the servicemen ordered her to come out, threatening to shoot Dzhabrail. She obeyed. The APC drove away in the direction of the old mill house. Some witnesses reported that they had seen Dzhabrail Debishev at the temporary filtration point shortly afterwards.
(f)  Apprehension of Lom-Ali Abubakarov 28.  The fifth applicant is the mother of Mr Lom-Ali Borisovich Abubakarov, who was born in 1968. 29.  At about 11 a.m. on 3 September 2002 two APCs and one UAZ car without registration numbers arrived at the fifth applicant’s house in Gagarina Street (the house did not have a number). Twenty to twenty-five armed men wearing camouflage uniforms surrounded the house. Ten of them went inside, examined all the wardrobes and asked whether there were any weapons hidden. They spoke unaccented Russian. 30.  The applicant’s family members were forced to go to the yard and asked to produce their identity documents. In the yard the fifth applicant lost consciousness. The servicemen did not allow Lom-Ali Abubakarov to approach her. 31.  After that a Ural lorry without a registration number arrived at the house. The servicemen told the Abubakarovs that they were taking Lom-Ali for an identity check and that in about three hours he would return home. They put him in the lorry and drove away.
(g)  Apprehension of Ramzan Mandiyev 32.  The sixth applicant is the father of Mr Ramzan Khozhbaudiyevich Mandiyev, who was born in 1981. 33.  On 3 September 2002 the Mandiyev family and their relatives were holding a funeral ceremony at the Mandiyevs’ house in Vostochnaya Street in Tsotsi-Yurt. A group of servicemen arrived at the house in a Ural vehicle, entered inside, examined the corpse, loaded all those present into the vehicle and drove them to the old mill house. There they checked the identity papers of the detained persons and released all of them except for Ramzan Mandiyev. The sixth applicant has not seen him ever since.
(h)  Apprehension of Aslambek Agmerzayev 34.  The eighth applicant is the wife of Mr Aslambek Vakhayevich Agmerzayev (also spelled as Agamerzayev), who was born in 1956. 35.  On 3 September 2002 an APC arrived at the applicant’s house at 8 Kommunisticheskaya Street in Tsotsi-Yurt; the vehicle’s registration number was painted over. Around fifteen armed men in camouflage uniforms emerged from the vehicle. Some of them wore masks. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, did not introduce themselves. They ordered the Agmerzayevs to go outside and searched them in the yard. Then they checked Aslambek Agmerzayev’s identity documents and said that something was wrong with them. 36.  After that, without producing any search warrant, the servicemen searched the house. They took some items of the family’s property, forced Aslambek Agmerzayev into the APC and drove away.
(i)  Completion of the special operation 37.  On 4 September 2002 the head of the Chechen administration, Mr A. Kadyrov, and the chief commander of the United Group Alignment (UGA), General V. Moltenskoy, arrived in the village of Tsotsi-Yurt and negotiated the release of the majority of the persons being kept at the temporary filtration point. However, the applicants’ relatives remained in detention. 38.  For several days after that, the applicants visited the old mill house and waited for their relatives’ release. General Studenikin, who was in charge of the security operation in Tsotsi-Yurt, repeatedly promised them that the detainees would be released upon completion of the operation. 39.  On 7 September 2002 the security operation in Tsotsi-Yurt was finished. The servicemen did not release the applicants’ relatives. The applicants have not seen Salakh Elsiyev, Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Adam Boltiyev, Dzhabrail Debishev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov, Ramzan Mandiyev, Akhmed Demilkhanov and Aslambek Agmerzayev dead or alive ever since. 40.  In support of their statements, the applicants submitted the following documents: a hand-drawn map of the area of Tsotsi-Yurt; a witness statement by the eighth applicant, dated 10 October 2002; a witness statement by the fourth applicant, dated 10 October 2002; a witness statement by the first applicant, dated 10 October 2002; a witness statement by the fifth applicant’s relative Mrs L.B., dated 12 June 2003; a witness statement by the fifth applicant’s relative Mrs M.A., dated 12 June 2003; a witness statement by the sixth applicant’s wife, Mrs R.M., dated 20 June 2003; two witness statements by the second and seventh applicants’ relative Mr N.D., dated 21 June 2003 and 19 April 2004; a witness statement by the second and seventh applicants’ relative Mrs E.D., dated 21 June 2003; a witness statement by the sixth applicant, dated 22 July 2003; a witness statement by the first applicant’s neighbour Mr Sh.G., dated 4 November 2003; a witness statement by the second applicant, dated 4 April 2004; a witness statement by the third applicant, dated 19 April 2004; and a character reference for Dzhabrail Debishev, undated. 41.  According to the Government’s submission, “between 2 and 8 September 2002, on the basis of a military order issued by the Chechnya military commander, the Kurchaloy district military commander’s office conducted a special security operation (рассечение) in the settlement of Tsotsi-Yurt along the river Khunkhulau. A number of vehicles took part in the operation, including one APC-80, two ARVs (armoured reconnaissance vehicle – бронированная разведывательно-дозорная машина (БРДМ)), and KAMAZ (КАМАЗ) and ZIL (ЗИЛ)) lorries. A representative of the United Group Alignment was in charge of the operation. An identity check was also conducted during the operation.” 42.  The Government further referred to a number of documents obtained by the domestic investigation opened into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives. These documents are summarised below. 43.  On 11 September 2002 the interim district prosecutor requested that the Kurchaloy district military commander’s office (the district military commander’s office), the Kurchaloy district department of the Federal Security Service (the district department of the FSB), the Kurchaloy district department of the interior (the ROVD) and the Kurchaloy interim district department of the interior (the VOVD) provide the investigators with information concerning the security operation conducted in Tsotsi-Yurt between 2 and 7 September 2002. 44.  According to a letter received from the district military commander on 13 September 2002, upon the order of the Chechnya military commander, the district military commander’s office had conducted a security operation from 2 to 8 September 2002 in Tsotsi-Yurt, Chechnya. A representative of the UGA had been in charge of the operation. The following military vehicles had been used during the operation: one APC, two BMPs, and KAMAZ and ZIL military lorries. The letter also stated that the servicemen of the district military commander’s office had not participated in the search of the houses and the identity check. 45.  According to a letter from the deputy head of the district department of the FSB, from 1 to 8 September 2002 an identity check was conducted in Tsotsi-Yurt as the authorities had received information that a leader of an illegal armed group, Mr R.Ch., might be hiding in the village. 46. According to a letter of 13 September 2002 from the head of the VOVD, a special operational-investigating group of the Ministry of the Interior (the MVD), had been stationed outside Tsotsi-Yurt. The group had participated in the security operation in the village from 2 to 7 September 2002. 47. According to a letter of 14 September 2002 from the head of the ROVD, officers of the ROVD participated in the security operation in Tsotsi-Yurt only between 6 and 8 September 2002.
