Datasets:

chrxiao

/

legal_ambiguity_identification

like 1

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicant was born in 1983 and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in Bolu F-type prison. 5. On 10 December 2007 the applicant wrote a letter to a member of parliament, in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan by using "Kürt Halk Önderi", meaning the leader of Kurdish people. 6. Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicant was found guilty of breaching prison order by the Kocaeli F- type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as "the Board") and on 24 December 2007 the applicant was sentenced to 13 days' solitary confinement, on account of his statements in the above mentioned letter. 7. On 17 January 2008 the Kocaeli Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant's objection. 8. On 14 February 2008 the Kocaeli Assize Court upheld the judgment of 17 January 2008.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a right to free expression as displayed in the letter. However, one could argue that the letter threatens interests of a democratic society through interfering with the reputation of others, as the applicant refers to an imprisoned leader as the leader.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicant was born in 1974 and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F-type prison. 5. On 25 January 2008 the applicant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice, in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan by using the honorific "sayın", meaning esteemed. 6. Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicant was found guilty of breaching a prison order by the Bolu F-type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as "the board"). 7. On 1 February 2008 the applicant was sentenced to 11 days' solitary confinement on the orders of the Board, on account of his statements in the above-mentioned letter. 8. On 26 February 2008 the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant's objection. 9. On 11 March 2008 the Bolu Assize Court upheld the judgment of 26 February 2008.

Ruled as violated by court

While some may argue the honorific "esteemed" rises to the level of threatening democratic interests, it seems clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicant was born in 1960 and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F-type prison. 5. On 3 December 2007 the applicant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice, in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan by using the honorific "sayın", meaning esteemed. 6. Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicant was found guilty of breaching prison order by the Bolu F- type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as "the Board"). 7. On 12 December 2007 the applicant was sentenced to 11 days' solitary confinement on the orders of the Board, on account of his statements in the above mentioned letter. 8. On 25 December 2007 the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant`s objection. 9. On 15 January 2008 the Bolu Assize Court upheld the judgment of 25 December 2007.

Ruled as violated by court

While some may argue the honorific "esteemed" rises to the level of threatening democratic interests, it seems clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion. The protest of visits and telephone calls does not seem to rise to the level of threatening democratic interests either.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicant was born in 1963 and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F-type prison. 5. On 3 December 2007 the applicant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice, in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan by using the honorific "sayın", meaning esteemed. 6. Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicant was found guilty of breaching prison order by the Bolu F- type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as "the Board"). 7. On 12 December 2007 the applicant was sentenced to 11 days' solitary confinement on the orders of the Board, on account of his statements in the above mentioned letter. 8. On 25 December 2007 the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant's objection. 9. On 15 January 2008 the Bolu Assize Court upheld the judgment of 25 December 2007.

Ruled as violated by court

While some may argue the honorific "esteemed" rises to the level of threatening democratic interests, it seems clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicants were born in 1967, 1965 and 1972 respectively and at the time of lodging their applications they were serving their prison sentences in the Muş E-type prison. 5. On 6 and 7 March 2006 each applicant sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice, referring to the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, by using the honorific "sayın", meaning esteemed. 6. Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicants were found guilty of breaching prison order by the Erzurum H- type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as "the Board"). 7. On 5 April 2006 the applicants were each sentenced to 12 days' solitary confinement on the orders of the Board, on account of the statements in the above mentioned letters. 8. On 17 April 2006 the Erzurum Enforcement Judge rejected the applicants' objections. 9. On 30 June 2006 the Erzurum Assize Court upheld the judgment of 17 April 2006. 10. Furthermore, on 4 July 2005 a disciplinary sanction was imposed on the first applicant, as he avoided visits and telephone calls to protest against the detention conditions of Öcalan. He was accordingly banned from receiving visitors for 2 months. On 21 October 2005 and 14 November 2005, respectively, the Erzurum Enforcement Court and the Erzurum Assize Court rejected the first applicant's appeal requests.

Ruled as violated by court

While some may argue the honorific "esteemed" rises to the level of threatening democratic interests, it seems clear that this is the applicants' personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicants, whose names are listed in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. 6. On 17 and 18 July 2008, each of the applicants sent a letter to the Halfeti (Şanlıurfa) public prosecutor`s office which contained the following passage: "If using the word of "sayın" (esteemed) is an offense, then I also say "Sayın Abdullah Öcalan", I commit this offense and denounce myself." 7. On 19 September 2008, the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Halfeti Magistrates' Court in Criminal Matters against the applicants. They were charged with praising an offence and offender, prescribed by Article 215 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237), on account of their statements in the above mentioned letters. 8. On 9 March 2009 the Halfeti Magistrates' Court in Criminal Matters found the applicants guilty of praising the imprisoned leader of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, on account of their statements in the aforementioned letters and accordingly, sentenced them each to two months and fifteen days' imprisonment. In accordance with Article 50 of the Criminal Code, this prison sentence was commuted to a fine of 1,500 Turkish Liras (TRY). 9. The applicants appealed against this judgment. On 20 June 2012 the Court of Cassation, holding that the amount of the fine that had been imposed on the applicants did not attain the minimum requisite level, dismissed the appeal request.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a right to free expression as displayed in the letter. However, one could argue that the letter threatens interests of a democratic society through welcoming and explicitly declaring themselves as committing a crime.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Adıyaman. 5. On 21 March 2007 the applicant participated in the Newroz (Kurdish New Year) celebrations held in Malatya. 6. On an unspecified date the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant and twenty other people with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The public prosecutor claimed that the applicant had waved a green, yellow and red flag symbolising the PKK. 7. On 6 March 2008 the Malatya Assize Court convicted all of the accused as charged, including the applicant. On the basis of evidence in the case file, the court found it established that one of the accused, Ms N.K., had made a press statement, and the other accused, including the applicant, had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader. The court also noted that the accused had waved the so-called flag of the PKK. The applicant was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment. 8. On 31 May 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 6 March 2008. 9. On 21 December 2011 the applicant started serving his prison sentence. 10. On 12 July 2012 the Malatya Assize Court ordered the applicant's release from prison in accordance with Law no. 6352, which had entered into force on 5 July 2012 and had amended certain provisions of Law no. 3713. 11. On 12 December 2012 the Malatya Assize Court decided to suspend the execution of the applicant's prison sentence in accordance with provisional section 1 of Law no. 6352. The suspension was for a period of three years, on the condition that he did not commit a terrorism-related offence during that period.

Ruled as violated by court

While some may argue the flag-waving and slogan-chanting rises to the level of threatening democratic interests through interfering with the reputation of others, it seems clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicants were born in 1957 and 1981 and live in Diyarbakır and Adana respectively. 6. On 17 August 2006 the Adana public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with Adana Magistrate's Court charging the applicants and five other persons with praising an offence and an offender under Article 215 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor alleged that the applicants had signed a petition in September 2005 which had been drafted in order to be sent to several institutions. The petition read as follows: "As a person from Kurdistan, I consider and accept Mr/Esteemed Abdullah Öcalan of Kurdistan as a political actor."[1] 7. On 19 January 2007 the Adana Magistrate's Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction in the case due to the possibility of application of section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) proscribing disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. The court then sent the file to Adana Assize Court. 8. On 24 March 2008 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicants of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section 7(2) of Law No. 3713 and sentenced them each to two years' imprisonment. In its judgment, the first-instance court found it established that the above-mentioned petition had been prepared for the purpose of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK and its leader and that by signing that petition the applicants had committed the offence proscribed in section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. 9. On 13 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 24 March 2008. On 24 August 2011 the Court of Cassation's judgment was deposited with the first instance court's registry. 10. On an unspecified date the second applicant started serving his prison sentence. 11. On 19 October 2012 the Adana Assize Court decided to suspend the execution of the applicants' prison sentence in accordance with Law no. 6352 which had entered into force on 5 July 2012 and which had amended certain provisions of Law no. 3713. The suspension was for a period of three years, on condition that they did not commit an offence through the press, media or other methods of expressing ideas and opinions.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a right to free expression as displayed in the petition. However, one could argue that the letter threatens interests of a democratic society through interfering with the reputation of others, as the applicant accepts the leader of a terrorist organization as their political actor.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır. 6. On 30 September 2007 a reading out of a press statement and a march were held in Diyarbakır in order to protest about the conditions of detention and alleged poisoning of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), an illegal armed organisation. The protesters gathered in front of the building of the Diyarbakır branch of the Democratic Society Party (Demokratik Toplum Partisi) (DTP) where a press statement was read out. They then marched. The applicant, as a member of the DTP, participated in the gathering and the ensuing march. According to a police report dated 9 October 2007, the applicant was seen while carrying a banner which read "İnsanlık zehirleniyor" ("The humanity is being poisoned") and applauding together with other demonstrators in the police video footage. 7. On 9 October 2007 the applicant was taken into police custody. On the same day she was detained on remand. 8. On 17 October 2007 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor charged the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) on account of the content of the banner she had carried during the demonstration of 30 September 2007. 9. On 4 December 2007 the applicant was released pending trial. 10. On 18 March 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged. The court found it established, on the basis of an expert report on the police video footage, that the applicant had been together with other persons who had chanted the slogan "Be Serok Jiyan Nabe" ("There is no life without the leader") and that she had carried a banner which read "The humanity is being poisoned". The applicant was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment. 11. On 9 January 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 18 March 2008. 12. On an unspecified date the applicant started serving her prison sentence. On 17 July 2012, upon the applicant's request, the Diyarbakır Assize Court ordered her release from prison, in accordance with Law no. 6352 which had entered into force on 5 July 2012 and which had amended certain provisions of Law no. 3713.

Ruled as violated by court

6. On 30 September 2007 a reading out of a press statement and a march were held in Diyarbakır in order to protest about the conditions of detention and alleged poisoning of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), an illegal armed organisation. The protesters gathered in front of the building of the Diyarbakır branch of the Democratic Society Party (Demokratik Toplum Partisi) (DTP) where a press statement was read out. They then marched. The applicant, as a member of the DTP, participated in the gathering and the ensuing march. According to a police report dated 9 October 2007, the applicant was seen while carrying a banner which read "İnsanlık zehirleniyor" ("The humanity is being poisoned") and applauding together with other demonstrators in the police video footage. 10. On 18 March 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged. The court found it established, on the basis of an expert report on the police video footage, that the applicant had been together with other persons who had chanted the slogan "Be Serok Jiyan Nabe" ("There is no life without the leader") and that she had carried a banner which read "The humanity is being poisoned". The applicant was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment.

While some may argue the protesting rises to the level of threatening democratic interests through interfering with the reputation of others, the context of this being a protest and the applicant's membership with the protesting party makes it seem clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Tunceli. 6. On 5 April 2007 the applicant attended a concert performed by a band called "Grup Yorum" in the Hozat district of Tunceli. 7. On 17 October 2007 the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Malatya Assize Court, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front), an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 (2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The public prosecutor noted that the applicant had chanted the following slogans during the concert: "Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; Fight until emancipation"[1] ("Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; Kurtuluşa kadar savaş"); "Martyrs of the revolution are immortal" ("Devrim şehitleri ölümsüzdür"); "Revolutionary prisoners are our honour" ("Devrimci tutsaklar onurumuzdur"); and "Victory on mountains, emancipation at the front; long live victory, long live resistance" ("Dağlarda zafer, cephede kurtuluş; yaşasın zafer, yaşasın direniş"). 8. During the investigation and the proceedings against him, the applicant stated that he had attended the concert in question and chanted the slogans "Music shall not stop, dance shall continue" ("Türküler susmaz , halaylar sürer") and "We will not be defeated by oppression" ("Baskılar bizi yıldıramaz"). He also noted that he had been on the concert's organising committee. 9. On 6 March 2008 the Malatya Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten months' imprisonment. In its judgment, on the basis of a police report on a police video recording of the concert of 5 April 2007, the indictment, the applicant's defence submissions, and the public prosecutor's observations on the merits of the case, the court considered it established that the applicant had chanted the slogans noted in the indictment. The court considered that the concert, for which legal and administrative authorisation had been obtained, had become a propaganda activity in favour of the DHKP/C, and that the applicant had chanted slogans used by that organisation. The Malatya Assize Court concluded that the applicant had committed the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. 10. The applicant appealed. 11. On 4 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court's judgment. 12. Between 6 October 2011 and 1 August 2012 the applicant duly served his prison sentence.

Ruled as violated by court

7. On 17 October 2007 the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Malatya Assize Court, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front), an illegal armed organisation, under section 7 (2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The public prosecutor noted that the applicant had chanted the following slogans during the concert: "Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; Fight until emancipation"[1] ("Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; Kurtuluşa kadar savaş"); "Martyrs of the revolution are immortal" ("Devrim şehitleri ölümsüzdür"); "Revolutionary prisoners are our honour" ("Devrimci tutsaklar onurumuzdur"); and "Victory on mountains, emancipation at the front; long live victory, long live resistance" ("Dağlarda zafer, cephede kurtuluş; yaşasın zafer, yaşasın direniş"). 8. During the investigation and the proceedings against him, the applicant stated that he had attended the concert in question and chanted the slogans "Music shall not stop, dance shall continue" ("Türküler susmaz , halaylar sürer") and "We will not be defeated by oppression" ("Baskılar bizi yıldıramaz"). He also noted that he had been on the concert's organising committee.