(b)  Information concerning the apprehension of the applicants’ relatives 48.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as submitted by the applicants. In their observations of 9 November 2007 the Government stated that “between 2 and 4 September 2002 in the village of Tsotsi-Yurt in the Kurchaloy district of the Chechen Republic unidentified armed persons kidnapped R. Mandiyev, D. Debishev, A. Demilkhanov, I. Demilkhanov, ... A. Agamerzayev, S. Elsiyev, A. Boltiyev and L.‑A. Abubakarov”. 49.  However, further in the same submission, without mentioning that the applicants’ relatives had been detained by State servicemen, the Government stated that “the material in the investigation file does not provide grounds to assume that the detained [applicants’ relatives] were not released [by military servicemen] along with other residents of the village of Tsotsi-Yurt and that they did not return to their places of residence because of the actions of the military forces rather than other circumstances”. 50.  In their further observations of 11 March 2008 the Government stated that “the authorities of the Russian Federation insist on their position stated in the Memorandum [of 9 November 2007] that the applicants’ relatives were indeed detained [by Russian servicemen] but were later released. The reason for their failure to return home is unknown ...” and that “the Government insist on their position that the detention of [the applicants’ relatives] was lawful, as a special operation was being conducted”. 51.  Referring to the information obtained by the official investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives, the Government submitted to the Court the following information concerning the circumstances surrounding the apprehension of the applicants’ relatives. 52.  Between 7 and 11 September 2002 the investigators conducted preliminary questioning of the second, sixth, first, eighth, fourth and third applicants and the daughter-in-law of the fifth applicant. A summary of their statements, as submitted by the Government, is provided below. 53.  According to the second applicant, at about 11 a.m. on 3 September 2002 unknown armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at his house in an APC and a Ural lorry without registration numbers. They took away some items of his family’s property. 54.  According to the sixth applicant, on 3 September 2002 his family was holding a funeral ceremony. At about 10.30 a.m. a group of armed men arrived at his house in an APC and a URAL vehicle without registration numbers. The armed men put all the men who had been attending the ceremony into the Ural vehicle and took them to the headquarters of the security operation. There the armed men checked the identity papers of the sixth applicant and his guests and released the applicant and some of the other men. However, four men were not released, including two of the sixth applicant’s sons. Several days later, on 6 September 2002, the sixth applicant’s son Ruslan was released. On the same day, 6 September 2002, at about 5.40 p.m. a Russian general gave a speech on the outskirts of Tsotsi-Yurt and announced that all the detainees had been released. However, the applicant’s other son, Ramzan, did not return home. 55.  According to the first applicant, at about 3.15 p.m. on 2 September 2002, a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at his house in two APCs and a UAZ car; the APCs’ registration numbers were covered with mud. The men were armed with Stechkin automatic pistols and machine guns. 56.  According to the eighth applicant, at about 10 a.m. on 2 September 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at her house in APCs and a URAL lorry. They took away her husband, A. Agmerzayev. On the following day, 3 September 2002, two APCs again arrived at her house. The same armed men looked around her house and the yard and took away some items of their family’s property. They found her husband’s jacket and burned it, along with his passport and other documents. On 5 September 2002, one of the residents of Tsotsi-Yurt, a doctor, Mr A.Kh., told the applicant that from 3 to 4 September 2002 he had been detained during the night together with her husband in the same vehicle; on the following morning he had been released, but her husband had not. 57.  According to the fourth applicant, at about 8 a.m. on 3 September 2002, a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks entered her house and took away her son D. Debishev. 58.  According to the third applicant, on 3 September 2002, a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at his house in APCs and a URAL vehicle. They put the applicant and his son, A. Boltiyev, in the URAL lorry and took them to the place situated between “the flour mill” and “the brigade”. In the evening the applicant was allowed to return home, but his son remained there. 59.  According to the fifth applicant’s daughter-in-law, at about 11 a.m. on 3 September 2002, a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms took away her husband, L.-A. Abubakarov. According to the witness, another resident of the village, Mr I.A., was also apprehended by the armed men on the same date, but he was released on 4 September 2002. 60.  Immediately after their relatives had been apprehended, the applicants, together with the head of the local administration, wrote to the head of the Chechen administration, Mr A. Kadyrov, describing in detail the circumstances of their relatives’ apprehension and requesting information about their whereabouts. The applicants and their relatives submitted similar complaints to various official bodies, such as the prosecutors’ offices at different levels and the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms (“the Special Envoy”). They were assisted in their efforts by the SRJI. The applicants retained copies of a number of their complaints and the authorities’ responses and submitted them to the Court. These documents are summarised below. 61.  On 11 September 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Kurchaloy district of Chechnya (“the district prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into the disappearances of Salakh Elsiyev, Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Akhmed Demilkhanov, Adam Boltiyev, Dzhabrail Debishev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov, Ramzan Mandiyev and Aslambek Agmerzayev under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 75089. 62.  On 26 September, 3 October, 20 October and 5 November 2002 the applicants wrote to various State authorities, including the district military commander, the Chechnya military commander, the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA and the Prosecutor General’s office, asking for assistance in the search for their disappeared relatives. 63.  On 18 November 2002 the SRJI wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office describing the events of 1 to 7 September 2002 in Tsotsi-Yurt and requesting to be provided with information on the whereabouts of the disappeared men. 64.  On 26 December 2002 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 (the unit military prosecutor’s office) informed the Special Envoy that an inquiry had been conducted which had established that no military personnel had been involved in the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives and that the criminal investigation into the events was under way. 65.  On 31 March 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the Special Envoy that the Shali district prosecutor’s office had opened an investigation into the disappearances of the applicants’ relatives, and that this investigation had found no evidence implicating military servicemen in the abduction of the applicants’ relatives. It appears that the letter provided incorrect information as the investigation was being conducted by the Kurchaloy district prosecutor’s office. 66.  On 18 April 2003 the SRJI requested the district prosecutor’s office to provide the applicants with copies of the decision to open the investigation in criminal case no. 75089, to grant the applicants victim status in the proceedings and to inform them about the progress of the investigation. On 20 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office rejected the SRJI’s request, stating that information concerning a pending investigation was confidential and that the SRJI’s lawyers were not participants in the proceedings. 67.  On 4 June 2003 the applicants reiterated their request of 18 April 2003. No response was given to this request. 68.  On 26 July 2003 the district prosecutor’s office transferred the investigation in criminal case no. 75089 to the unit military prosecutor’s office as it had been established that the applicants’ relatives had been apprehended by units equipped with armoured vehicles belonging to the Ministry of Defence or the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior. 69.  On 12 August 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was referred back to the district prosecutor’s office, as it had been established that after being apprehended, three of the applicants’ relatives, namely A. Boltiyev, D. Debishev and R. Mandiyev, had been detained in an “AvtoZak” vehicle with the registration number B 112 MB 61, which had belonged to the Ministry of Justice. 70.  On 8 October 2003 the SRJI wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, complaining in detail of the ineffectiveness of the investigation in criminal case no. 75089 and requesting that it be conducted under the control of the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. 71.  On 25 October 2003 the district prosecutor’s office again transferred the investigation in criminal case no. 75089 to the unit military prosecutor’s office and suspended the investigation in case no. 75089 owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. 72.  On 30 October 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the SRJI about the suspension of the investigation and stated that the search for the applicants’ relatives and those responsible for their abduction was under way. 73.  On 3 and 19 December 2003 the SRJI wrote to the district and Chechnya prosecutors’ offices, requesting to be provided with information on measures taken by the investigators in the criminal case. In particular, it requested to be informed whether the identities of the servicemen who had participated in the security operation in Tsotsi-Yurt had been established; whether General Studenikin had been questioned by the investigators; and whether the residents of Tsotsi-Yurt had been questioned about the events. 74.  On 8 January and 2 February 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the SRJI that the investigation in the criminal case was under way and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 75.  On 22 January 2004 the unit military prosecutor’s office again referred the investigation in the criminal case back to the district prosecutor’s office without having taken any investigative measures since receiving the case file on 25 October 2003. 76.  On 12 March 2004 the investigation in case no. 75089 was suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. 77.  On 22 December 2005 the applicants complained to the district prosecutor of the ineffectiveness of the investigation in the criminal case. In their detailed submission they once again described the circumstances of their relatives’ apprehension and requested that the investigators take the following measures in particular: questioning of General Studenikin and other officers who had been in charge of the security operation in Tsotsi-Yurt; identification and questioning of the servicemen who had participated in the operation; identification of the military units which had used APCs and other military vehicles during the operation; and questioning of the residents of Tsotsi-Yurt who had witnessed the events. 78.  On 11 September 2002 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Salakh Elsiyev, Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Adam Boltiyev, Dzhabrail Debishev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov, Ramzan Mandiyev, Akhmed Demilkhanov and Aslambek Agmerzayev under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 75089. It was decided that the investigation of the criminal case would be conducted by a group of investigators from the district prosecutor’s office. The applicants were informed about the opening of the criminal proceedings on the same date. 79.  On 11 September 2002 the investigators requested information concerning the special operation conducted in Tsotsi-Yurt from 2 to 7 September 2002 from the local law-enforcement agencies (see paragraph 43 above). 80.  In September 2002 the investigators received responses to their information requests, confirming that a security operation had been conducted in Tsotsi-Yurt from 1 to 8 September 2002 (see paragraphs 44-47 above). 81.  On 11 September 2002 the investigators conducted an examination of the crime scene in the houses of the applicants and their relatives. In addition, within the two following weeks the investigators had questioned a number of eyewitnesses to the abductions of the applicants’ relatives. 82.  On 12 September 2002 the investigators questioned the sixth applicant, who stated that at about 10.30 a.m. on 3 September 2002, when he and his relatives had been attending a funeral ceremony, an APC without registration numbers had arrived at his house. A group of armed men, who had arrived in the APC, had called for a Ural lorry without registration numbers, which had arrived along with two UAZ cars. All those attending the funeral, including the applicant’s two sons, had been placed into the vehicles and taken to the place known as “the operation’s headquarters”, where the applicant’s identity documents had been checked and he had been released an hour later. On 5 September 2002 his son Ruslan had been released; his other son Ramzan had not returned home. On the same date the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 83.  On 12 September 2002 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who stated that at about 3.15 p.m. on 3 September 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had arrived at his house in APCs and a UAZ car; the vehicles’ registration numbers had been concealed with mud. The men, who had been armed with Stechkin automatic pistols with silencers, had taken away his son, Salakh Elsiyev. On the same date the applicant’s fellow villagers, from the family of Mr V., had also been apprehended by the armed men.
On the same date the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 84.  On 12 September 2002 the investigators questioned the fourth applicant’s husband, who stated that on 2 September 2002 he had seen a convoy of nine APCs and a Ural lorry driving down his street in Tsotsi-Yurt. On the following day, 3 September 2002, at about 9 a.m. an APC with armed military servicemen had arrived at his house. Some of the servicemen had been wearing masks. They had taken away his son and his wife and had driven away. Having driven for about 400 metres, the APC had stopped and the witness’s wife (the fourth applicant) had got out of the vehicle. The fourth applicant had told the witness that she had seen their fellow villager Mr A.P. in the APC. According to the witness, on 5 or 6 September 2002 Mr A.P. had been found by his relatives in the forest and had immediately been sent to hospital for medical treatment. 85.  On 12 September 2002 the investigators questioned Mrs Ya.D., a relative of the second and seventh applicants, who was also granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. According to Mrs Ya.D., at about 10 a.m. on 3 September 2002 a group of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in APCs and a UAZ car at the house of her relatives in Tsotsi-Yurt. The vehicles had not had registration numbers. The armed men had apprehended her son Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov and his cousin Akhmed Demilkhanov. At about 3 p.m. on the same date a group of armed men in masks had arrived at her house, had conducted an identity check and had looked around the house. 86.  On 12 September 2002 the investigators questioned Mrs Z.D., a relative of the second and seventh applicants, who was also granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. According to Mrs Z.D., at about 10 a.m. on 3 September 2002 an APC and a UAZ car had arrived at her house; the vehicles’ registration numbers had been covered with mud. A group of armed men had got out of the vehicles and had taken away her son Akhmed Demilkhanov and his cousin Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov. The witness and other residents of Tsotsi-Yurt had gone to the outskirts of the village, where the military had been based; but they had not been allowed to go inside the facilities. The witness further stated that on 5 September 2002 the head of the Chechen administration, Mr Kadyrov, and a Russian general had arrived at the village. The general had promised that all those apprehended during the operation would be released in the evening of the same day. However, her son had not returned home. 87.  On 12 September 2002 the investigators questioned the third applicant, who on the same date was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. The applicant stated that at about 8 a.m. on 3 September 2002 an APC without registration numbers had arrived at his house in Tsotsi-Yurt. A group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had descended from it and entered the house. One of them had ordered all members of the applicant’s family to gather in the yard. After that the men had taken the applicant and his son to the outskirts of the village, by the flour mill. In the evening of the same day, at about 6 p.m., the applicant had received his passport back from the servicemen and had been allowed to return home. On his way home the applicant had met a group of fellow villagers who had told him that the military had taken away 15 or 16 men from Tsotsi-Yurt. The applicant’s son had not returned home. 88.  On 12 September 2002 the investigators questioned the fifth applicant, who was also granted victim status in the criminal proceedings, and his wife, Mrs L.A. Both witnesses provided analogous testimonies to the effect that at about 11 a.m. on 3 September 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had taken away their relative Lom-Ali Abubakarov from their home. On the following day, 4 September 2002, the same group of armed men had also apprehended another resident of Tsotsi-Yurt, Mr I.A., who had been released on 4 September 2002. 89. On 12 September 2002 the investigators questioned and granted victim status in the criminal case to the eighth applicant’s husband, Mr V.A. He stated that at about 10 a.m. on 3 September 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at his house on an APC. The men looked around the house and asked his son, Aslambek Agmerzayev, to follow them. Together with his son they had gone to another house; after that his son had left with these men in the APC and had not returned home. 90.  On 23 September 2002 the investigators questioned and granted victim status in the criminal case to Mr N.O. He stated that in the morning of 4 September 2002 he had been in his vegetable garden when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had blindfolded him and had put him in a vehicle. When the blindfold had been removed, the witness had seen that he was in a forest, surrounded by men in green camouflage uniform. According to the witness, he had spent two days in the forest. The men had tortured him with electricity and had beaten his feet with a stick, asking whether he knew any members of illegal armed groups. After that he had been taken to another place, located in a field, where he had spent three days during which military servicemen had fed him and had given him warm clothes for the night. For three nights the witness had slept in an APC with the servicemen. Afterwards he had been taken to another place, where he had been blindfolded and tied up to a tree. He had managed to set himself free. Having walked for about 3 km, he had entered the village of Martan-Chu in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya, where the local police officers had taken him to the department of the interior of the Urus-Martan district (the Urus-Martan ROVD). After that the witness had returned home. 91.  On 11 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in the criminal case owing to the failure to establish the perpetrators. On the same date the applicants or their relatives were informed about this decision. 92. On 30 April 2003 the investigation in criminal case no. 75089 was resumed. The applicants or their relatives were informed about this decision. 93.  On 1 June 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended owing to the failure to establish the perpetrators. The applicants or their relatives were informed about this decision. 94.   On 24 July 2003 the investigation in criminal case no. 75089 was resumed. The applicants or their relatives were informed about this decision. 95.  On 25 July 2003 the investigators questioned Mr P.A., who stated that on 2 September 2002 a group of unidentified armed men had taken him away from his house; together with A. Agmerzayev, he had been taken to the outskirts of Tsotsi-Yurt. In the evening of the same day the armed men had returned passports to fifteen of the detained men and released them. 96.  On 25 July 2003 the investigators had questioned seven witnesses, including Mrs M.T., Mrs E.Kh., Mrs B.V., Mr Sh.G., Mr S.M., Mrs T.I. and Mrs Z.S., who provided analogous statements to the effect that on 2 September 2002 unidentified armed men in APCs and Ural and UAZ vehicles had apprehended a number of their fellow villagers in Tsotsi-Yurt. 97.  On 26 July 2003 the district prosecutor’s office transferred the investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives to the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA as the investigators had established that the applicants’ relatives had been apprehended by military units from the Ministry of Defence or the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior, who had been equipped during the operation with armoured vehicles (see paragraph 136 below). 98.  On 12 August 2003 the military prosecutor’s office referred the criminal case back to the district prosecutor’s office for investigation as it had been established that the applicants’ relatives had been detained in an “AvtoZak” vehicle with the registration number B 112 MB 61 RUS, which had belonged to the Ministry of Justice (see paragraph 136 below). 99.  Between 22 August and 23 October 2003 the investigators forwarded several requests to a number of State officials, including the military commander of the UGA, the head of archives of the Headquarters of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior in the Northern Caucasus, the head of the Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit and the head of archives of the Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence in the Northern Caucasus, asking to be provided with information concerning the units and the vehicles involved in the security operation in Tsotsi-Yurt. 100.  On 25 October 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the criminal investigation owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators and transferred the investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives to the military prosecutor’s office for the second time. The applicants or their relatives were informed about the decision to suspend the investigation. 101.   On 22 January 2004 the military prosecutor’s office once again returned the criminal case file to the district prosecutor’s office for investigation. On the same date the deputy Chechnya prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation and it was resumed. The applicants or their relatives were informed about the resumption of the criminal proceedings. 102.   On 22 January 2004 the investigators forwarded a number of information requests to various law-enforcement agencies. According to the responses received from the Main Information Centres of the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya and the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation, these agencies did not have any information concerning the detention of the applicants’ relatives. 103.  On 22 January 2004 the investigators requested the district department of the FSB and the district military commander’s office to provide information as to the owner of the vehicle with the registration number B 112 MB 61, in which the abducted men had been detained and whether the agencies had any other information about the disappeared men. 104.  On 27 February 2004 the investigators forwarded a similar information request to the ROVD. In addition they asked the ROVD to conduct a crime-scene examination, to question the fourth applicant and to identify and question other witnesses to the abduction of the applicants’ relatives. 105.  On 7 March 2004 the district department of the FSB replied that it did not have any information about the vehicle. The response from the military commander’s office was of the same nature. 106.  On 1 April 2004 the ROVD replied that it did not have any information about the vehicle and submitted the fourth applicant’s witness statement. According to the statement, on 3 September 2002 an APC with obscured registration numbers had arrived at her house. A group of armed men who had arrived in the APC had taken away her son Dzhabrail Debishev and her neighbour Mr A.P. The latter had returned home on 5 or 6 September 2002. According to the witness, on 6 September 2002 she had spoken with General Studenikin, who had promised to her that at 6 p.m. on the same date the military would release all those detained during the security operation. However, her son had not returned home. 107.  