The applicant has a right to free expression as displayed during the concert. However, one could argue that this behavior threatens interests of a democratic society through interfering with the rights of other concertgoers who did not expect to attend a protest event.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicants were born in 1987 and 1986 and live in Gümüşhane and Erzincan respectively. 5. On 18 May 2007 the applicants participated in reading out a press statement in commemoration of İbrahim Kaypakkaya, the leader of the TKP/ML[1] (Turkish Communist Party – Marxist/Leninist), who had died in 1973, allegedly under torture in police custody. 6. On 7 January 2008 the Erzurum public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against fifteen people, including the applicants, charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the TKP/ML, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). According to the indictment, during the gathering, the second applicant had read out a press declaration containing statements praising the TKP/ML and İbrahim Kaypakkaya, and the following slogans had been chanted by the demonstrators: "İbrahim is our leader", "Our struggle continues and shall continue", "İbrahim Kaypakkaya is immortal", "Down with the USA" and "We will drown fascism in the blood it has shed". The group had also carried a banner which read "İbrahim Kaypakkaya is immortal – Partizan"[2]. 7. On 31 March 2009 the Erzurum Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to ten months' imprisonment pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. In its judgment, the assize court held that the applicants had disseminated propaganda in favour of the TKP/ML, given that the second applicant had read out the press statement and the first applicant had chanted slogans. The court based its judgment on a report prepared by an expert regarding a police video-recording of the public gathering in question. 8. Taking into account the applicants' good behaviour during the trial and the fact that they had no previous criminal convictions, the court suspended pronouncement of the applicants' conviction on the condition that they did not commit another intentional offence for a period of five years, under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması). 9. The applicants filed an objection against the decision of 31 March 2009. In their petition, they stated that the first-instance court had erred in interpreting the facts and the law, and they asked to be acquitted of the charges against them. They further stated that their prosecution had constituted a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. 10. On 20 July 2009 the Diyarbakır Assize Court held that the application of Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the case was in line with the domestic law, and rejected the applicants' objection without examining the merits of the case. That decision was served on the applicants on 5 August 2009.

Ruled as violated by court

6. On 7 January 2008 the Erzurum public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against fifteen people, including the applicants, charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the TKP/ML, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). According to the indictment, during the gathering, the second applicant had read out a press declaration containing statements praising the TKP/ML and İbrahim Kaypakkaya, and the following slogans had been chanted by the demonstrators: "İbrahim is our leader", "Our struggle continues and shall continue", "İbrahim Kaypakkaya is immortal", "Down with the USA" and "We will drown fascism in the blood it has shed". The group had also carried a banner which read "İbrahim Kaypakkaya is immortal – Partizan"[2].

While some may argue the statements rise to the level of threatening democratic interests through interfering with the reputation of others, the context of this being a press reading makes it seem clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant, who was born in 1948, lives in Corjova, a village under the formal control of Moldovan authorities, but where agents of the self‑proclaimed "Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic" ("MRT", see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 90, ECHR 2004‑VII for further details) frequently intervened during the events in question, notably by blocking the participation of the local population in elections held in Moldova. 6. On 3 June 2007 local elections were to be held in Moldova, including in Corjova. The applicant, who is an ambulance driver, submitted his candidature for the position of Mayor of Corjova. 7. On 1 June 2007, at 11 p.m., the applicant's ambulance was stopped by the "MRT" road militia and his documents (Moldovan national identity card and driving licence) were taken away from him without any explanation. 8. On 2 June 2007 the applicant went to the "MRT" militia station located in Dubăsari and asked for the return of his documents. He was then arrested and placed in a detention cell. A few hours later a person came to his cell and, without presenting himself, asked him about his work and his electoral propaganda. The applicant later found out that the visitor had been a judge and that, following that discussion in the cell, the judge adopted a decision, finding him guilty of the administrative offence of unlawful electoral propaganda and sentencing him to 15 days' administrative detention. 9. The applicant submits that he was not allowed to contact his relatives or to find a lawyer, and was not issued with a copy of the court's decision, which prevented any possibility of lodging an effective appeal against the decision of 2 June 2007. 10. During his detention the applicant was placed in a cell which, according to him was damp and cold. Food was given once a day. When the applicant's relatives, alerted by his absence, contacted the local authorities in order to find out about his fate, they were informed of the applicant's detention. However, their requests to transmit food to him were allegedly rejected. 11. On 17 June 2007 the applicant was released from detention and he was issued with a copy of the decision of 2 June 2007. The time-limit for lodging an appeal had already expired by that time. Upon release, he was allegedly coughing and was diagnosed with chronic acute bronchitis. He also claims that his eyesight worsened considerably. 12. In the meantime, on 6 June 2007, the applicant complained to the Moldovan prosecutor's office of his unlawful detention. Based on this complaint, a criminal investigation was initiated on 12 June 2007, the applicant and witnesses were subsequently heard. Three high-ranking "MRT" officers were charged and were declared wanted persons. However, on 4 August 2010 the investigation was suspended due to the fact that the three accused were hiding from it in the "MRT".

Ruled as violated by court

The MRT has clearly acted against the interests of a democratic society in blocking election participation and infringing on the rights of the applicant.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

7. The applicants were born in 1987 and 1985, respectively, and live in the Hozat district of Tunceli. 8. On 5 April 2007 the applicants attended a concert performed by a band called "Grup Yorum" in Hozat. During the concert they chanted certain slogans, such as "Revolutionary prisoners are immortal" ("Devrimci tutsaklar ölümsüzdür"), "Revolutionary prisoners are our honour" ("Devrimci tutsaklar onurumuzdur"). 9. On 17 October 2007 the Malatya public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Malatya Assize Court charging the applicants with disseminating propaganda in favour of the "DHKP/C" (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front), an illegal armed organisation, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The public prosecutor noted that the first applicant had chanted the slogan "Revolutionary prisoners are our honour" ("Devrimci tutsaklar onurumuzdur") during the concert. As regards the second applicant, the public prosecutor alleged that he had chanted the following slogans during the same concert: "Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; Fight until emancipation"[1] ("Mahir, Hüseyin, Ulaş; Kurtuluşa kadar savaş"); "Martyrs of the revolution are immortal" ("Devrim şehitleri ölümsüzdür"); "Revolutionary prisoners are our honour", "Victory on mountains, emancipation at the front; long live victory, long live resistance" ("Dağlarda zafer, cephede kurtuluş; yaşasın zafer, yaşasın direniş"). 11. On 6 March 2008 the Malatya Assize Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to ten months' imprisonment each. In its judgment, the assize court considered it established, on the basis of a police video recording of the concert of 5 April 2007, a report on the video recording, the indictment, the applicants' defence submissions and the public prosecutor's observations on the merits of the case, that the applicants had chanted the slogans noted in the indictment. The court considered that the concert in question had become a propaganda activity in favour of the DHKP/C and that the applicants had chanted slogans that were used by that organisation. The Malatya Assize Court concluded that the applicants had committed the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. 12. The applicants appealed. 13. On 4 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court's judgment. 14. On 13 and 14 September 2011 the applicants were informed that they had to start serving their prison sentences within ten days. According to the applicants' submissions, which were not contested by the Government, upon receipt of the summons to serve the prison sentences, both applicants duly served them.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a right to free expression as displayed during the concert. However, one could argue that this behavior threatens interests of a democratic society through interfering with the rights of other concertgoers who did not expect to attend a protest event.

edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Adana. 5. At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicant was a member of the Socialist Democracy Party (Sosyalist Demokrasi Partisi). 6. On 21 March 2007 the applicant attended the Newroz (Kurdish New Year) celebrations in Adana, where he made a speech on behalf of his political party. According to a report prepared on the same day by the police, in his speech the applicant stated that the military forces should comply with the ceasefire declared by the PKK and that a general amnesty should be declared. He contended that people were being detained for referring to Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, as "Sayın (Esteemed) Öcalan" whereas the Prime Minister also referred to him as "Sayın Öcalan". The applicant further stated that Abdullah Öcalan should not be kept in isolation in prison and that independent doctors should visit him. He lastly made the following statement: "Do not fire but talk for resolving the Kurdish issue". 7. The police report of 21 March 2007 further stated that subsequent to the applicant's speech, songs with Kurdish lyrics were played and some demonstrators waved PKK flags. 8. On 6 April 2007 the Adana public prosecutor asked two experts to prepare a report on the police video recordings of the celebrations of 21 March 2007. According to the report dated 16 April 2007 prepared by two persons, the demonstrators chanted certain slogans and waved flags and posters of Abdullah Öcalan from time to time during the celebrations. 9. On 18 April 2007 the Adana public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Adana Assize Court charging the applicant with membership of the PKK[1] under Articles 220 § 7 and 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code on account of his participation in the demonstration of 21 March 2007 and of the content of his speech. He relied on the police report of 21 March 2007, the police video recordings of the Newroz celebrations and the expert report dated 16 April 2007. 10. On an unspecified date the Adana public prosecutor amended the charges against the applicant and asked the Adana Assize Court to convict him of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). 11. On 24 March 2008 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant under the aforementioned provision and sentenced him to ten months' imprisonment. The court considered, on the basis of the police report of 21 March 2007 and the expert report of 16 April 2007, that the applicant's statements had constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK and that the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK after having listened the applicant's speech. 12. On 19 July 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 24 March 2008. 13. On 11 January 2012 the applicant started serving his prison sentence. On 29 May 2012 the Adana Assize Court granted the applicant early conditional release starting from 3 June 2012.

Ruled as violated by court

7. The police report of 21 March 2007 further stated that subsequent to the applicant's speech, songs with Kurdish lyrics were played and some demonstrators waved PKK flags. 8. On 6 April 2007 the Adana public prosecutor asked two experts to prepare a report on the police video recordings of the celebrations of 21 March 2007. According to the report dated 16 April 2007 prepared by two persons, the demonstrators chanted certain slogans and waved flags and posters of Abdullah Öcalan from time to time during the celebrations. 11. On 24 March 2008 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant under the aforementioned provision and sentenced him to ten months' imprisonment. The court considered, on the basis of the police report of 21 March 2007 and the expert report of 16 April 2007, that the applicant's statements had constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK and that the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK after having listened the applicant's speech.

While some may argue the protesting rises to the level of threatening democratic interests through interfering with the rights of other celebration-goers who did not expect to attend a protest event, the context of this being on behalf of the protesting party, which the applicant is a member of, makes it seem clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in the Kızıltepe district of Mardin. 6. On 30 March 2006 the applicant participated in a march and the reading out of a press statement held by the Party for a Democratic Society (Demokratik Toplum Partisi –"the DTP") in Kızıltepe. The protesters gathered in front of the building of the Kızıltepe branch of the DTP and walked to the building of the district branch of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi), where a press statement was read out. The press statement concerned the clashes that had occurred between demonstrators and the police in Diyarbakır on 29 and 30 March 2006. The protestors then returned to the DTP building. During the march the protesters chanted slogans. The applicant participated in the march and the reading out of the press statement as a member of the DTP. 7. On 8 March 2007 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant and eleven other individuals with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The public prosecutor claimed that the applicant had attended the demonstration of 30 March 2006 and chanted the slogan "Tooth for tooth, blood for blood, we are with you Öcalan" ("Dişe diş, kana kan, seninleyiz Öcalan"). 8. Within the context of the criminal proceedings initiated following the indictment dated 8 March 2007, an expert who had examined the police video recordings of the public gathering of 30 March 2006 observed that the applicant had acted together with the crowd, but that it could not be established whether he had chanted the above-mentioned slogan since he had covered his mouth and nose. 9. On 22 April 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. In its judgment, the court noted that the applicant had accepted that he had participated in the march and the reading out of the press statement, but denied the veracity of the allegation that he had chanted any slogan. The Assize Court found it established that the march and the gathering at which a press statement had been read out on 30 March 2006 had turned into a propaganda event in favour of the PKK and an illegal demonstration, and that the accused, including the applicant, had actively participated in that event. The Assize Court further observed that although, according to the expert report, it could not be established that the applicant had chanted the slogan, on the basis of the photographs in the case file, it was established that he had acted together with the demonstrators. Noting that there were other demonstrators who had covered their mouths and that the police documents showed that the applicant had actively taken part in the demonstration and instructed others to chant slogans, the Assize Court concluded that the applicant had committed the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. The applicant was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment. 10. On 2 July 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 22 April 2008. 11. On 4 February 2011 the applicant started serving his prison sentence. On 21 June 2011 he was conditionally released.

Ruled as violated by court

9. On 22 April 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. In its judgment, the court noted that the applicant had accepted that he had participated in the march and the reading out of the press statement, but denied the veracity of the allegation that he had chanted any slogan. The Assize Court found it established that the march and the gathering at which a press statement had been read out on 30 March 2006 had turned into a propaganda event in favour of the PKK and an illegal demonstration, and that the accused, including the applicant, had actively participated in that event. The Assize Court further observed that although, according to the expert report, it could not be established that the applicant had chanted the slogan, on the basis of the photographs in the case file, it was established that he had acted together with the demonstrators. Noting that there were other demonstrators who had covered their mouths and that the police documents showed that the applicant had actively taken part in the demonstration and instructed others to chant slogans, the Assize Court concluded that the applicant had committed the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. The applicant was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment.

While some may argue the protesting rises to the level of threatening democratic interests through interfering with the reputation of others, the context of this being a protest and the applicant's membership with the protesting party makes it seem clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

6. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in İzmir. 7. On 21 March 2007 the applicant attended celebrations for the festival of Newroz in Buca, a district of the city of İzmir, as one of the moderators. While she was hosting the event, the applicant addressed the crowd in Kurdish and invited them to observe a minute's silence in memory of "Newroz martyrs" and martyrs for freedom and democracy. 8. On 10 April 2007 the İzmir Assize Court issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest and a search of her residence. 9. On 11 April 2007 she was arrested at her house. 10. On 12 April 2007 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. In her statements to the public prosecutor and the judge, she maintained that she had attended the Newroz celebrations as a moderator and that she had not shouted any illegal slogans. She stated that she had called for a minute's silence in memory of revolutionary martyrs. The investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody following her questioning. 11. On 24 April 2007 the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings before the İzmir Assize Court against the applicant and seven other individuals, charging them under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) with disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation and, under Article 215 of the Criminal Code, praising a crime or a criminal. Subsequently the criminal proceedings commenced before the İzmir Assize Court. 12. On 13 August 2007, at the end of the first hearing in the trial, the first‑instance court ordered the applicant's release. 13. On 10 September 2008 the İzmir Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 of disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation and sentenced her to one year's imprisonment. The court observed that the applicant had made a speech in Kurdish, that a man had translated her words into Turkish at the end of her speech, and that according to the translation she had uttered the following sentences: "Welcome. I wish you a happy Newroz. We thank those who enabled us to be where we are today. I invite you to stand to observe a moment of silence in memory of Newroz martyrs, martyrs for freedom and democracy, and those who enabled us to be where we are today." 14. The Assize Court further noted that following the applicant's speech the crowd had made a "V" sign and that during the speeches made by the other speakers, the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader. According to the court, the Newroz celebrations had turned into a propaganda event in favour of the PKK and the speakers had chanted slogans and had incited the crowd to chant slogans. The court also observed that during the celebrations, symbols and banners of the PKK had been carried by the crowd. The court found that the speakers had provoked the crowd and had as a result committed the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. The court considered that in view of the applicant's conviction under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 it was unnecessary to deliver a decision in respect of the charges under Article 215 of the Criminal Code. 15. On 21 September 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the İzmir Assize Court. 16. Between 13 January and 22 June 2012 the applicant served her prison sentence. On 22 June 2012 the Diyarbakır Assize Court ordered her conditional release.

Ruled as violated by court

13. On 10 September 2008 the İzmir Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 of disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation and sentenced her to one year's imprisonment. The court observed that the applicant had made a speech in Kurdish, that a man had translated her words into Turkish at the end of her speech, and that according to the translation she had uttered the following sentences: "Welcome. I wish you a happy Newroz. We thank those who enabled us to be where we are today. I invite you to stand to observe a moment of silence in memory of Newroz martyrs, martyrs for freedom and democracy, and those who enabled us to be where we are today." 14. The Assize Court further noted that following the applicant's speech the crowd had made a "V" sign and that during the speeches made by the other speakers, the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and its leader. According to the court, the Newroz celebrations had turned into a propaganda event in favour of the PKK and the speakers had chanted slogans and had incited the crowd to chant slogans. The court also observed that during the celebrations, symbols and banners of the PKK had been carried by the crowd. The court found that the speakers had provoked the crowd and had as a result committed the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. The court considered that in view of the applicant's conviction under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 it was unnecessary to deliver a decision in respect of the charges under Article 215 of the Criminal Code.

While some, like the court, may argue that this threatens democratic interests through encouraging terrorism against national security, the context of this being a protest and the applicant's membership with the protesting party makes it seem clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul. He was the owner and the editor-in-chief of a publishing house, Aram Basım ve Yayıncılık, which published a periodical, Vesta. 5. In 2004 an article written by Mr M.Ş. entitled "On the Kurdish Intellectual" was published in Vesta. 6. On 29 December 2004 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). According to the indictment, certain passages of the article depicted the PKK[1] as part of the Kurdish intellectual movement and hence constituted propaganda of the organisation, known for employing violence and terror. 7. On 23 September 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 as he had published the article in question in Vesta. 8. In its judgment, the Istanbul Assize Court cited the following passages from the article: "In Kurdish history, there have been moments, in certain periods, during which Kurdish literature and culture developed and shone. In those moments, sparks of thought appeared. However, objectively and without renouncing the past, the conditions of the birth of Kurdish intellectualism are based on the 1970s. In earlier periods, there had only been individual and temporary developments not creating traditions. The political nature of the 20th century, the existence and rise of national liberation movements, the emergence of modern currents in Kurdish politics and, most importantly, the creation of a mass movement, served as the basis for the birth of the Kurdish intellectual. This process was manifested in the figure of the PKK. All political movements before the PKK were rebellious, devoid of political depth, tactical unity, stable path and permanence. The ideological and intellectual superficiality of these revolts and their fierce repression led to the loss of existing knowledge and to falling behind. From this point of view, through political and thoughtful analysis, while being free from the system and alienation, and bearing within it its own cultural identity based on the impoverished Kurdish rustics, [the PKK] allowed the beginning of a permanent and stable political enlightenment process. ... Another characteristic of the PKK movement at the beginning was that it realised that [the previous] abstract and theoretical movements had not led to a solution but deepened the problem. ... The fact that the PKK movement was based on the impoverished Kurdish rustics who were intact and preserved their national identity paved the way for a start favourable for a confident, militant and revolutionary tradition. Yet, the progress of the movement was accompanied by the downfall of the level of quality." 9. The court considered that the aforementioned passages and the article in its entirety constituted propaganda in favour of the PKK. It hence sentenced the applicant to ten months' imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of 375 Turkish liras (TRY). Taking into account his good behaviour during the trial and his character, the court suspended the pronouncement of his conviction on condition that he did not commit another intentional offence for a period of five years, under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması). 10. On 22 October 2008 the court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant against the above-mentioned decision.

Ruled as violated by court

While some, like the court, may argue that this rises to the level of threatening democratic interests through encouraging terrorism against national security, the publication of an article in a periodical is clearly a matter of personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Bern, Switzerland. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, he was the editor‑in-chief of Ülkede Özgür Gündem, a daily newspaper published in Turkey. 6. On 6 July 2004 an article written by Mr B.G. entitled "Analysing the Kurdish dynamic correctly" was published in Ülkede Özgür Gündem. In his article, Mr B.G. stated his views on the role of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (an illegal armed organisation), a number of organisations associated with the PKK in regional and international politics and political developments in Turkey. Next to the article a photograph of Abdullah Öcalan shaking hands with a group of armed men was published. 7. On 8 July 2004 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul Assize Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of the KONGRA-GEL[1] under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) on account of the article published on 6 July 2004. In the indictment, the public prosecutor quoted the following passage from the article: "... Abdullah Öcalan, who has contributed to the essential dynamic of the Kurdish movement and the HPG[2], the PJA[3] and the KONGRA-GEL, organisations which have acted as military, political and ideological leaders and which have represented his leadership,... [must be well understood]". The public prosecutor stated that a photograph of Abdullah Öcalan in which he was standing in a rural area holding a weapon had been published in the newspaper, next to the article. The public prosecutor considered as a result that the applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation inciting others to violence or other methods of terrorism. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were launched against the applicant before the Istanbul Assize Court. 8. During the proceedings the applicant maintained that the article in question had been a news article and had not contained propaganda inciting to violence. 9. On 24 May 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and a fine. In its judgment, the Istanbul Assize Court held that the content of the article and the publication of Abdullah Öcalan's photograph amounted to dissemination of propaganda in favour of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL. 10. The applicant appealed. In his appeal petition, referring to a number of the Court's judgments, the applicant claimed that he had not had the intention of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation and that his criminal conviction had been in breach of Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention as he had been exercising his right to impart information. He also noted that the first-instance court had failed to examine the article in its entirety. 11. On 16 May 2006 the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation returned the case file to the first-instance court and requested that the latter revise its judgment in the light of the recent legislative amendments. 12. On 28 September 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court once again convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, with the same reasoning that it had adopted on 24 May 2005. The court sentenced the applicant to a fine of 1,802 Turkish liras (TRY). 13. The applicant appealed. 14. On 18 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 28 September 2006. 15. According to a document dated 15 January 2010, signed by the President of the Istanbul Assize Court and the Istanbul public prosecutor, the applicant was required to pay the fine of TRY 1,802.

Ruled as violated by court

There is a view, as the public prosecutor argued, that this article threatens the interests of democratic society by inciting violence. But most would agree that the publication of an article in a periodical is clearly a matter of personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Weinheim. He is a campaigner against abortion and operates an anti-abortion website. 6. On 12 and 13 April 2005 the applicant distributed leaflets in the vicinity of the medical practice of Dr St., who performed abortions there. The leaflets stated, inter alia, that the abortions performed by Dr St. in his practice, for which he gave the address, were unlawful according to the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court. In addition the leaflet contained the following statements: "According to international criminal law: Aggravated murder is the intentional ‘bringing-to-death' of an innocent human being!" (Sinngemӓβ aus den internationalen Strafgesetzen: Mord ist das vorsӓtzliche "Zu-Tode-Bringen" eines unschuldigen Menschen!) "The murder of human beings in Auschwitz was unlawful, but the morally degraded NS State allowed the murder of innocent people and did not make it subject to criminal liability." (Die Ermordung der Menschen in Auschwitz war rechtswidrig, aber der moralisch verkommene NS-Staat hatte den Mord an den unschuldigen Menschen erlaubt und nicht unter Strafe gestellt.) 7. The applicant also addressed passers-by and the physician's presumed patients and attempted to engage with them in conversations about abortion. 8. Dr St. lodged an application for a civil injunction against the applicant and on 25 October 2005 the Mannheim Regional Court granted the requested injunction. The court ordered the applicant to desist from speaking to passers-by in the immediate vicinity of the medical practice and labelling the abortions performed by the plaintiff unlawful with the objective of irritating female patients and preventing them from visiting Dr St.'s practice. 9. On 24 February 2007 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal upheld the decision and slightly modified the wording specifying the geographical area concerned by the injunction. It also refused to grant leave to appeal on points of law. 10. The Regional Court as well as the Court of Appeal both referred to a previous decision of the Federal Court of Justice in which it had confirmed a civil injunction against similar conduct by the applicant (see paragraph 13 below). The courts held that in the case at issue there were no factual or legal differences justifying deviating from the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice. In so far that the doctor in the present case was slightly more well-known than the doctor in the original case, the Court of Appeal held that this was of minor relevance. The fact that Dr St. had appeared as an expert before the German Parliament many years previously did not have any substantial effects on Dr St's public profile at that time. Moreover, the involvement of Dr St. in different legal disputes was irrelevant, as trying to enforce his rights in the appropriate legal procedure could not redound to Dr St.'s disadvantage. In sum, the applicant had vilified the non‑criminal professional activities of Dr St. by implying that he committed criminal acts and interfered with the relationship of trust between doctor and patient, which deserved special protection against the interventions of others. The applicant had therefore severely interfered with Dr St.'s personality rights. This interference was not justified by the applicant's freedom of expression in view of the massive "pillory effect" the applicant had created by singling out the plaintiff and criticising him in a harsh way in the immediate vicinity of his practice. 11. On 29 May 2007 the Federal Court of Justice refused a request by the applicant for legal aid on the grounds that the applicant's intended appeal on points of law lacked sufficient prospect of success. On 20 July 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant's complaint for adjudication for being inadmissible, without providing reasons (no. 1 BvR 1670/07).

NOT ruled as violated by court

The applicant is clearly expressing their personal opinion. At the same time, there are meaningful interests for democratic society in not infringing upon the rights of others to receive abortions.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

6. The applicants were born in 1973 and 1976 respectively and live in Switzerland. At the relevant time, they were members of a research cooperative called the East Scientific Research Cooperative (Doğu Bilimsel Araştırmalar Kooperatifi – "the Cooperative"). 7. Between 30 May and 1 June 2005 the Cooperative organised an exhibition in Diyarbakır as part of the fifth Diyarbakır Culture and Art Festival, entitled "Witnesses of War Talk". Within the context of the exhibition, photographs of deceased members of the PKK (an illegal armed organisation), deceased members of the security forces who had been killed in security operations, persons who had lost their lives in prison, victims of enforced disappearances and victims of assassinations by unknown assailants in south-east Turkey were publicly displayed. The exhibition also included statements from family members of deceased and disappeared individuals, presenting their relatives and containing their personal views on the disturbances going on in south-east Turkey, and their wish for an enduring peace. 8. On an unspecified date a criminal investigation was launched against the applicants and five other people in relation to a charge of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK. On 31 May 2005 the applicants gave a statement to the investigating judge. Both of the applicants maintained that the exhibition in question had been organised for purely sociological reasons, and that they had conducted interviews with the families of the deceased which had also been included in the exhibition. They asserted that there had been no intention to disseminate propaganda in favour of the PKK. The investigating judge dismissed an application by the public prosecutor to remand the accused in custody. 9. On 6 October 2005 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır Assize Court, charging the applicants and five other suspects with disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. 10. Throughout the proceedings before the Diyarbakır Assize Court the applicants repeated their previous statements and contended that photographs of deceased members of the security forces had also been displayed in the exhibition alongside those of members of the PKK. 11. On 18 May 2006 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted both applicants of disseminating propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The applicants were sentenced to two years and a year and eight months' imprisonment, respectively. In its judgment, the court observed that the invitations to the exhibition had referred to the armed conflict between the security forces and the PKK as a "war", and the PKK members as "guerrillas", thus glorifying the deceased terrorists and inciting young people to become members of the PKK. The court also noted that a "war" was an armed conflict between two States and a "guerrilla" was an armed person who fought against unjust occupation. The court further observed that a couple of photographs of deceased soldiers had also been displayed in order to conceal the accused's intention to incite young people to join the PKK. 12. On 9 June 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in respect of the second applicant, holding that the case should be reviewed in the light of Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271), which regulates the suspension of a judgment's pronouncement. However, the trial court's judgment of 18 May 2006 became final in respect of the first applicant. On 3 August 2009 the decision of the Court of Cassation was filed with the registry of the first-instance court. 13. On 22 October 2009, in accordance with Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided to suspend the pronouncement of its judgment in respect of the second applicant on the condition that he did not commit another intentional offence for a period of five years. 14. The first applicant served the sentence arising from the judgment of 18 May 2006.