On 12 March 2004 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants or their relatives were informed about this decision on the same date. 108.  On 20 January 2006 the investigation in criminal case no. 75089 was resumed. The applicants or their relatives were informed about this decision. 109. On 25 January 2006 the investigators requested the ROVD to conduct a crime-scene examination on the outskirts of Tsotsi-Yurt where the filtration point had been located in 2002. 110.  On an unspecified date in January 2006 the ROVD conducted the crime-scene examination, in which the first applicant took part. It does not appear that any evidence was collected from the scene. 111. On 26 January 2006 the investigators again questioned the first, sixth and seventh applicants. The witnesses gave similar statements to those provided by them in September 2002. The investigators also questioned the second applicant, who provided a similar statement to that of the seventh applicant. 112.  On 30 January 2006 the investigators conducted a crime-scene examination in the house of witness Mr N.O., whose relative had also been apprehended by armed men during the security operation in Tsotsi-Yurt. It does not appear that any evidence was collected from the scene. 113. On 30 January 2006 the investigators questioned Mr I.A., who stated that in September 2002 a group of Russian servicemen had been conducting a “sweeping-up” operation (“зачистка”) in Tsotsi-Yurt. The servicemen had been wearing camouflage uniform with the emblem of a bear on the sleeves. On 3 September 2002 the village had been fully blockaded by the servicemen. On the same day a group of servicemen had arrived at the witness’s house in an APC whose registration numbers had been obscured with mud. The servicemen had put him in a Ural vehicle and had taken him to the filtration point. Lom-Ali Abubakarov had been transported together with the witness in the same lorry. According to the witness, at night he had been kept in a cell located in a GAZ vehicle. Nine other men had been kept inside the same vehicle together with the witness. Some time later the witness had been released, whereas the other detainees had gone missing. 114. On 31 January 2006 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant and the relative of the fifth applicant, who had confirmed the statements they had provided in September 2002. 115. On 1 February 2006 the investigators questioned a witness, Mr A. Kh., who stated that at about 10 a.m. on 3 September 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at his house in an APC and a Ural lorry. The men had entered his house and had taken him to the outskirts of Tsotsi-Yurt. There he had been put in a cell located inside a GAZ vehicle. In the same vehicle, but in another cell, his cousin Aslambek Agmerzayev had also been detained. On the following day, 4 September 2002, he had been released from detention, but A. Agmerzayev had not returned home. 116.  On 1 February 2006 the investigators questioned Mr A.P., who stated that between 2 and 7 September 2002 a security operation aimed at identifying and apprehending members of illegal armed groups had been conducted in Tsotsi-Yurt. On 2 September 2002 he had been apprehended at home by a group of unidentified armed men, who had taken him in an APC to the headquarters of the security operation on the outskirts of the village. His fellow villager Dzhabrail Debishev had been taken there in the same APC. Upon arrival at the headquarters the witness had been placed in a GAZ vehicle which had been modified to serve as a detention facility. In this vehicle he had seen his other fellow villagers, including Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Akhmed Demilkhanov, Ibragim Demilkhanov, Ramzan Mandiyev, Salakh Elsiyev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov and Aslambek Agmerzayev. The following morning he had been taken by a helicopter and then by an ARV to an unknown place, where he had been interrogated about the criminal activities of a relative of his who had been killed in 2000. After that his passport had been returned to him and he had been taken by a car to a place located next to the settlement of Khankala, Chechnya. 117.  On 25 February 2006 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. 118.  On 28 March 2006 the interim district prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the criminal proceedings and resumed the investigation. The applicants or their relatives were informed about this decision. 119.  According to the Government, on 4 April 2006 the investigators again requested information about the disappeared men from various State authorities in various regions of the Russian Federation. 120.  According to the responses received from various offices of the Ministry of the Execution of Punishment, the applicants’ relatives had not been detained on administrative or criminal charges. 121.  According to the responses received from hospitals in various regions of the Russian Federation, the applicants’ relatives had not applied for medical assistance. 122.  On 28 April 2006 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. 123.  On 8 December 2006 the deputy Chechnya prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the criminal proceedings and resumed the investigation. The applicants or their relatives were informed about this decision. 124.  On 8 December 2006 the investigators requested information from the Department of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Ministry of the Interior in the Rostov region (the Traffic Safety Inspectorate) as to the owner of the vehicles with the registration numbers B 112 BM 61 or B 112 MB 61. 125.  On 12 December 2006 the investigators received a response from the Traffic Safety Inspectorate. The letter stated that the registration number B 112 BM 61 had been issued on 13 November 2001 to a GAZ motor vehicle which had belonged to the Main Department for the Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of Justice in the Rostov region. However, according to the Government, the theory of the possible involvement of this vehicle in the abduction of the applicants’ relatives was not confirmed by the investigation. 126. On 15 January 2007 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants or their relatives were informed about this decision. 127. On 6 September 2007 the interim district prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the criminal proceedings and resumed the investigation. The criminal case file was forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office for further investigation. 128. According to the Government, the investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Salakh Elsiyev, Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Adam Boltiyev, Dzhabrail Debishev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov, Ramzan Mandiyev, Akhmed Demilkhanov and Aslambek Agmerzayev. 129. It follows from the Government’s submissions that between 11 September 2002 and 6 September 2007 the investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives was suspended and resumed on six occasions, and that it has so far failed to identify the perpetrators. 130.  According to the Government, the applicants have been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation. 131.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents from the file in criminal case no. 75089, except for a copy of decision of the Shali Town Court of 13 March 2006, a copy of the procedural decision confirming that the first applicant had familiarised himself with the file in criminal case no. 75089, dated 16 April 2006, and a copy of a signed statement by the first applicant dated 16 April 2006 that he would not disclose any information about the investigation in the criminal case without the prior authorisation of the investigators. The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that the disclosure of other documents from the case file would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file “contained information concerning the disposition of military and special troops, the nature of their activity, and personal data and addresses of the witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings”. 132.  On 8 October 2003 the first applicant on behalf of all the applicants complained to the Shali District Court of Chechnya (the District Court) about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the disappearance of Salakh Elsiyev, Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Adam Boltiyev, Dzhabrail Debishev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov, Ramzan Mandiyev, Akhmed Demilkhanov and Aslambek Agmerzayev. It appears that this complaint was not examined by the court. 133.  On 19 December 2003 the SRJI sent a registered letter to the District Court, enquiring about the outcome of the first applicant’s complaint of 8 October 2003. No response was given to the SRJI. 134.  On 23 June 2005 the SRJI reiterated its request. No response was given to this letter. 135.  On an unspecified date at the beginning of 2006 the applicants complained of the ineffectiveness of the investigation in criminal case no. 75089 to the district prosecutor’s office. They requested that the investigation be conducted effectively and that they be provided with access to the investigation file. 136.  On 13 March 2006 the District Court allowed their complaint in part and stated that the applicants should be provided with access to the investigation file “within limits guaranteeing that no investigative secrets will be divulged”. The decision also stated, among other things, the following:
“... the assistant of the district prosecutor Mr I.T. has submitted [to the court] that ...
-  it has been established [by the investigation in the criminal case] that those persons [the applicants’ relatives] were apprehended in Tsotsi-Yurt by units which were armed with armoured vehicles – that is, by units belonging to the Ministry of Defence or the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior. In connection with this, in accordance with the decision of the interim prosecutor of the Kurchaloy district of 26 July 2003, criminal case no. 75089 was transferred to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office for subsequent transfer under the rules of jurisdiction to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. However, this criminal case was referred back for additional investigation [to the district prosecutor’s office], as according to the witness statements of V. Boltiyev, A. Debishev and Kh. Mandiyev, the apprehended persons A. Boltiyev, D. Debishev and the Mandiyev brothers had been detained in an ‘AvtoZak’ vehicle with the registration number B 112 MB 61 RUS, belonging to the Ministry of Justice.
-  according to the decision of the interim prosecutor of the Kurchaloy district of 25 October 2003, criminal case no. 75089 was again forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102; but on 22 January 2004, without having taken any investigative measures, that office returned the case file to the district prosecutor’s office ...”