Ruled as violated by court

While some, like the court, may argue that this rises to the level of threatening democratic interests through encouraging terrorism against national security, an exhibition is clearly framed as an expression of personal opinions.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Weinheim. He is a campaigner against abortion and operates an anti-abortion website (babycaust.de). At the time of the proceedings outlined below, the website included, among other things, the following content. 6. On the starting page a picture of graves was shown and the text underneath read "then: Holocaust". Upon clicking on the picture, the user was directed to a page titled: "Abortion – the new Holocaust?" on which the Holocaust was compared to abortions. On the left margin of the starting page, there were several links, of which one was called "Life or death?". Upon clicking on it, the user was directed to a page with the headline "Prayer requests for Germany". From that page, the reader was directed to a location-based alphabetical list mentioning the names and practice addresses of doctors who performed abortions in Germany, and to a request for prayers for those doctors. At the very bottom of the same page, under the highlighted text "German contemporary history in brief", a sentence read: "Perverted doctors murder unborn children at the request of the mothers" (Pervertierte Ärzte ermorden im Auftrag der Mütter die ungeborenen Kinder) On the same page, clicking on the button "close page" forwarded the user to a page where it was stated: "Pray, if possible regularly, for the doctors ... who personally undertake the AGGRAVATED MURDER of abortion killing" (Beten Sie – wenn möglich regelmäßig – für die Mediziner ..., welche den MORD der Abtreibungstötung selbst vornehmen ...) (Emphasis in original). Somewhat farther down on the same page, it was stated that counselling centres that issued certifications: "... are enabling and facilitating the unpunished aggravated murder of children in their mother's womb." (... ermöglichen und begünstigen einen straffreien Kindermord im Mutterschoβ.) 7. One of the doctors listed on the applicant's website, Dr Q., sought a civil injunction ordering the applicant to remove his name and address from the website. 8. On 23 May 2006 the Mannheim Regional Court rejected Dr Q.'s application on the grounds that it was a fact that Dr Q. performed abortions and that the remainder of the website's content was covered by the applicant's freedom of expression. It observed, in particular, that the present case was not comparable to similar cases which had concerned an interference with personality rights by the distribution of personalised leaflets. The publishing of a doctor's name on a list of abortion performing doctors had no comparable "pillory effect". 9. Subsequently Dr Q. appealed and – during the appeal proceedings – modified his application, seeking a civil injunction ordering the applicant to desist from labelling abortions, such as those performed by Dr Q., "aggravated murder". 10. On 28 February 2007 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal granted the sought injunction. The court held that the applicant's website led it to be understood that abortions performed by Dr Q. constituted "aggravated murder". While the term "aggravated murder" did not have to be understood in a merely legal sense but could also be understood as a moral judgment, the overall presentation of the website at the very least did not exclude a reading that Dr Q. had perpetrated the criminal offence of aggravated murder. Even though the applicant had pointed out that abortions were exempt from punishment, he had not referred to section 218a of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 14 below), which exempted abortions as performed by Dr Q., from criminal liability. In addition, the applicant had emphasised the term "aggravated murder" in the relevant parts of the website and had compared abortions with the Holocaust. In sum, the statements of the website could be understood as a personalised accusation against Dr Q. of perpetrating aggravated murder. 11. On 29 May 2007 the Federal Court of Justice refused a request by the applicant for legal aid on the grounds that the applicant's intended appeal on points of law lacked sufficient prospect of success. 12. On 2 July 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit a complaint by the applicant for adjudication for being inadmissible, without providing reasons (no. 1 BvR 1663/07).

NOT ruled as violated by court

8. On 23 May 2006 the Mannheim Regional Court rejected Dr Q.'s application on the grounds that it was a fact that Dr Q. performed abortions and that the remainder of the website's content was covered by the applicant's freedom of expression. It observed, in particular, that the present case was not comparable to similar cases which had concerned an interference with personality rights by the distribution of personalised leaflets. The publishing of a doctor's name on a list of abortion performing doctors had no comparable "pillory effect". 12. On 2 July 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit a complaint by the applicant for adjudication for being inadmissible, without providing reasons (no. 1 BvR 1663/07).

The applicant has a right to free expression as displayed on the website. However, it's arguable the applicant endangered the rights and reputation of the doctor through the reading of "aggravated murder."

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

6. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Diyarbakır. 7. At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicant was the head of the district branch of the Democratic People's Party (Demokratik Halklar Partisi – DEHAP) in the Ergani district of Diyarbakır. 8. On 15 February 2005, on the anniversary of the arrest and transfer of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK[1], to Turkey, the Ergani district branch of DEHAP organised a gathering in front of the district branch office in order to read out a press statement. The applicant read the statement in question. 9. On 31 May 2005 the Ergani public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ergani Criminal Court against twenty-six persons, including the applicant, charging them with breach of the Marches and Demonstrations Act (Law no. 2911) on account of their participation in the above-mentioned event. They were accused of participating in the gathering and carrying banners with slogans such as "The solution is in İmralı[2]" ("Çözüm İmralı'da"), "Solitary confinement is a crime against humanity" ("Tecrit insanlık suçudur"), "Not EU, not US, Öcalan has the solution" ("Ne AB ne ABD, Çözüm Öcalan'da") , "The youth is Öcalan's fedai"[3] ("Gençlik Apo'nun Fedaisidir"), and "Freedom to Öcalan" ("Öcalan'a özgürlük"), as well as posters of Abdullah Öcalan. They were also accused of chanting slogans such as "To the sun, to freedom" (Güneşe güneşe, özgürleşmeye"), "Long live the brotherhood of peoples" ("Yaşasın halkların kardeşliği"), "May those hands which aim to damage peace be broken" ("Barışa uzanan eller kırılsın"), "A tooth for a tooth, blood for blood, we are with you" ("Dişe diş kana kan, seninleyiz") and "AKP, be careful, do not abuse our patience" ("AKP şaşırma, sabrımızı taşırma"). 10. On 5 October 2006 the Ergani Criminal Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the case. It held that the impugned acts constituted the offence proscribed by section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713 and that the accused should therefore be tried by the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 11. On an unspecified date the Diyarbakır Assize Court remitted the case file to the Ergani Criminal Court. 12. On 19 March 2007 the Ergani Criminal Court once again decided that the Diyarbakır Assize Court had jurisdiction over the case. 13. On 10 August 2007 the Sixth Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court began the trial in the case. 14. On 15 April 2010 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor submitted to the first-instance court his observations on the merits of the case. According to those submissions, the public prosecutor considered that the applicant should be convicted under section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713, as the press statement read out by him had referred to Abdullah Öcalan as the "honourable Kurdish people's leader". 15. On the same day the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713. The court based its judgment, among others, on a police report regarding the reading out of the press statement dated 15 February 2005 and a police report dated 23 February 2005 on the examination of a police video recording of the event of 15 February 2005. The court judgment read as follows: "... it has been decided that Ahmet Kınık and R.A. committed the offence proscribed by section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, as they participated in the reading out of a press statement organised by the DEHAP in Ergani on 15 February 2005 on the anniversary of the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, and chanted slogans such as ‘The solution is in İmralı', ‘Solitary confinement is a crime against humanity', ‘Not EU, not US, Öcalan has the solution', and ‘The youth is Öcalan's fedai'. They marched and chanted these slogans without obtaining prior permission." 16. The Sixth Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court sentenced the applicant to ten months' imprisonment but decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması) for a period of five years, under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. On 5 July 2010 the applicant objected to the decision of the Assize Court to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment. 18. On 22 November 2010 the Fourth Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objection.

Ruled as violated by court

While some, like the court, may argue that this threatens democratic interests through encouraging terrorism against national security, the context of this being a protest and the applicant's membership with the protesting party makes it seem clear that this is the applicant's personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Orhei. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. On 16 January 1997 the Orhei mayor's office attested the property right of a number of private individuals over plots of land in the town. Based on that decision, on 3 April 1997 the same office issued the applicant's brother (C.) title to 0.0569 hectares of land. 7. On 13 July 1998 C. died. After his death the applicant took possession of the land and used continuously for her own needs. 8. On 10 September 1999 the territorial cadastre office registered the plot of land as belonging to C. 9. On 31 January 2000 the Orhei mayor's office amended the annex to its decision of 16 January 1997. C. continued to be mentioned as the owner of the relevant plot of land. 10. On 15 July 2005 the Orhei mayor's office lodged a civil court action aimed at annulling the property right of C. and the applicant to the relevant land. It claimed that the title had been issued in error since C. had moved to an apartment provided by the town and was no longer eligible to obtain such land. Following this relocation, the cadastre office was supposed to remove C.'s title from the list, which it had failed to do. In the meantime, on an unspecified date the applicant initiated a court action aimed at extending the time-limit for accepting her brother's inheritance. The two court actions were joined by the court on 6 November 2006. 11. On 15 February 2017 the Orhei district court rejected the court action lodged by the mayor's office and accepted that of the applicant. It noted, inter alia, that the applicant had raised the issue of expiry of the three-year limitation period and added that under Article 78 of the old Civil Code (see paragraph 15 below), the court had to apply the rules concerning the limitation period regardless of the parties' arguments. It found that the mayor's office had missed the three-year limitation period. However, in the operative part the court omitted to refer to the expiry of the limitation period and found that the court action had been groundless. The court also accepted the applicant's action, extending the time-limit for accepting her brother's inheritance since she had taken possession of the relevant land immediately after his death. 12. On 4 October 2007 the Chișinău Court of Appeal overturned that judgment, accepting the appeal lodged by the mayor's office. It annulled C.'s title to the relevant land, finding that he had obtained it in error and that under the applicable law he could not be the owner of that land. Moreover, the court rejected the applicant's claim for extending the time-limit for accepting her brother's inheritance, finding that she had missed it without a valid reason. 13. On 12 March 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal. 14. The applicant submitted documents showing that she had paid various taxes for the land in question over the years. 15. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code (1964, in force before 12 June 2003) reads as follows: "Article 74. General limitation periods. The general limitation period for defending, by a court action, against the breach of a person's rights (prescripția) is of three years ..." "Article 78. Mandatory application of the limitation period. The competent court ... shall apply the limitation period regardless of the parties' request." "Article 581. Acceptance of inheritance. In order to inherit, the heir must accept the inheritance. ... It shall be considered that the heir has accepted the inheritance if he/she took actual possession or administration of inheritance assets ..." 16. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code (in force from 12 June 2003) read as follows: "Article 7. Application of the civil law in time. (1) The civil law has no retroactive effect. It does not modify and does not annul the conditions of creation of a legal situation which previously appeared, nor the conditions of ending of a legal situation which previously ended. ... (6) The provisions of the new law concerning limitation periods ... shall apply to limitation periods which started before the date of entry into force of the new law, but did not end before that date. ... The start, the suspension and the interruption of the limitation period shall be determined under the old law for the period before the entry into force of the new law. ..."

NOT ruled as violated by court

There is no relevance between free expression and private property ownership.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicants were born in 1971 and 1976 and are detained in Lipcani. 6. In July 1999 the German police found the corpse of a Moldovan national in a river near Hamburg. The investigation led to a Moldovan national, A.B., who had shared a house with the victim. During questioning by the German police, A.B., who was a suspect, declared that the murder had been committed by the applicants who had beaten up the victim and strangled him. A.B. stated that he had only helped them to carry the victim's dead body and that he had not seen the body being thrown into the river. He knew, however, that a concrete pole had been attached to the victim's body before it immersion. The goal of the murder was allegedly to obtain the victim's five thousand German marks, which he had deposited with a German family. According to A.B., after the murder, the applicants manipulated the German family into believing that the victim had been arrested by police in another part of Germany and that he needed the money. After obtaining the money, one of the applicants wired it to his family in Moldova. 7. During the court proceedings in Moldova, the competent court resorted to international legal assistance by summoning at least seven witnesses who lived in Germany, including A.B. All witnesses were summoned once through the intermediary of the Moldovan Ministry of Justice and the German authorities. However, none of them appeared before the Moldovan court and no reasons for failure to appear were given. The attempts to summon the witness were not repeated. 8. On 29 December 2008 the Botanica District Court acquitted the applicants of murder charges that had been brought against them. The court found that the only piece of evidence presented by the prosecutor in support of the accusation against the applicants was the statements made by A.B. to the German police. Since A.B. himself had been accused by the German police of the victim's murder at the time of his questioning, he had a personal interest in accusing other persons. Moreover, his statements were not totally coherent and consistent. In particular, he had stated to the German police that he had not been present when the victim's body had been thrown into the river. However, somehow he knew that a concrete pole had been attached to the corpse. Lastly, the Moldovan authorities had been unable to bring A.B. to Moldova, and the applicants had not been present during the interview with the German police and had therefore been unable to put questions to A.B. For all the above reasons the evidence was excluded from the file. However, the applicants were found guilty of fraud as a result of the fact that they had manipulated the German family with whom the victim's money had been deposited, and had appropriated the money. 9. On 25 February 2010 the Chişinău Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the prosecutor and reversed the judgment of the lower court in so far as it concerned the murder charges. The court admitted A.B.'s statements given before the German police in evidence and found the applicants guilty of murder. The court found A.B.'s statements to be reliable because they had been made before an investigating judge. The applicants were sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. At the same time, the applicants were cleared of the charge of fraud on account of the Statute of Limitations. 10. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court of Justice in which they argued, inter alia, that the statements made by A.B. before the German authorities and read out during the hearing before the Court of Appeal could not be admitted in evidence unless they had had the opportunity to confront A.B. in a court hearing and address questions to him. Moreover, the applicants submitted that A.B. had a personal interest in accusing them because he was a suspect himself. 11. On 18 January 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicants' appeal and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the fact that the applicants had not been present during A.B.'s questioning by the German authorities had been as a result of their own actions, because they had left Germany by that time. Two of the sitting judges (S.M. and V.T.) wrote a dissenting opinion in which they expressed the view that the applicants' rights as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been breached by the fact that they had been unable to examine the only prosecution witness, A.B., on whose evidence their convictions had been based.

NOT ruled as violated by court

There is little relevance between free expression and this criminal trial. The statements given by a witness are meaningfully subject to restrictions, given their democratic interest in maintaining the authority of the judiciary.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The first applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Moscow. The second applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Irkutsk. 5. On 20 February 2009, the first applicant, a lawyer at the time, was elected to be a member of the council of the Irkutsk Regional Bar ("the Bar"). 6. On 24 October 2010 the members of the council conducted elections for the presidency of the Bar. Five members of the Council voted for S. and the other five voted for the second applicant. 7. On 25 November 2010 the second applicant issued an order appointing herself acting President of the Bar. 8. On an unspecified date a group of lawyers applied to the Commercial Court of the Irkutsk Region challenging the second applicant's appointment. The court granted their request to enjoin the second applicant from fulfilling the functions of acting president pending the outcome of the proceedings. 9. On 19 January 2012 the Commercial Court discontinued the proceedings. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Commercial Court on 26 September 2012. 10. On 11 February, 2 March and 5 April 2011 several members of the Bar, including the applicants, lodged complaints with the President of the Commercial Court of the Irkutsk Region, to the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation and to the Supreme Judicial Qualifications Board, alleging that Judge R. had acted in contravention of the applicable laws on jurisdiction when she had accepted the claims concerning the second applicant's appointment to the office of President of the Bar for consideration. They further claimed that (1) S. had announced in public that his opponents in the council of the Bar would be disbarred and that he would organise a "red terror" in response to the "orange revolution"; (2) S.'s ultimate goal had been to get rid of his opponents in the Council of the Bar through rotation and disbarment; (3) S. had had an extra‑professional relationship with the Deputy President of the Regional Commercial Court, who had been instrumental in ensuring a favourable outcome in the proceedings against the second applicant's appointment; (4) through his personal connections with the Deputy President of the Regional Commercial Court, S. had obtained an injunction against the second applicant and ensured that a group of bailiffs had been present at the Bar's conference in order to put pressure on the participants and his opponents. 11. On an unspecified date in July 2011 the lawyers posted their complaints on the website of the President of the Russian Federation. They sent a copy of their complaint to the President of the Supreme Commercial Court and to the Public Anticorruption Committee. 12. On 18 July 2011 the First Deputy of the President of the Regional Commercial Court informed the plaintiffs that their allegations were proven false by the conducted investigation. 13. On 27 July 2011 the President of the Regional Commercial Court forwarded a copy of the lawyers' complaint to the Bar and the First Vice‑President of the Bar instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicants. 14. On 31 October 2011 the council of the Bar disbarred the first applicant. The council considered that (1) the letters sent by the group of the lawyers to the Judicial Qualifications Board and the President of the Commercial Court had not been a correct or permissible conduct in response to the actions of the judges of the Commercial Court; (2) the complaints had contained untrue allegations damaging to the reputation and goodwill of Judges B. and R., and S., a lawyer; (3) the first applicant had been disrespectful towards them. The Council concluded that (1) the first applicant had violated the relevant legislation and the Code of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (Кодекс профессиональной этики адвоката); (2) the dissemination of information damaging the reputation and goodwill of judges and lawyers was incompatible with membership of the Bar; (3) the first applicant's conduct had disparaged the Bar and its members. 15. On 8 December 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk dismissed a complaint lodged by the first applicant against the decision of 31 October 2011. 16. On 11 March 2012 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 December 2011 on appeal. 17. On 16 December 2011 the council of the Bar disbarred the second applicant. The reasons underlying the council's decision were identical to the one used in the first applicant's case. 18. On 27 December 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk dismissed a complaint lodged by the second applicant against the decision of 16 December 2011. 19. On 19 April 2012 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 27 December 2011 on appeal.

Ruled as violated by court

The lawyers who filed the complaint are allowed their personal opinions on the election, but it could also be argued that they interfered with democratic interests through damaging the reputations of others.

edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The first applicant (Mr Grigoryev) was born in 1984 and lives in Svetlogorsk. The second applicant (Ms Igamberdiyeva) was born in 1989 and lives in Kaliningrad. 6. On an unknown date the second applicant notified the Kaliningrad authorities of her intention to hold a group public event on 12 December 2010 in Pobeda Square. The authorities replied that preparations for the New Year celebrations were planned on that day; they did not suggest an alternative venue. The second applicant did not challenge the authority's reply before the domestic courts. Both applicants decided to stage solo demonstrations near the monument to "Mother Russia" instead; this did not require prior notification. 7. According to the applicants, on 12 December 2010 the first applicant staged a solo demonstration holding a banner saying "Freedom for Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev! We plead for a lawful judgment". After he had completed his demonstration and placed himself at a distance of some twenty metres, the second applicant held her own solo demonstration. She was wearing a T-shirt saying "Freedom for Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev!" She completed her demonstration in five minutes. Then the first applicant returned to the venue with his banner and remained there for about two minutes, until police officers took him to a police van. He was then taken to a police station and held there for over three hours. 8. According to the Government, at 4 p.m. on 12 December 2010 the applicants participated in a group public event in the form of a "picket" (пикетирование) using visual props, namely a banner and a T-shirt. At 4 p.m. the first applicant was taken to the Leninskiy district police station. Between 5.15 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. a duty officer drew up an administrative offence record in respect of the first applicant. He was accused of taking part in a group public event held without authorisation, an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter "the CAO"). On 14 December 2012 the second applicant was called to the Leninskiy district police station, where she was accused of a similar offence, although it was classified under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. 9. The cases against the applicants were submitted to a justice of the peace of court circuit no. 2 of the Leninskiy District of Kaliningrad. The court ordered the police to submit a video recording showing the events of 12 December 2010. By two judgments of 3 March 2011 the justice of the peace found that the applicants had held solo demonstrations and had not breached the Public Events Act (hereinafter "the PEA"), including its prior notification requirement applicable to group events. The court relied, inter alia, on the video recording submitted by the police. The administrative cases against the applicants were discontinued for lack of the elements of the offences under Article 20.2 §§ 1 and 2 of the CAO. 10. The police lodged an appeal. On 16 May 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Kaliningrad upheld the judgments. The appellate court also considered that it had not been confirmed that the applicants had in fact taken part in a group "picket". 11. The applicants sought compensation of 100,000 roubles (RUB)[1] each for unlawful deprivation of liberty and violation of their right to freedom of expression by way of solo demonstration. By a judgment of 15 July 2011 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad found that taking the first applicant to the police station had been unlawful, and awarded him RUB 10,000 (equivalent to 250 euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 25 July 2011 the same court also granted the claims by the second applicant, having found that preventing her from staging a solo demonstration and consequently prosecuting her had been unlawful. The court also awarded the second applicant RUB 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. 12. The first applicant appealed against the judgment of 15 July 2011, complaining, inter alia, about the amount of the compensation and the first‑instance court's failure to make specific findings in relation to the violation of his freedom of expression on account of the police intervention in his solo demonstration. On 7 September 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment. Relying on Article 27.1 § 2 of the CAO and Article 1070 § 2 of the Civil Code, it ruled that it followed from the discontinuation of the CAO case that placing the first applicant under administrative escort and arrest had been unlawful under Russian law as well as "unjustified" (необоснованные). The appellate court also considered that the interference with freedom of expression had been acknowledged by the declaration that taking the first applicant to the police station had been unlawful. 13. The second applicant also appealed. On 21 September 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment of 25 July 2011.

Ruled as violated by court

While one could argue that the applicants interfered with the rights of others to enjoy the celebration, their following of protocols makes this a straightforward case of free expression.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

6. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul. He was the owner and the editor-in-chief of a publishing house, namely Aram Basım ve Yayıncılık, at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. 7. In June 2001 and March 2003 the applicant's company published two books entitled Dağlarda Yaşamın Dili ("The Language of Life in the Mountains") and Tufanda 33 Gün ("33 Days in the Deluge"), respectively. 8. On 29 August 2001 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court charging the applicant with aiding and abetting the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, under Article 169 of the former Criminal Code, on account of the publication of the book entitled The Language of Life in the Mountains. 9. On 24 July 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged. 10. On 1 May 2003 the Court of Cassation, on appeal, upheld the judgment of 24 July 2002. 11. On 23 September 2003 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court requested that the court revise its judgment of 24 July 2002 since Article 169 of the former Criminal Code had been amended on 7 August 2003. The Istanbul State Security Court accepted that request. 12. By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, state security courts were abolished. The case against the applicant concerning the book entitled The Language of Life in the Mountains was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. 13. On 16 August 2003 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court charging the applicant with aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 of the former Criminal Code on account of the publication of the book entitled 33 Days in the Deluge. According to the indictment, on pages 129, 130 and 135 the struggle of the PKK and its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, was praised and the applicant had therefore aided the PKK through the medium of the press. 14. On 30 April 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to join the proceedings concerning The Language of Life in the Mountains and 33 Days in the Deluge. 15. On 7 December 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK twice, because he had published two books, and sentenced him to a total of twenty months' imprisonment. With regard to the publication of 33 Days in the Deluge, the assize court considered that on pages 129, 130 and 135 the PKK and its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, were praised and the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation had therefore been committed. The assize court furthermore found that the book allowed for the transmission of the opinions of the PKK to the public and was aimed at bringing more sympathisers into that organisation. 16. On 25 June 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 7 December 2007, holding that the first-instance court should not have joined the two cases, since the case concerning The Language of Life in the Mountains was a re-qualification of the applicant's previous final conviction (uyarlama yargılaması). 17. On 7 December 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant once again under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 on account of the publication of The Language of Life in the Mountains and sentenced him to a fine. 18. On 3 June 2013 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance judgment. 19. On 13 November 2013 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to suspend the execution of the sentence pronounced in its judgment of 7 December 2009. 20. In the meantime, the Istanbul Assize Court resumed the trial concerning the publication of 33 Days in the Deluge following the Court of Cassation's decision of 25 June 2009. 21. On 21 October 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 for disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK on account of the publication of 33 Days in the Deluge and sentenced him to ten months' imprisonment. In its judgment, the assize court reiterated that on pages 129, 130 and 135 the PKK and its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, were praised and the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation had therefore been committed. The court held that the turns of phrase used on those pages were not protected by Article 10 of the Convention and constituted an abuse of the right to freedom of expression. The assize court further found that the book permitted the opinions of the PKK to be transmitted to the public and was aimed at bringing more sympathisers into that organisation and thus at destroying the unitary nature of the State of the Republic of Turkey. 22. The applicant appealed. 23. On 15 February 2012 the Court of Cassation decided to discontinue the proceedings concerning the publication of 33 Days in the Deluge, holding that the prosecution was time-barred.