8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Töging am Inn, Germany. 9.  On 25 November 1992 the applicant and his wife (hereafter Ms W.) divorced before the Groß Gerau District Court. In this context, the District Court granted them joint custody of their two daughters, aged four and eight at that time. 10.  On 6 July 1993, following Ms W.’s appeal (Beschwerde) and after hearing both her and the applicant as well as two representatives of the local Youth Office, the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal granted Ms W. sole custody of the children, while allowing the applicant to retain a right of access. It found that, given the fact that the parents did not seem entirely willing to co-operate in practical matters, it would be in the children’s best interest if decisions concerning their everyday life were taken by their mother alone. It added that the mother had agreed to discuss important decisions with the applicant and that she was expected to ensure that contacts between the applicant and his daughters would continue on a regular basis. In its decision, the Court of Appeal did not admit an appeal on points of law (weitere Beschwerde). 11.  On 9 August 1993 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. He claimed in particular that the decision of the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the existing provisions on custody of children, notably Section 1671 of the Civil Code (see Relevant domestic law, below), and infringed his parental rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Basic Law. 12.  On 23 March 1994 the President of the Federal Constitutional Court informed the applicant that he had communicated the case to 25 third parties, who had the right to submit their observations until 30 September 1994. The list of third parties included the Federal Parliament (Bundestag), the Federal Council (Bundesrat), the Federal Government, the Länder Governments, the President of the Federal Court of Justice, the parties of the proceedings before the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal, as well as various national organisations dealing with family law issues and involved in the protection of children. 13.  On 13 November 1995, following the applicant’s request dated 2 October 1995, the Federal Constitutional Court forwarded the pertinent written observations dated 1 and 25 July, 20 and 27 September, 20 October and 9 December 1994 and 19 February 1995. These included the observations of the Federal Ministry of Justice of 9 December 1994 stating that the Government planned an amendment of the law on family matters, inter alia by introducing explicit provisions on joint custody after divorce. 14.  Towards the end of 1997, the applicant received a telephone call from the Federal Constitutional Court informing him that the questions raised by his complaint would become obsolete with the expected entry into force of the amended Law on Family Matters of 16 December 1997 (Kindschaftsrechtsreformgesetz) on 1 July 1998. The applicant was asked whether he wanted to declare that his constitutional complaint had been disposed of (Erledigterklärung) under these circumstances. 15.  On 24 June 1998 the applicant requested the Constitutional Court to deliver a decision despite the change of law brought about by the Law on Family Matters. 16.  On 22 December 1999 (decision served on 20 January 2000), the Federal Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, refused to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaint. It found that due to the amended Law on Family Matters, the constitutional complaint no longer raised issues of general interest. The applicant’s complaints could be adequately dealt with in proceedings for the amendment of a court order (Abänderungsverfahren) pursuant to Section 1696 § 1 of the Civil Code (see Relevant domestic law, below) before the competent civil courts. In these proceedings, the new legal provisions on family matters could be taken into account.


5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Štip, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 6.  In 1981 the public undertaking “Elektrostopanstvo” (“the company”) installed a power-distribution pillar on a plot of land, which at that time was the property of the applicant's father. The latter did not object to it. The applicant gained ownership of the land in 1988 as a gift from his father. 7.  On 26 February 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against “Pogon Elektroistok Štip”, a branch of the company, claiming restoration of the property in his possession and removal of the pillar and the auxiliary installations, as they had been constructed without his (and his father's) consent. 8.  Between 26 February 1996 and 10 July 1996 the trial court scheduled nine hearings and took the following actions: an on-site inspection; an examination of a witness and an expertise. Within this period, the applicant also extended his claim requesting compensation. 9.  On 10 July 1996 the Štip Municipal Court upheld the applicant's claim ordering the company to restore the plot of land in the applicant's possession and to remove the pillar and auxiliary installations. 10.  On 25 February 1997 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed the lower court's decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that the branch of the company had not had legal capacity to stand in the proceedings. 11.  On 5 September 1997 the trial court requested the applicant to clarify his claim. On 9 September 1997 the applicant replied that the proceedings should continue against the company. 12.  At the hearing held on 27 November 1997 (in the absence of the company albeit properly summoned), the Štip Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's claim as out on time. It found that the applicant (and his father) had known about the installation of the pillar and that he had failed to bring his claim within the statutory time-limits of three years (subjective term) or ten years (objective term) after the pillar had been fixed on the property. 13.  On 25 November 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. 14.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal on points of law (ревизија) against the Appeal Court's decision. He argued that the lower courts had erroneously established the facts and had wrongly applied national law. 15.  On 10 January 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. It upheld the lower courts' decisions on a different reasoning: by installing the power-distribution pillar in 1981, the company had obtained an encumbrance (право на службеност) over the plot of land to which neither the applicant's father nor the applicant had objected to in 1981 when the pillar was installed or in 1988 when the applicant gained ownership of the property. The judgment was served on the applicant on 11 April 2002.


4.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1934 respectively and live in Makedonski Brod. 5.  On 12 March 1996 the applicants brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”) claiming an annual leave allowance (регрес за годишен одмор) for 1995. 6. On 18 April 1996 the then Kičevo Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) ruled in favour of the applicants, ordering the Ministry to pay them the amount claimed. The decision was given in the Ministry's absence, although summoned properly. It became final on 27 May 1996. 7. On 27 June 1997 the applicants requested enforcement of this decision. This request was granted on 29 September 1997. On 5 December 1997 the Attorney-General (Јавен Правобранител) objected to the enforcement order, arguing, inter alia, that it had not been given an opportunity to participate in the substantive proceedings as the Ministry's legal representative. Its objection was dismissed by decisions of 11 March 1999 and 8 March 2000 respectively. In or about May 2000 the amount due was transferred on the applicants' accounts. 8.  On 3 September 2000 the Attorney-General requested that the first-instance court remove the clause attesting that its decision of 18 April 1996 had become final (“the clause”, се брише клаузулата на правосилност) since it had not been summoned, as the Ministry's legal representative, to participate in those proceedings. 9. On 25 September 2000 the first-instance court dismissed this request. The Attorney-General appealed. On 12 June 2001 the Bitola Court of Appeal accepted its appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 6 July 2001 the first-instance court accepted the request and removed the clause. The parties were advised to appeal against this decision. The applicants refused to be served with this decision. They did not appeal. 10. On 28 November 2001 the Attorney-General appealed against the first-instance court's decision of 18 April 1996. The applicants refused to have a copy of this appeal communicated to them. 11. On 15 January 2002 the Bitola Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney-General's appeal and quashed the decision of 18 April 1996. 12. On 27 January 2003 the proceedings were stayed. On the applicants' appeal, on 3 April 2003 the Bitola Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for re-examination. 13. On 5 September 2003 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants' claim since no such allowance had been paid in 1995 and no funds had been allocated for that purpose in the State's budget. 14. On 19 November 2003 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicants of 15 October 2003. This decision was served on them on 10 December 2003. On 6 February 2004 the public prosecutor informed the applicants that there were no grounds for lodging a request for the protection of legality with the Supreme Court. 15.  In separate proceedings, the State requested that the applicants pay back the amount awarded by the first-instance court's decision of 18 April 1996. This request was accepted by court decisions of 7 May and 6 December 2004 respectively.


5.  The applicants are four Russian nationals. 6.  As victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster they were entitled to social housing under domestic law. Because the authorities had failed to provide them with housing in good time, the applicants sought relief in courts. In October and December 2004 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar (“the District Court”) held for the applicants, the judgments became binding. The details of the judgments are shown in the appended table. 7.  In March 2006 the writs of execution were issued in respect of the judgments. According to the writs, the applicants were to be granted housing, as ordered by the domestic court. 8.  In 2006 the respondent authority offered the applicants to settle the case by providing them with cash payment in the amount allegedly representing the value of the flat. The applicants submitted that the amounts proposed were manifestly lower than the market value of the flats granted by the domestic judgments. 9.  By four separate written statements the applicants refused the offer. They stated in their refusals that in accordance with the judgments in their favour and with the writs of execution the authorities were under obligation to provide them with flats, and not with the sums of money. 10.  On 24 May 2007 the District Court instructed the bailiffs to enforce the judgments in accordance with the writs of execution. 11.  On 20 November 2007 the bailiffs informed the applicants that the execution of the judgments in compliance with the writs was impossible, “since the Administration of the Krasnodar Region could only use the monetary funds allocated from the federal budget”. 12.  The authorities sought to alter the mode of enforcement of the judgments from in-kind provision of flats to delivery of housing certificates. By a decision of 6 April 2009, upheld on appeal on 7 May 2009, the District Court refused to change the mode of execution of the judgments.