Ruled as violated by court

While one, like the public prosecutor, could argue that the applicants encouraged terrorism against democratic interests in national security, the publication of a book is clearly a matter of personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

6. The applicants were born in 1983, 1973, 1983, 1986, 1984 and 1984. Mr Yaşar Çalışkan lives in Ankara. The other applicants live in Samsun. According to the applicants' submissions, which were not contested by the Government, at the time of the lodging of the application, they were serving the prison sentences arising out of their criminal convictions which gave rise to the present application. 7. On 17 and 18 June 2005 seventeen members of the Maoist Communist Party (hereinafter "the MKP"), an illegal organisation, were killed in a rural area within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Ovacık, near the city of Tunceli, by members of the security forces. 8. On 21 June 2005 a gathering was held in protest at the alleged unlawful killings of 17 and 18 June 2005 in Samsun. University students from the Samsun Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, including the applicants, gathered in front of the building of the Black Sea Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Association (Karadeniz Temel Haklar ve Özgürlükler Derneği) where a press statement was read out. 9. On 8 July 2005 one of the applicants, Mr Ahmet Doğan, attended another reading out of a press statement in Samsun. The press statement concerned the killings of 17 and 18 June 2005, the arrest of a number of persons subsequent to the reading out of the press statement on 21 June 2005 and the alleged unlawful killing of a detainee by the police. 10. On 21 February 2007 the Ankara public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against twenty-three people, including the applicants, charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the MKP, under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). According to the indictment, during the gathering of 21 June 2005, slogans such as "Long live revolutionary solidarity" ("Yaşasın devrimci dayanışma"), "We have paid a price. We will make them pay a price." ("Bedel ödedik, bedel ödeteceğiz."), "Murderer State" ("Katil devlet"), "Revolutionary martyrs are immortal" ("Devrim şehitleri ölümsüzdür."), "Martyrs are immortal" ("Şehit namırın"), were chanted and the applicants participated in the gathering. The public prosecutor further noted that Mr Ahmet Doğan had participated in the gathering of 8 June 2005, during which the following slogans had been chanted: "No emancipation alone, either all of us or none of us." ("Kurtuluş yok tek başına, ya hep beraber ya hiçbirimiz.)", "Arrests, provocations and coercion cannot discourage us." ("Tutuklamalar, provakasyonlar, baskılar bizi yıldıramaz."), "We will resist and succeed" ("Direne direne kazanacağız."), "We have paid a price; we will make them pay a price." "Bedel ödedik, bedel ödeteceğiz"). 11. On 31 March 2009 the Ankara Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to ten months' imprisonment pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, except for Mr Ahmet Doğan, who was sentenced to twenty months' imprisonment. As regards the gathering of 21 June 2005, the assize court found it established that the slogan "Martyrs are immortal" had been chanted by Mr Kürşad Arslan, Ms Dilek Kömpe, Mr Olcay Bayraktar and Mr Ahmet Doğan and that the slogans "The murderer state will pay the price", "Revolutionary martyrs are immortal" and "Long live revolutionary solidarity" had been chanted by Mr Yaşar Çalışkan, Mr Kürşad Arslan and Ms Dilek Kömpe. The court also found it established that all the applicants except for Mr Olcay Bayraktar had chanted the slogan "We have paid a price; we will make them pay a price" and that Mr Ahmet Doğan had carried a banner bearing the slogan "Ovacık Martyrs are immortal". As regards the gathering of 8 July 2005, the court noted that Mr Ahmet Doğan had chanted the slogans "Arrests, provocations and coercion cannot discourage us.", "We will resist and succeed" and "We have paid a price; we will make them pay a price." during that public gathering. 12. In its judgment, the Ankara Assize Court referred to Article 10 of the Convention as well as to the Court's judgment in the case of Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) ([GC], no. 26682/95, ECHR 1999‑IV) and the report of the European Commission of Human Rights in the case of Karataş v. Turkey (no. 23168/94, Commission's report of 11 December 1997). The court held that by chanting the above-mentioned slogans the applicants had not exercised their democratic rights but had glorified terror by adopting the style of discourse of terror organisations and that they had not distanced themselves from violence. In the court's view, by chanting those slogans the applicants had not intended to find a solution to a problem but had praised and glorified the source of the problem, that is to say, the terrorist organisations concerned. Hence, the applicants had incited terror. The Ankara Assize Court concluded that chanting the slogans in question could not be considered as falling within the scope of the right to freedom of expression. 13. On 8 July 2010 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 31 March 2009 in so far as it concerned the applicants' conviction. 14. On unspecified dates the applicants served their prison sentences.

Ruled as violated by court

While one, like the court, could argue that the applicants encouraged terrorism against democratic interests in national security, the context of protest and party membership makes it clear that this is personal opinion.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Chișinău. 6. The applicant has been involved in numerous protests against alleged acts of corruption and abuse committed by police officers, prosecutors and judges. He was himself the victim of police abuse, ill-treatment and prosecutorial inaction (see Mătăsaru and Saviţchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, 2 November 2010). Each year during the professional holiday of the prosecutors or the police he stages protests involving live animals, toilets, caricatures and masks. 7. On 29 January 2013, the professional holiday of prosecutors in Moldova, the applicant conducted a one person demonstration in front of the Prosecutor General's Office. According to him, the aim of the protest was to draw public attention to the corruption and the control exercised by politicians over the Prosecutor General's Office. At 10 a.m. he started his protest by installing two large wooden sculptures on the stairs of the Prosecutor General's Office. The first sculpture represented an erect penis with a picture of the face of a high-ranking politician attached to its head. The sculpture had a white collar and a tie and measured two metres. The second sculpture represented a large vulva with pictures of several high‑ranking prosecutors between the labia. The applicant also inflated balloons in the form of male genitals and attached them to the nearby trees. 8. The demonstration was observed from the beginning by several police officers and numerous journalists approached to interview the applicant. At 11 a.m. a police van approached, the sculptures were removed by police officers and the applicant was taken to a police station. 9. Later the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of hooliganism. The criminal investigation was conducted by a department of the Prosecutor General's Office whose head's picture had been attached to the sculpture of the vulva. 10. On 2 March 2015 the Râșcani District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. The sentence was suspended for a period of three years. In deciding on the sanction to be applied, the court took into consideration the fact that the applicant had previously been sanctioned with fines for similar deeds and that those sanctions had proved to be inefficient. The court considered that the applicant's deeds had been immoral because he had exposed obscene sculptures in a public place where they could be seen by anyone, including by children. The court based its findings on the statements of several prosecution witnesses who had stated that they had disliked the sculptures exposed by the applicant and had considered them to be indecent and obscene. The court also stated that assimilating public officials with genitals went beyond the acceptable limits of criticism in a democratic society and was therefore not an act protected under Article 10 of the Convention. Moreover, the accusations meant to be made by the applicant by means of his protest against the officials concerned lacked a factual basis and had been contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence. 11. The applicant appealed against the above decision arguing, inter alia, that it ran contrary to his rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. 12. On 2 November 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. 13. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice in which he reiterated his position that his conviction had been contrary to the provisions of the Convention and stated that the sculptures had represented a form of artistic expression which was to be protected under Article 10 of the Convention. He reiterated that his protest had been against the corruption within the Prosecutor General's Office and among high-ranking politicians, a phenomenon which was universally known and did not need to be proved. He also argued that the sculptures exposed by him could not be considered obscene. In any event, at the time of his protest, children were normally at schools and kindergartens. The fact that some of the prosecution witnesses disliked what they saw was not sufficient to hold him responsible for a criminal offence. The applicant admitted that the form of the protest chosen by him had been striking, however he considered this manner of protesting as the only way possible to make himself heard in a society which was oversaturated with subjects of discussion. The applicant finally submitted that the sanction applied to him had been disproportionately harsh and that it had had a chilling effect on him. He pointed to the fact that the first-instance court had admitted to having pursued the goal of discouraging his future involvement in protests. By the application of a suspended sentence, he had in fact been forced to abstain from organising further protests for a period of three years or risk being imprisoned. 14. On 20 April 2016 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law and upheld the judgments of the lower courts. The decision was notified to the applicant on 19 May 2016.

Ruled as violated by court

10. On 2 March 2015 the Râșcani District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. The sentence was suspended for a period of three years. In deciding on the sanction to be applied, the court took into consideration the fact that the applicant had previously been sanctioned with fines for similar deeds and that those sanctions had proved to be inefficient. The court considered that the applicant's deeds had been immoral because he had exposed obscene sculptures in a public place where they could be seen by anyone, including by children. The court based its findings on the statements of several prosecution witnesses who had stated that they had disliked the sculptures exposed by the applicant and had considered them to be indecent and obscene. The court also stated that assimilating public officials with genitals went beyond the acceptable limits of criticism in a democratic society and was therefore not an act protected under Article 10 of the Convention. Moreover, the accusations meant to be made by the applicant by means of his protest against the officials concerned lacked a factual basis and had been contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence.

The applicant has a right to free expression as displayed in the protest. One could also argue that the protest threatens democratic interests through infringing on the reputations of others and protected morals.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Slavonski Brod. 6. The applicant is a local political figure in Slavonski Brod. She was the head of administration for all kindergartens in Slavonski Brod, and during several local elections ran for mayor of that town. While the applicant held the position of head of administration for all kindergartens in Slavonski Brod, Z.B. sought and obtained employment in one of the kindergartens in Slavonski Brod as a teacher. One of the conditions for obtaining such employment was holding Croatian citizenship, and Z.B. presented a certificate confirming such citizenship. At a certain point in time Z.B., as an employee of a kindergarten in Slavonski Brod, was a subordinate of the applicant. In February 2008 Z.B. was appointed head of administration for all kindergartens in Slavonski Brod. 7. On 23 October 2008 the applicant held a press conference entitled "All victims of the human resources policy of the mayor of Slavonski Brod, M.D.", where she alleged that the mayor of Slavonski Brod was involved in various irregularities in the employment of civil servants in local public institutions. The applicant thereby also alleged that the mayor had appointed Z.B. as the manager of a kindergarten run by the municipality even though she had used invalid documents and held only citizenship of the former Yugoslavia, and that together the mayor and Z.B. had denied a Croatian war veteran's daughter employment (see paragraph 11 below). 8. On 24 November 2008 Z.B. instituted a private prosecution against the applicant in the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Slavonskom Bordu) on charges of defamation related to the above-mentioned statement. 9. During the proceedings the applicant contended that she had wanted to show all irregularities concerning the mayor's employment of local civil servants, and that she had learnt that Z.B. had requested Croatian citizenship only after she had been employed as manager of the kindergarten. The applicant also submitted that a councillor in the local assembly had provided her with certain documents concerning Z.B., including an annulled citizenship certificate. 10. On 21 May 2010 the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court acquitted the applicant on the grounds that the material obtained during the proceedings showed that Z.B. had been registered in 1985 in the register of births of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which at the time had been one of the former Yugoslav republics. She had been registered as a Croatian citizen on 13 October 2008, whereas she had lodged her application for employment at the kindergarten on 12 February 2008. In the circumstances, the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court considered that the applicant demonstrated the veracity of her statements. 11. On 23 May 2011, upon an appeal by Z.B., the Slavonski Brod County Court (Županijski sud u Slavonskom Brodu) quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered a retrial, on the grounds that not all of the relevant facts had been properly established. 12. After a retrial, on 26 January 2012 the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court found the applicant guilty of defamation for having said "[the mayor] appointed people who are using invalid documents to crucial positions, for example Z.B., who unfortunately still has citizenship of the former Yugoslavia" and "[the mayor], together with his manager [Z.B.], fired a girl on the pretence that, as the child of a [Croatian] war veteran, she had no right to preferential treatment with regard to employment". The applicant was given a suspended sentence of sixty days' imprisonment with a probation period of one year. The Slavonski Brod Municipal Court held that it was a well-known fact that Yugoslavia no longer existed, and that therefore Z.B. could not have Yugoslav citizenship. Moreover, Z.B. had acquired Croatian citizenship in 1992, but her citizenship certificate had later been annulled in 2008 due to some administrative irregularities, and later she had been issued with a new certificate. The Slavonski Brod Municipal Court therefore held that the applicant had uttered untrue information concerning Z.B. in public, amounting to defamation. The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings in the amount of 8,250 Croatian kunas (HRK). 13. The applicant appealed, and on 30 May 2012 the Slavonski Brod County Court dismissed her appeal, upholding the first-instance judgment. 14. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining, inter alia, that her freedom of expression had been violated by the judgments of the lower courts. 15. On 26 September 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. 16. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant's representative on 11 October 2012. 17. On 4 October 2007 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 1577 (2007), "Towards decriminalisation of defamation", in which it urged those member States which still allowed prison sentences for defamation, even if those sentences were not actually imposed, to abolish them without delay.

Ruled as violated by court

6. The applicant is a local political figure in Slavonski Brod. She was the head of administration for all kindergartens in Slavonski Brod, and during several local elections ran for mayor of that town. While the applicant held the position of head of administration for all kindergartens in Slavonski Brod, Z.B. sought and obtained employment in one of the kindergartens in Slavonski Brod as a teacher. One of the conditions for obtaining such employment was holding Croatian citizenship, and Z.B. presented a certificate confirming such citizenship. At a certain point in time Z.B., as an employee of a kindergarten in Slavonski Brod, was a subordinate of the applicant. In February 2008 Z.B. was appointed head of administration for all kindergartens in Slavonski Brod. 17. On 4 October 2007 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 1577 (2007), "Towards decriminalisation of defamation", in which it urged those member States which still allowed prison sentences for defamation, even if those sentences were not actually imposed, to abolish them without delay.