3.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Istanbul. 4.  On 10 September 2002 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and KADEK (the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress). 5.  On 11 September 2002 the applicant was interrogated at the Anti‑Terrorism Branch in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. It was expressly indicated in the form that, as the applicant had been taken into custody in connection with an offence falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts, he could only have access to a lawyer upon being remanded in custody or after the prolongation of his detention in police custody by a court order. In his statement, which was nine pages long, the applicant explained that he had gone to Greece in 1999 illegally for economic reasons, and to avoid military service. In Athens, he had first taken refuge in an organisation controlled by the PKK and had then joined a PKK camp, where he underwent political training. He had subsequently been sent back to Istanbul and from there to Iran, where he had joined another PKK camp and received further training. He had returned to Istanbul in March 2002. He stated that he was only interested in undertaking legal activities as opposed to acts of violence. 6.  At 11.00 a.m. on 13 September 2002 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who stated that there were no traces of ill-treatment on his body. 7.  He was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court on the same day, again in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant largely reiterated his police statements in respect of the activities he had undertaken in Greece. However, he denied the part about his activities in Iran, alleging that he had gone to Iran for commercial reasons only. He further stated that he had not been ill-treated in police custody, but only threatened. 8.  On the same day the applicant was interrogated by a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court where he stated that he had not been not engaged in any activities for the PKK and denied the parts of the police statement which claimed otherwise. He further contended that he had only stayed at a PKK camp in Greece out of necessity. The judge ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention at the end of the questioning. 9.  On 27 September 2002 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court against the applicant and eight other persons, accusing the applicant with membership of the PKK and KADEK, an offence under Article 168 (2) of the former Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. 10.  The case against the applicant was subsequently transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court following the abolition of State Security Courts by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004. 11.  On 10 April 2006 the Twelfth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court delivered its judgment. It acquitted four of the accused and convicted the applicant and five other accused as charged and sentenced the applicant to six years and three months of imprisonment. 12.  In convicting the applicant, the Istanbul Assize Court had regard to the applicant’s statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the single judge who had ordered his detention on remand. It also took into consideration his co-defendants’ statements regarding the applicant’s involvement with the PKK. The court further noted that, although the applicant had denied all the charges against him, such denial had no credibility in view of the evidence found in the case file. 13.  On 4 December 2008 the Ninth Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. This decision was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court on 23 February 2009.


6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a prison sentence in Izhevsk. 7.  On 20 June 2000 the applicant and two other persons were apprehended on suspicion of involvement in several incidents of theft. The applicant was allegedly taken to a flat where the police officers beat him up to make him confess to the crimes. On the next day he was transferred to a temporary detention facility at a police station. According to the applicant, the beatings continued on 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000. 8.  On 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000 in response to the applicant’s complaints of renal colic and pain in the lumbar area, the officer on duty called an ambulance. The applicant was examined on each occasion by a doctor, who did not find it necessary to take him to hospital. The applicant did not tell the doctor or the officer on duty anything as to what might have caused those pains. Nor did he say anything about ill-treatment by the police. 9.  On 21 June 2000 the investigator ordered that the applicant’s flat be searched. On 23 June 2000 the police conducted the search. 10.  On 23 June 2000 the applicant’s family retained a lawyer to represent him during the investigation and trial. On 15 December 2000 the applicant’s father was also admitted to represent him as a lay defender. 11.  On the same day the prosecutor of the Zapadniy Administrative Circuit of Moscow authorised the applicant’s detention. The court reasoned that the applicant should remain in custody pending the collection of the evidence necessary for the preparation of his indictment. 12.  On 30 June 2000 the applicant was charged with several counts of theft. He denied any involvement in the crimes he was charged with. 13.  On 10 August 2000 the prosecutor granted the investigator’s request to extend the detention of the applicant and two other defendants until 21 September 2000. The investigator reasoned that he needed more time “to investigate additional criminal acts committed by [the defendants], to join the criminal case-files, to finalise the bill of indictment and to carry out other investigative tasks in order to complete the preliminary investigation”. 14.  On 8 September 2000 the prosecutor granted the investigator’s request to extend the defendants’ detention until 21 November 2000. The investigator reproduced verbatim the reasoning of his previous request. 15.  On 12 October 2000 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s application for release. The court noted that the gravity of the charges alone could justify the applicant’s detention pending investigation and trial. It also referred to the applicant’s previous conviction and another pending criminal investigation against him. 16.  On 27 November 2000 the Nikulinskiy District Court scheduled the first hearing of the matter for 8 December 2000. The court ruled that the applicant and two other defendants should remain in custody pending trial. No time-limits or reasons justifying the defendants’ detention were indicated. 17.  Between 8 December 2000 and 14 June 2001 the court held twenty-one hearings of the case. On twenty occasions the hearing was adjourned due to the representatives of the defendants’ failure to appear or their need to study the case-file. 18.  On 14 June 2001 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for three months. The court issued an order in respect of the three defendants, reasoning that their release “might impede a thorough, complete and objective examination of the case”. On 13 August 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 14 June 2001 on appeal. 19.  On 6 August 2001 the District Court found certain procedural irregularities in the bill of indictment and remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office for their rectification. The court ordered that all three defendants should remain in custody. On 6 September 2001 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 6 August 2001 on appeal and remitted the case for consideration to the District Court. The City Court also held that the defendants should remain in custody pending trial. 20.  On 11 October 2001 the District Court received the case-file and scheduled the hearing for 25 October 2001. The court further extended the detention of the three defendants for three months. The court referred to the gravity of the charges against them and the risk that they might impede the thorough, complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the case. On 13 February 2002 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 11 October 2001 on appeal. The City Court held that there was no requirement as a matter of law to decide on the applicant’s detention at that point. 21.  On 5 December 2001 the applicant complained to the District Court that he had been beaten up by police officers on 20, 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000. In support of his allegations, he submitted medical certificates indicating that doctors from the emergency response unit had been summoned by the officer on duty to examine him. 22.  On 7 December 2001 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. 23.  On 1 April 2002 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 7 December 2001 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court noted, inter alia, that the trial court had failed (1) to ensure the examination of several witnesses, instead relying exclusively on their written statements and (2) to ensure participation of the applicant’s lay defender in the closing arguments. The court indicated that the applicant should remain in custody pending a new trial. 24.  On 15 April 2002 the Nikulinskiy District Court scheduled a new hearing of the case for 23 April 2002. 25.  On 23 April 2002 the District Court dismissed the defendants’ applications for release. The court noted that all three defendants were charged with a serious offence and, if released, they “might interfere with the thorough, complete and objective examination of the case”. 26.  On 17 May 2002 the Nikulinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The court based its findings on the statements of witnesses who had testified in court, including the applicant’s co-accused, victims of the crime, and forensic evidence. The court held that the applicant was to serve his sentence in a correctional colony with strict conditions of detention. 27.  On 9 September 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in substance on appeal, indicating that the applicant was to serve his sentence in a correctional colony with normal conditions of detention. 28.  It appears that the applicant was sent to serve a prison sentence in a correctional colony with strict conditions of detention. On 14 February 2005 he was transferred to a correctional colony with normal conditions of detention. 29.  According to the applicant, he challenged the lawfulness of his detention in the colony with strict conditions of detention by lodging numerous complaints with the prosecutor’s office, department of corrections and the court.


4.  The applicant was born in 1914 and lived in Ljubljana. He died in 2008. 5.  On 1 September 1970 a decision by which the applicant’s house was expropriated in favour of the Municipality of Ljubljana became final. 6.  In 1971, the municipality instituted non-contentious court proceedings to determine the amount of compensation due for the expropriated property. The applicant was a party to those proceedings. 7.  By 1988, the first-instance court had ruled on the matter four times due to three remittals of the case by the second-instance court. The last judgment of the first-instance court, issued on 15 July 1988, was quashed by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 2 March 1989. The latter found that the facts had been insufficiently established. It ordered a re-examination of the case by the first-instance court. 8.  In 1989 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of another set of proceedings in which the applicant challenged the validity of the expropriation. After a series of hearings cancelled at the request of the applicant, who maintained that other related sets of proceedings were still pending, the court again suspended the present set of proceedings. At a hearing on 5 April 2004 the applicant’s daughter, who was representing the applicant in the proceedings, informed the court that the denationalisation proceedings no. UE 351-307/93 concerning the real estate, apparently comprising the house in question and the land on which it was situated, were still ongoing. In September 2004 a hearing was cancelled as the case was being transferred to another judge. The latter took over the case in December 2005. 9.  Hearings were held on 30 March and 20 April 2006. At a hearing of 8 June 2006 the applicant submitted, inter alia, that his claim for compensation with respect to the denationalisation of the same property was still pending before the Administrative Court. 10.  On 7 June 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, complaining of a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time. On 11 December 2007 the Court declared the application inadmissible, finding that the applicant had failed to exhaust the remedies available under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Jama v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 29978/06). 11.  In the meantime, at the hearing of 14 November 2007, the Ljubljana Local Court established that the proceedings concerning compensation with respect to the denationalisation of the property were pending before the Supreme Court. On 25 February 2008 the latter proceedings were terminated with a decision by which the applicant received compensation comprising state certificates for the nationalised land. His request for denationalisation of the house situated on that land was rejected. 12.  On 21 February 2008 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Ljubljana Local Court. On 13 March 2008 the court informed the applicant that a hearing had been scheduled in his case. 13.  At the hearing of 10 April 2008 the court established that the termination of the denationalisation proceedings had made it possible to continue the present set of proceedings concerning compensation for the expropriated house. The court appointed an expert in construction to prepare a report on the matter. 14.  On 19 September 2008 the court issued a decision setting out the questions which the expert was requested to examine. 15.  In the meantime, on 29 July 2008, the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal asking the court to inform him of the date on which the proceedings would be terminated. On 22 August 2008 the court explained to the applicant that an expert had been appointed in order to prepare a report in the case. 16.  On 1 September 2008 the applicant lodged a motion for a deadline. 17.  On 19 October 2008 the applicant died at the age of 94. Subsequently, his daughter, Mrs M. Preželj, expressed the wish to continue the proceedings before the Court initiated by him. 18.  The expert, who had been hospitalised and had undergone heart surgery in the meantime, submitted his report on 25 March 2010. 19.  On 13 January 2011 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint a new expert. At that hearing the court also requested the applicant’s representative to inform the court of the applicant’s successors. On 24 February 2011 the representative submitted the requested documents. The inheritance decision of 7 May 2010 showed that the applicant’s daughter, M. Preželj, had been named by the applicant as the only person to manage his estate and inherit his property after his death. She was also appointed as an executor of the will and requested to take over all the applicant’s pending proceedings concerning the denationalization of and compensation for the expropriated house. Three remaining next-of-kin were given a certain share in accordance with inheritance law. The applicant’s representative was now his daughter’s representative in the proceedings. 20.  On 6 June 2011 the applicant’s daughter’s representative lodged a supervisory appeal complaining about the delays in the proceedings and pointing out that he had received no reply to the motion for a deadline. 21.  On 8 June 2011 the applicant’s daughter’s representative submitted pleadings in which he argued that there had been no reason for the other successors to enter the proceedings, as the power of attorney given to him by the applicant had not been contested by any of them. In addition, he argued that by virtue of the inheritance decision the applicant’s daughter was authorised to take part in the pending proceedings concerning the applicant’s property and to bring them to an end. 22.  On 1 July 2011 the President of the Ljubljana Local Court sent the applicant’s daughter’s representative a report outlining the major events that had occurred in the proceedings. It was noted in the report that the judge in the case had instructed her assistant lawyer to appoint a new expert. 23.  On 9 September 2011 the President of the Ljubljana Higher Court sent a letter to the applicant’s daughter’s representative in which he noted that the motion for a deadline of 1 September 2008 had been referred to him only three days earlier. He further informed him that the motion had been granted and that the first-instance judge had been instructed to treat this case with priority and to provide him with a progress report every three months.


5.  The applicant lives at Nesoddtangen, Norway. 6.  In 1989 Mrs B., who was then the applicant’s wife, bought a property named Ekheim from him for 6,400,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK), currently corresponding to approximately 760,000 euros (EUR). The couple drew up marital agreements (“ektepakt”) in 1990 and 1995. 7.  On 3 November 1995 Mrs B. and the applicant concluded an agreement stipulating that they each owned 50% of the Ekheim estate, regardless of what was stated or might follow from formal entitlements (hereinafter referred to as the joint ownership agreement). 8.  Subsequently, after their divorce, the applicant lodged an action against Mrs B. with Fredrikstad City Court (tingrett), seeking a ruling to the effect that the marital agreements were invalid and that the joint ownership agreement was valid. By a judgment of 4 April 2001, the City Court found against the applicant and in favour of the respondent, concluding that the marital agreements were valid and that the joint ownership agreement was invalid. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment, which gained legal force. 9.  In 2005 Mrs B. sold the Ekheim estate to Ekheim Invest AS, a limited liability company, for NOK 15,000,000 (approximately EUR 1,1780,000). 10.  On 28 June 2007 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the City Court against Ekheim Invest claiming that he had title to 50% of the Ekheim estate and seeking, firstly, an order that the latter convey 50% of the property to him and, secondly, that he held a pre-emption right with respect to the remaining 50%. 11.  According to the summary of the applicant’s submissions made by the City Court in its judgment referred to below, the applicant argued in the main as follows:
(a)  The question was how to interpret the former spouses’ joint ownership agreement of 3 November 1995. In the case that had previously been decided by the City Court on 4 April 2001, the subject-matter of the dispute had been whether the marital agreements from 1990 and 1995 were valid. The subject-matter in the present case was different. Two spouses having completely separate property had the opportunity to conclude a mutual agreement involving an obligation of performance for each party. According to legal doctrine, such a contract was not dependent on any condition as to form.
(b)  The contract had been a reality in the present case. Ekheim Invest had purchased the half of the Ekheim estate that had been in Mrs B.’s ownership, not the half owned by the applicant, because Mrs B. had had no right to sell the other half. Consequently, Ekheim Invest ought to transfer by deed of conveyance half of the Ekheim estate back to the applicant.
(c)  The applicant further submitted that in its 2001 judgment the City Court had not reviewed the validity of the joint ownership agreement. In any event, the legal force of that judgment extended only to the relationship between Mrs B. and the applicant, not between Ekheim Invest and the applicant. The applicant referred to legal doctrine, according to which a judgment as a main rule only had legal force in the relationship between the parties to the proceedings. Moreover, the parties’ arguments ought to be taken as a starting point in the assessment of whether any new factual circumstances had arisen.
(d)  The applicant’s argument was that in the period since 2001 the estate had increased so greatly in value that the City Court now had to assess the ownership issue independently of the conclusion reached in the 2001 judgment. At that time the mortgages on the property had clearly exceeded its value and it had therefore been unproblematic to hold that, in light of an on-going bankruptcy at the time, the applicant would not have been in a better position in the absence of the marriage settlement agreements. It would be unreasonable if Mrs B. or her successors should be able to profit from the tremendous increase in the property’s value. 12.  By a judgment of 21 January 2008, the City Court found in favour of the respondent Ekheim Invest, on the ground that the applicant did not have title to the property in question as the respondent company had derived its rights from Mrs B. and the City Court had ruled in her favour in its 2001 judgment. It rejected the applicant’s argument based on legal doctrine that the 2001 judgment only had legal force between the parties by referring to another passage in the legal manual in question from which it appeared that the point only applied to disputes between a private party and public authorities. The action brought by the applicant had no public-law aspects and the City Court did not consider that the legal doctrine referred to had any bearing on the present case. 13.  The applicant appealed against the City Court’s judgment of 21 January 2008 to the Borgarting High Court (lagmannsrett). He argued in particular that the City Court had confused his pleadings and references to legal doctrine made at the oral hearing and had shortened the overall duration of the hearing from the three days initially scheduled to five hours. One hour into the hearing the City Court had truncated the hearing of the applicant’s witnesses, including the presentation of documentary evidence regarding the disputed agreements. The City Court’s hearing record had also been marred by formal mistakes. 14.  On 4 April 2008 the High Court warned the applicant that it envisaged refusing admission of his appeal and gave him until 21 April 2008 to comment. After an extension of this time-limit to 5 May 2008 the applicant on the latter date requested that his appeal be admitted for examination or, in the alternative, that the High Court quash the City Court’s judgment and refer the case back to the City Court for fresh examination. On 5 and 11 June 2008 he filed additional submissions. 15.  In a unanimous decision (beslutning) of 12 June 2008 the High Court concluded that it refused to admit the appeal (“Anken nektes fremmet”), giving the following reasons:
“The High Court finds it clear that the appeal will not succeed, and that its admission should therefore be refused pursuant to Article 29-13(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 16.  The applicant appealed against the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court, arguing notably that the refusal of admission of the appeal lacked reasons. 17.  On 19 September 2008 the Appeals Leave Committee of the Supreme Court (Høyesteretts ankeutvalg), pointing out that its jurisdiction was confined to reviewing the High Court procedure (Article 29-13 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure), unanimously found it clear that the appeal would not succeed and therefore rejected the appeal under Article 30-9 (2).