While the applicant has a right to free expression about the mayor, it seems clear that they infringed upon the reputation of another.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

4. The applicant was born in 1977 and lived in Naberezhniye Chelny, Tatarstan Republic, before his conviction of an unrelated criminal offence. 5. On 7 April 2008 the applicant notified the executive committee of Naberezhniye Chelny of his intention to hold a public event in the form of a hunger strike in front of the local prosecutor's office beginning from 21 April 2008. On the same day the applicant was informed that his notice did not comply with the requirements of the law. 6. On 16 April 2008 the applicant lodged an addendum to his notice in which he indicated the place, the timing and the goal of the planned event as well as the information about its organiser. He also asked to ensure the protection of a tent (to be positioned near the prosecutor's office) from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. daily and the twenty-four-hour presence of an ambulance at the venue of the event. 7. On 17 April 2008 the head of the public relations department of the local executive committee informed the applicant that his planned public event amounted to a "picket" within the meaning of the Public Events Act (hereinafter "PEA"). In breach of the PEA the notice about the event did not contain information about the number of participants or arrangements to be made for preventing disorder and providing medical aid during the event. The applicant was required to align his notice with the PEA in that connection but, according to the Government, he failed to do so. 8. According to the applicant, on 22 April 2008 he started to hold a solo demonstration at noon and continued it until 4 p.m., when he was arrested by the police. 9. According to the Government, on 22 April 2008 at 3.15 p.m. the applicant set up on the lawn in front of the prosecutor's office a tent and a poster reading "Hunger strike. Call for signatures". He gathered passers-by and voiced his claims to them. At 3.40 p.m. a police officer drew up a record of an administrative offence allegedly committed by the applicant. He was accused of the breach of the procedure for the organisation of public events, an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter "CAO"). The case file was then submitted to a justice of the peace, who adjourned the hearing so that the applicant could retain a counsel. It is unclear whether the applicant was arrested by the police or otherwise deprived of his liberty at any moment prior to appearing before the justice of the peace. 10. At 8 p.m. on the same day the applicant returned to the site near the prosecutor's office and resumed his demonstration. The police ordered him to terminate this allegedly unlawful public event, but he refused. They compiled an administrative offence record, stating that the applicant had committed an offence under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO; they also compiled an administrative arrest record (протокол административного задержания). The applicant was then taken to the central police station of Naberezhniye Chelny where he was detained until 24 April 2008 in the afternoon. 11. On 24 April 2008 the justice of the peace of the 8th Court Circuit of Naberezhniye Chelny found the applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO and imposed a fine of 1,000 Russian roubles ((RUB), equivalent to 27 euros (EUR) at the time). The court noted that the applicant had intended to hold a non-stop hunger-strike making use of posters for an indefinite period of time; on 22 April 2008 he had held an unlawful picket by way of setting up a tent and a poster reading "Hunger strike. Call for signatures" as well as by gathering passers-by and "campaigning" among them. In breach of the PEA he had failed to specify his arrangements for preventing disorder or providing medical aid during the event. Moreover, the applicant had intended to hold a twenty-four-hour picket in breach of the PEA's ban on public events between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The court concluded that the applicant breached the procedure for the organisation of his public event. 12. The applicant appealed to the Naberezhniye Chelny Town Court. By a decision of 7 May 2008 the Town Court upheld the judgment of the justice of the peace. 13. In separate proceedings, on 7 May 2008 the justice of the peace of the 1st Court Circuit of Naberezhniye Chelny found the applicant guilty under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO. The justice of the peace found it established, on the basis of testimony of two eyewitnesses and police officers, that at 8 p.m. on 22 April 2008 the applicant being aware of the administrative offence proceedings pending against him under Article 20.2 of the CAO, had nevertheless disobeyed the lawful police order to stop the picket being held in breach of the PEA. The court sentenced him to seven days of administrative detention. The applicant's detention from 9 p.m. on 22 April to 3.35 p.m. on 24 April 2008 counted towards his sentence of administrative detention. 14. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Naberezhniye Chelny Town Court. On 8 May 2008 the Town Court upheld the judgment in a summary manner. 15. On 3 June 2008 the applicant lodged a supervisory-review appeal against the judgment of 7 May 2008. On 8 July 2008 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic dismissed it, fully endorsing the findings of the lower courts.

Ruled as violated by court

While public organization protocols serve meaningful democratic interests, the applicant's early compliance and lack of engagement with the public make it seem clear this was a personal expression.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Katowice. 6. The applicant is a former activist of an anti-communist opposition group, who was interned in 1982. 7. He observed the trial against three high-ranking members of the communist-era Military Council of National Salvation who had ordered the imposition of martial law in Poland in December 1981. 8. The trial in question, which lasted from 2007 until 2015, attracted a lot of public attention in Poland. 9. On 12 January 2012 the main defendant, General C.K. was convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. This penalty was reduced by half under the Amnesty Act and its execution was suspended for five years in view of the defendant's old age and poor health. Another defendant was acquitted and another had her case discontinued. On 15 June 2015 the appellate court upheld the first-instance judgment. 10. The applicant was in the courtroom when on 12 January 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) was to deliver its judgment in the case described above. 11. At 1.30 p.m., after the judges had arrived in the courtroom, the applicant jumped behind the judge's table and shouted: "This is a mockery of justice!" (Tutaj trwa kpina z wymiaru sprawiedliwości). 12. The judges left the courtroom. 13. Some other members of the audience shouted "Disgrace!" and "Court before the court!" (Hańba and Sąd pod sąd). They were all holding up photos of victims of the communist regime. 14. The applicant was forcibly removed from the courtroom. 15. Shortly afterwards, he returned and continued shouting out similar statements joint by other members of the audience. In view of the audience's refusal to leave the courtroom, the judge who was presiding over the trial decided to announce the judgment from a different room. 16. At 3 p.m. the trial was resumed in a new room, with the public comprising only journalists. Here, in the applicant's absence, the Warsaw Regional Court imposed on him a disciplinary custodial penalty of fourteen days for contempt of court ("for the breach of the solemn nature, serenity and the course of court proceedings, to the degree making the announcement of the judgment impossible"). 17. On 12 January 2012 a written decision, in the form of an extract from the court minutes as described in the preceding paragraph, was issued to that effect. 18. The applicant submitted that he had not been served with that decision or informed of it. 19. On the day of the trial in question, that is 12 January 2012, a warrant was issued ordering the applicant's placement in a penal facility with a view to his serving the penalty. On 13 January 2012 a warrant to this effect was sent to Katowice police station together with a copy of the court's decision imposing the disciplinary punishment. 20. On 19 January 2012 the applicant was served with a warrant and then arrested so that he could be committed to Warsaw Remand Centre to serve the penalty in a closed regime. 21. On 22 January 2012 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision imposing the custodial penalty. He argued that his one-minute statement had not disturbed the court to such an extent as to make it impossible to announce the judgment. He also submitted that if the presiding judge had told him to return to his seat, he would have complied. Since only a copy of the first page of the applicant's appeal has been submitted to the Court, it is unclear whether the applicant had also raised the argument of the lack of impartiality of the judges who had punished him for contempt of court. 22. On 30 January 2012 this appeal was registered with the Registry of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). 23. On 31 January 2012 the applicant's appeal was transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court for comment. 24. On 1 February 2012 the appeal together with the Regional Court's comments was received by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. The appellate hearing was scheduled for 23 February 2012. 25. On 2 February 2012 – the fourteenth day of the applicant's detention – the Prison Board of the Warsaw Remand Centre decided that the applicant should be detained under a semi-open regime (with the possibility to leave his cell during the day). 26. Following that decision, the applicant was transferred for several hours to a remand centre with a semi-open regime. 27. He was released later that day. 28. On an unspecified date, the appellate hearing was rescheduled because of the judge's illness for 22 March 2012. 29. On 22 March 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's interlocutory appeal, finding that the applicant's disrespectful behaviour had interfered with the solemn nature of court proceedings and with the court's dignity, and had disrupted the proceedings. His action had provoked the audience to shout similar slogans. It had been premeditated as the applicant had known that the announcement of the judgment had been scheduled for live media broadcast. The court also considered that the applicant's behaviour could not be explained by an emotional disagreement with the court's ruling because at the time of the incident the applicant had been unaware of the outcome of the trial. The applicant had wished to disturb the order of the proceedings irrespective of their result. In the domestic court's view, imposing a more lenient penalty would have sanctioned unaccountability and would have lacked a deterrent effect.

Ruled as violated by court

11. At 1.30 p.m., after the judges had arrived in the courtroom, the applicant jumped behind the judge's table and shouted: "This is a mockery of justice!" (Tutaj trwa kpina z wymiaru sprawiedliwości). 17. On 12 January 2012 a written decision, in the form of an extract from the court minutes as described in the preceding paragraph, was issued to that effect.

The applicant has a right to free expression as displayed in their reaction to the court case. However, there is also a meaningful democratic interest in maintaining the judiciary.

Article 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

5. The first applicant (Mr Ryklin) was born in 1958. The second applicant (Mr Sharov) was born in 1956. Both applicants are human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners. They both live in Moscow. 6. On 21 April 2015 the applicants, with three others, sent written notification to the Moscow Mayor's office of their intention to hold a demonstration with some 15,000 participants from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on 6 May 2015 in Bolotnaya Square. After the expiry of the statutory period for the authority's reply, on 28 April 2015 the applicants wrote a letter to the Mayor's office stating that they considered the event of 6 May 2015 to have been approved by the Mayor. 7. On 27 April 2015 the Regional Security and Anti-Corruption Department of Moscow telephoned the applicants and suggested that the event be held on Marshal Vasilevskiy Street. On 30 April 2015 the Department repeated this proposal in a letter. The event organisers were also warned that if they rejected this proposal they would not be allowed to hold a public event at all. 8. According to the applicants, they informed all possible participants in the demonstration about its cancellation by way of posting information on the internet and via various mass-media outlets. 9. At around 7.05 p.m. both the applicants arrived in Bolotnaya Square, where they saw a gathering of some fifty people standing quietly, without any banners. According to the applicants, each positioned himself at a distance from other people with a political banner. The applicants considered that each of them was staging a solo demonstration which did not require prior notification of the authorities. A few minutes later the applicants were arrested and taken to a police van. 10. According to the Government, on 6 May 2015 the applicants, acting in a group of fifty people, organised and held a public assembly without prior notification being given to the authorities. The applicants called upon others to shout the slogans "Freedom to political prisoners", "Death to fascists" and others; the second applicant held a banner stating that all "Bolotnaya participants" were innocent. The applicants did not respond to the multiple demands by the police that they cease their actions, and at 7.35 p.m. they were taken to the Yakimanka district police station. 11. According to the records of transfer to the police station (протоколы доставления) and the administrative arrest records, the first applicant was brought to the police station at 7.40 p.m. on 6 May 2015 and placed under administrative arrest at the same time. The second applicant was brought to the police station at 7.25 p.m. and placed under administrative arrest at 7.40 p.m. The records of the transfer contained an indication that both applicants were taken to the police station for an administrative offence record to be drawn up. 12. According to the Government, the term of the applicants' retention in the police station was extended to forty-eight hours. On 6 May 2015 at 10.15 p.m. the first applicant was transported to the police station in Zamoskvorechye District of Moscow. On 7 May 2015 at 4 p.m. he was taken to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow. The second applicant was taken to that same court on 7 May 2015 at 4.10 p.m. 13. At the police stations both applicants were accused of organising and holding a group public event without notifying the authorities in advance, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter "the CAO"). In particular, they called upon others to shout political slogans; the second applicant had a banner. 14. On 7 May 2015 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court convicted the first applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to ten days' detention. The court found that the first applicant, with the second applicant, had organised and held a group public event in the form of a "meeting" with about fifty participants, without notifying the authorities in advance. It dismissed the applicant's argument that he had staged a solo demonstration, after considering it as a line of defence. The court also refused to admit in evidence a video recording of the events in Bolotnaya Square, because it was "undated and did not contain the entire chronology of events preceding [the applicant's] arrest". 15. On the same day the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court heard the case against the second applicant. The court reiterated the description of the administrative offence imputed to the first applicant, found the second applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, and sentenced him to ten days' detention. The court dismissed the evidence of two eyewitnesses who stated that the second applicant had been standing alone on the bridge with a banner. It also refused to admit in evidence video recordings and photographs showing the second applicant, because neither of them contained "information about the address". 16. Both the applicants appealed, insisting that they had staged solo demonstrations. On 13 May 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgments. Referring to the statutory definition of a "meeting" (the presence of people in a specific place in order to publicly express their opinions, essentially on social and political issues), the appellate court considered that some fifty people had been present in Bolotnaya Square, including the applicants, who had called on others to shout political slogans.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicants have rights to free expression. Still, public organization protocols serve meaningful democratic interests, which the applicants appear to have flouted by demonstrating despite the notice of cancellation.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

4. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Mersin. 5. The applicant is a teacher in primary school and at the material time she was a member and secretary of the local branch of the trade union of Education and Science Workers (Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası). 6. On 28 November 2008 the applicant participated in a demonstration organised by the above mentioned trade union on the theme "No to violence against women". 7. On 29 June 2009 the District Directorate of National Education imposed a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand on the applicant for her participation in the aforementioned demonstration under Article 125 of the Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. 8. On 10 July 2009 the applicant objected to this decision and requested its annulment. 9. On 29 July 2009 the Disciplinary Board of the Yenişehir district governor dismissed the applicant's objection considering that the contested decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a clear right to assemble with a union.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Antalya. 5. The applicant is a teacher in a high school. At the material time he was a member of the local branch of the trade union of Education and Science Workers (Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası). 6. In May 2009, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant for putting up a notice encouraging the participation in a press statement published by his Union on the notice board that was set aside for that particular purpose in their office, and for distributing it in one of the common areas at school. 7. On 30 September 2009 the District Directorate of National Education imposed a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand on him, for putting up and distributing notices produced by the trade union, of which he was a member, under Article 125 of the Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. 8. On 6 October 2009 the applicant objected to this decision and requested its annulment. 9. On 15 October 2009 the Disciplinary Board of the Kepez district governor dismissed the applicant's objection considering that the contested decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a clear right to assemble with a union.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