5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Roman.
Physical conditions of detention and conditions of transport 6.  On 29 September 2011 the applicant was arrested after criminal proceedings had been opened against him for bribe taking. On the same date he was detained in Bacău Police Department’s detention facility. 7.  On 29 November 2011 he was moved to Bacău Prison. 8.  On 20 June 2012 he was released. The criminal proceedings opened against him are still pending before the domestic courts. 9.  In Bacău Police Department’s detention facility and Bacău Prison the applicant had to share a cell with smokers, even though he was a non‑smoker and was suffering from a heart condition. He was unable to rest because the other detainees would smoke continuously from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m., and the cell would be covered by thick smoke. 10.  The cell did not have enough furniture, and lacked coat hangers, shelves and cupboards. Clothes had to be stored on the floor, under beds, where no cleaning was carried out. The bathrooms lacked shelves and privacy, as the washing area and toilet facilities were not separate. In addition, the cell was damp, measured 15 sq. m., had a volume of 50 cubic metres, contained six beds, and was occupied by ten detainees. Cleaning and dehumidification materials were provided by his family, and in the absence of any action on the part of the prison authorities, he and the other detainees had to clean the cell themselves. The cell was not heated during the cold season, and as a result of the extreme cold the applicant had to ask his family to provide him with warmer bed linen. Also, the cell was infested with fleas, lice, bed bugs and mosquitoes, but the detainees were not allowed to disinfect it, even at their own expense. 11.  The detention facilities did not provide detainees with any areas for washing, drying or cleaning their clothes. He was forced to wear dirty clothes, or if he did wash them, he had to wear them damp. 12.  The bed linen provided by the authorities was unusable, was not suitable for the time of year and was not changed during the entire time he was detained. 13.  Warm water was available twice a week for two hours each time therefore not all detainees could wash. He was unable to shave on a daily basis. Detainees did not have access to a barber, toiletries were not provided by the authorities and he had to purchase shaving products at his own expense. 14.  The food was poor, insufficient and served in unhygienic conditions by detainees not wearing the appropriate equipment for serving food. The cutlery and plates were rusty and dirty, and the cell did not have a table and chairs for detainees to be able to sit down and eat their meal. 15.  He was taken out of his cell for a walk only twice a week for thirty minutes; between ten or twenty inmates would be in the prison courtyard at a time. The courtyard was covered by a metal mesh, measured 25 sq. m, had no bathroom facilities and did not receive any sunlight. 16.  The applicant was transported to and from court and was held in the courthouse cells with smokers. 17.  In Bacău Police Department’s detention facility the applicant was detained in a cell which measured 12.82 sq. m and contained four beds. The cell had central heating and was ventilated. The sanitary facilities were outside the cell and were accessible to everyone twenty-four hours a day. Detainees had access to a shower, a sink, and a toilet that was separate from the rest of the bathroom. They were allowed to shower and do their laundry twice a week. 18.  In Bacău Prison the applicant was detained in six different cells. Five of them were in the infirmary. 19.  From 29 November to 5 December 2011 the applicant was detained in a cell which measured 26.09 sq. m and contained twenty-three beds. From 23 February to 7 May 2012 he was detained in a cell which measured 33.05 sq. m and contained eight beds. From 8 to 14 May 2012 he was detained in a cell which measured 26.61 sq. m and contained nine beds. From 15 to 28 May 2012 he was detained in a cell which measured 32.09 sq. m and contained six beds. 20.  All the detention cells had central heating, sanitary facilities, windows, electricity and were furnished. The beds had mattresses, pillows, bed linen and blankets provided by the detention facility. Detainees were also allowed to receive bed linen from their families. 21.  Detainees had unlimited access to cold water. They also had access to warm water every day, based on a pre-approved rota. 22.  The cells were heated daily during the cold season from 5 to 9.30 a.m. and 7 to 11 p.m. 23.  They were disinfected three times a year or whenever needed, by specialist contractors. In addition, detainees were provided with cleaning materials and had a statutory duty to clean their cells. They were also provided with toiletries for their personal hygiene. Starting from December 2011 each individual had to sign for the toiletries they were given. 24.  The detention facilities had cells assigned exclusively to non‑smoking detainees. 25.  Without providing supporting documents, the Government submitted to the Court that when the applicant had been transferred to Bacău Prison, he had declared that he was a smoker. In addition, on 6 and 16 December 2011 and 8 May 2012 he had purchased cigarettes, and on 13 December 2011 he had bought lighters. 26.  The applicant was transferred only to courthouse cells and not to any other detention facilities. The vehicles had windows and heating. 27.  As a general rule, detainees were forbidden from smoking during transfers. Smokers were separated from non-smokers in the courthouse cells. 28.  Between 14 December 2011 and 20 June 2012 the applicant was transferred sixteen times to and from court, for distances of 2 and 62 kilometers.


4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the town of Mariinskiy Posad of the Chuvashiya Republic. 5.  On 24 October 1994 the Mariinskiy Posad Town Court convicted the applicant of destruction of the property and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. That judgment was quashed on 8 August 1996 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The case was remitted for a fresh examination. 6.  On 10 February 1998 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued because his guilt had not been proven. 7.  In 2001 the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance and the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in tort. 8.  On 15 May 2001 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow allowed the applicant's action and awarded him 36,012.53 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 1419 euros). The judgment became final on 6 July 2001. 9.  On 25 July 2002 the Chuvashiya Treasury credited the judgment debt to the account of the applicant's representative. 10.  In 1997 the applicant asked the Mariinskiy Posad Town Council to provide him with housing because his flat had been destroyed by a fire and, as an unlawfully convicted person, he had the right to free housing.  The Council refused and the applicant appealed to a court. 11.  On 3 July 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in the final instance, ordered that the Mariinskiy Posad Town Council should provide the applicant, within three months, with a flat that met the requirements of Articles 40 and 41 of the RSFSR Housing Code. 12.  According to the Government, on 6 June 2001 the Council offered the applicant to move into a one-room flat. The applicant refused because the flat did not meet the requirements of the Housing Code. 13.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 12 July 2001 but the judgment was not enforced because the Council did not have available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat. 14.  In 2002 the applicant asked a court to award him a sum representing the price of the flat with which the Council had to provide him. 15.  On 12 March 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the applicant's request. 16.  In April 2002 the Council offered the applicant a loan which would have allowed him to pay seventy percent of the purchase price of a flat. The applicant declined the offer. 17.  In July 2003 the Council offered the applicant a flat with stove heating. A bailiff refused the offer because the flat was in a dilapidated block of flats and did not satisfy the requirements of the Housing Code. 18.  In April 2004 the applicant was offered another flat which he refused because it had no gas heating and sanitary facilities. 19.  In the meantime, the applicant asked the Supreme Court to amend the method of enforcement of the judgment of 3 July 2001 and to award him money in lieu of the flat. 20.  On 27 April 2004 the Supreme Court granted the applicant's request and awarded him RUR 290,400. The Supreme Court noted that the flat offered in April 2004 had not met the requirements of the RSFSR Housing Code. 21.  Enforcement proceedings were opened on 6 June 2005 and on 22 June 2005 the Council credited the judgment debt to the account of the bailiffs' service. 22.  According to the applicant, on 8 July 2005 he received the money.


5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Žalec. 6. On 1 December 1998 the applicant slipped in the premises of the company S and injured herself. S had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZA. 7.  On 14 July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZA in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,210,310 tolars (approximately 9,210 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 16 September 1999 and 17 April 2003 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 8 May 2001 and 21 March 2002 she made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held between 12 September 2002 and 8 May 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert and once examined a witness at home.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 23 June 2003. 8.  On 4 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZM cross-appealed.
On 7 April 2005 the court allowed both appeals in part and remitted a part of the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 May 2005. 9.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant withdrew her claim since the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. In the letter to the Celje District Court of 21 September 2005, she waved her right to receive the court’s written decision on termination of the proceedings.