4. The applicants were born in 1961 and 1967 respectively and live in Mersin and Diyarbakır. 5. The applicants were civil servants for tax offices attached to the Ministry of Finance in Mersin and Diyarbakır. At the material time they were members of the local branch of the trade union Büro Emekçileri, which is affiliated to Trades Union Confederation of Public Employees (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu-"KESK"). 6. In March and April 2009, the applicants were informed of the disciplinary investigations that were initiated against them for having participated in a statement to the press organised by the trade union of which they were members and were invited to send their defence submissions. 7. Subsequently, the disciplinary sanctions of warning and reprimand were imposed on the applicants for their participation in the aforementioned trade union activities under Section 125 of the Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. 8. The applicants objected to these decisions and requested their annulment. 9. In May 2009 the Disciplinary Board of the tax offices dismissed the applicants' objections considering that the contested decisions were in accordance with law and there were no grounds for annulment.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicants have a clear right to assemble with a union.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

4. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Erzincan. 5. The applicant was a civil servant in the Erzincan Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry, and at the time of the events he was a member of the local branch of a trade union affiliated to KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Public Employees' Trade Unions). 6. On 27 November 2004 and 12 December 2004 respectively, the applicant participated in a press statement and a demonstration organised by his trade union. 7. Subsequently, a disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant for his participation in the above mentioned trade union activities. 8. On 31 August 2005 a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reduction in salary was imposed on the applicant for having participated in trade union activities. 9. On 27 October 2005 the applicant filed a petition with the Sivas Administrative Court and requested the annulment of the disciplinary sanction that had been imposed on him. 10. On 18 May 2006 the Sivas Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request, considering that the administrative decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment. 11. On 20 October 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Sivas Administrative Court.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a clear right to assemble with a union.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

5. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul. 6. At the material time, the applicant was a civil servant in the Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul and a member of the local branch of the Tümbel-Sen trade union, which is affiliated to the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – the Confederation of Public Employees' Trade Unions). 7. In April 2008 two of the largest trade unions, namely the DİSK (Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Revolutionary Workers' Trade Unions) and the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Public Employees' Trade Unions) announced that they were planning a large scale demonstration in Istanbul for 1 May 2008 and that their members would be gathering to celebrate the Labour Day and to commemorate their friends who had lost their lives during the demonstrations of 1 May 1977. 8. In May 2008 the applicant was informed that a disciplinary investigation had been initiated against him for being absent without leave on 1 May 2008 and he was asked to submit his defence submissions. The applicant explained that he had participated in a demonstration organised by his trade union on that day to celebrate International Labour Day. 9. Subsequently, the applicant was given a warning as a disciplinary sanction owing to his being absent without leave on 1 May 2008 pursuant to section 125 of the Civil Servants Act (Law no. 657). 10. On 13 May 2008 the applicant objected to the decision and requested its annulment. 11. On 16 May 2008 the Disciplinary Board of the Istanbul Municipality dismissed the applicant's objection, finding that the contested decision was in accordance with the law and that there were no grounds to annul it.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a clear right to assemble with a union. Being absent without leave does not rise to the level necessary for democratic interest intervention.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

5. The applicants, who are husband and wife, were born in 1970 and live in Chișinău. 6. On 29 January 2008 the applicants were involved in a peaceful street protest as a result of which they were arrested and detained for six hours and forty‑five minutes. On 18 December 2008 the first applicant was again involved in a peaceful street protest, as a result of which he was arrested and detained for approximately four hours and a half. Later both applicants were acquitted and the actions of the police were found to be unlawful. The facts concerning those protests were described in detail in Mătăsaru and Saviţchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, §§ 6-58, 2 November 2010. 7. On 29 January 2009 the first applicant organised again a street protest and was arrested again and detained for some six hours. Later the applicant was acquitted and the actions of the police were found to be unlawful. 8. On 2 November 2010 the Court adopted a judgment in the case of Mătăsaru and Saviţchi (cited above), in which it declared inadmissible the applicants' complaints concerning the alleged breaches of their rights guaranteed by Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention on the ground of their failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see Mătăsaru and Saviţchi (cited above, § 75). 9. After that, the applicants brought a civil action under Law 1545 (on compensation for damage caused by illegal acts of the criminal investigation bodies, the prosecution authorities or the courts) seeking compensation in respect of the breach of their rights guaranteed by Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention in regard to all three street protests of 2008 and 2009. 10. By a final judgment of 6 February 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice acknowledged the breach of the applicnts' rights guaranteed by Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention and awarded them the equivalent of 900 and 270 euros (EUR), respectively.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicants have a clear right to assemble with a union. Both protests were peaceful, not rising to the level of threatening democratic interests.

edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

5. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Adana. 6. On 16 February 2006 a gathering was held in Adana on the anniversary of the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), an illegal armed organisation. The protesters gathered in front of the building of the Adana branch of the Democratic Society Party (Demokratik Toplum Partisi) (DTP), where a press statement was read out. Being a member of the DTP, the applicant participated in the gathering. 7. Subsequently, clashes occurred between police officers and some demonstrators who were attempting to block the traffic. According to police reports, two police officers were injured as a result of objects thrown from the DTP building. The police then entered the DTP building and arrested 223 people, including the applicant. The next day, the applicant was detained on remand. 8. On 10 March 2006 the Adana public prosecutor charged the applicant and sixteen other people with membership of the PKK under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor alleged that the accused had participated in the public gathering in question in response to calls made by the PKK and had resisted the police officers, and that they had therefore acted on behalf of the PKK. 9. On 5 May 2006 the applicant was released pending trial. 10. On 10 September 2008 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The assize court did not find it established that the applicant had attended the reading out of the press statement in response to calls made by the PKK or that she had injured any police officers. It therefore concluded that the applicant could not be convicted of membership of the PKK or resistance to the police. The court nonetheless considered that on 16 February 2006 the applicant had gone to the DTP building with a view to disseminating propaganda in support of the PKK and that she should therefore be convicted under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The applicant was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment. 11. Taking into account the applicant's good behaviour during the trial and the absence of any previous criminal record, the court suspended the pronouncement of her conviction on condition that she did not commit another intentional offence for a period of five years, under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması). 12. On 20 November 2008 the court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant against the above-mentioned decision. The final decision was served on the applicant on 9 January 2009.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant has a right to assemble with the party, but one could argue, as the prosecutor does, that this protest interferes with democratic interests in national security and preventing disorder.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

5. The United Civil Aviation Trade Union ("the first applicant") is a trade union registered in Budapest. Mr A. Csorba ("the second applicant") is a Hungarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Vecsés. He is the President of the United Civil Aviation Trade Union. 6. On 12 October 2012 the second applicant applied to the Budapest police department for authorisation to hold a demonstration on the road leading to Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport. He stated that the demonstration would be held on the hard shoulder of the road, which was not ordinarily used for traffic. The declared objectives of the demonstration were, inter alia, to draw the public's attention to the precarious financial situation in which the employees of the airport would find themselves if salary cuts envisaged by the company managing the airport were carried out. The event was scheduled to be held between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 17 October 2012. The second applicant also specified that it was expected that about fifty to 100 persons would participate in the event and that it was intended that speeches would be given and that an open letter would be read out. 7. On 14 October 2012 the Budapest police department registered the application and informed the second applicant that, in order to clarify details regarding the programme of the demonstration and the number of police officers that would be required to secure the event, it was necessary to schedule a meeting with the organisers. 8. The second applicant and the Vice-President of the United Civil Aviation Trade Union met with the representatives of the Monor police department on the same day. The representative of the police department suggested that the demonstration be held at another location, since the planned venue would endanger traffic. The second applicant assured the police that the demonstrators would respect traffic rules, would only occupy the part of the road not used for traffic and would distribute flyers to car passengers, and that the organisers would call off or halt the demonstration if it was not in compliance with the relevant legal provisions. 9. On 14 October 2012 the Monor police department forbade the demonstration. It was of the view that the planned demonstration would endanger traffic and would render the airport inaccessible, infringing passengers' right to leave the country. In any event, the demonstration would breach the traffic code, since those parts of the road not used for traffic were not supposed to be accessed by pedestrians or be used for parking. 10. On 17 October 2012 the applicants requested judicial review of the decision, relying on their right to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. They argued that a demonstration could only be forbidden on the grounds of a need to ensure traffic safety if there were no alternative means of access to the airport. In their view the demonstration would not constitute any greater hindrance to traffic than would roadworks. 11. By a decision of 19 October 2012 the Budapest Surroundings High Court (Budapest Környéki Törvényszék) dismissed their complaint, endorsing in essence the police department's reasoning (see paragraph 9 above).

Ruled as violated by court

6. On 12 October 2012 the second applicant applied to the Budapest police department for authorisation to hold a demonstration on the road leading to Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport. He stated that the demonstration would be held on the hard shoulder of the road, which was not ordinarily used for traffic. The declared objectives of the demonstration were, inter alia, to draw the public's attention to the precarious financial situation in which the employees of the airport would find themselves if salary cuts envisaged by the company managing the airport were carried out. The event was scheduled to be held between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 17 October 2012. The second applicant also specified that it was expected that about fifty to 100 persons would participate in the event and that it was intended that speeches would be given and that an open letter would be read out. 8. The second applicant and the Vice-President of the United Civil Aviation Trade Union met with the representatives of the Monor police department on the same day. The representative of the police department suggested that the demonstration be held at another location, since the planned venue would endanger traffic. The second applicant assured the police that the demonstrators would respect traffic rules, would only occupy the part of the road not used for traffic and would distribute flyers to car passengers, and that the organisers would call off or halt the demonstration if it was not in compliance with the relevant legal provisions. 9. On 14 October 2012 the Monor police department forbade the demonstration. It was of the view that the planned demonstration would endanger traffic and would render the airport inaccessible, infringing passengers' right to leave the country. In any event, the demonstration would breach the traffic code, since those parts of the road not used for traffic were not supposed to be accessed by pedestrians or be used for parking. 11. By a decision of 19 October 2012 the Budapest Surroundings High Court (Budapest Környéki Törvényszék) dismissed their complaint, endorsing in essence the police department's reasoning (see paragraph 9 above).

While one, like the police department, could argue that the applicant interfered with democratic interests of public order and safety through impeding traffic, the applicants' arguments make it seem clear this would be possible as a peaceful, non-interfering protest.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

5. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Zheleznodorozhnyy, Moscow Region. 6. The applicant was a locomotive driver with Russian Railways in the Moscow Region. He was a member of one of the railway workers' trade unions, Rosprofzhel ("the trade union"). 7. On 7 April 2008 the trade union entered into negotiations with Russian Railways, seeking a general pay raise and the introduction of long‑service bonuses for the relevant staff. As the negotiations failed, the trade union decided to organise a strike. On 25 April 2008 the trade union committee decided that the staff of Russian Railways in two suburban Moscow sectors should participate in the strike as from 4 a.m. on 28 April 2008. The trade union committee's decision referred to minimum services which would be provided during the strike, although the parties have not made any submissions in this regard. 8. Russian Railways did not apply to the courts for the strike to be declared unlawful. On 28 April 2008 the applicant took part in the strike. He came to work but refused to take up his duties. The strike caused delays in circulation of the trains in the sector where the applicant worked. 9. On 9 July 2008 the applicant was dismissed for two breaches of disciplinary rules. The first breach ascribed to him had had no relation to his trade union activities. (A year previously, on 8 June 2007, the applicant had been officially reprimanded for having stopped the train 50 metres after the platform). The second breach was the applicant's refusal to take up his duties during the strike on 28 April 2008. 10. The applicant complained to a court that he should not have been dismissed for having participated in the strike organised by his trade union. 11. On 19 August 2008 the case was heard by the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow ("the District Court"). The court confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant's dismissal for a repeated failure to properly perform his professional duties. Regarding the applicant's participation in the strike, the court relied on the Railway Acts of 1995 and 2003 (Articles 17 and 26 (2) respectively – see paragraphs 15 and 17 below). The Acts prohibited strikes of railway workers responsible, inter alia, for the circulation of trains, shunting, and services to passengers. The court stressed that those limitations were aimed at securing safety on the railway and that railway workers were subjected to stricter disciplinary rules than workers in other sectors of industry. The applicant was a locomotive driver; therefore, his work was directly linked to the circulation of trains, shunting, and the provision of services to passengers. The District Court concluded that the applicant had been precluded from participating in the strike. Relying on a report dated 29 April 2008 issued by the Moscow Interregional Transport Prosecutor's Office, the District Court furthermore noted that the strike had caused a number of cancelled and delayed trains which had resulted in "massive violations of the rights and lawful interests of citizens, leading to their belated arrival at their workplaces and educational institutions, at medical facilities providing health care, [and] for long-distance trains, bus runs and flights". The strike had also "contributed to the mass gathering of people on railway platforms, which [had] directly threatened their safety". Given the above and the applicant's earlier transgression, his dismissal had been justified. The District Court did not discuss the question of whether advance notice of the strike had been given or other issues related to the lawfulness of the strike of 28 April 2008. 12. On 29 January 2009, following an appeal by the applicant, the Moscow City Court confirmed the judgment of 19 August 2008.

Ruled as violated by court

11. On 19 August 2008 the case was heard by the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow ("the District Court"). The court confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant's dismissal for a repeated failure to properly perform his professional duties. Regarding the applicant's participation in the strike, the court relied on the Railway Acts of 1995 and 2003 (Articles 17 and 26 (2) respectively – see paragraphs 15 and 17 below). The Acts prohibited strikes of railway workers responsible, inter alia, for the circulation of trains, shunting, and services to passengers. The court stressed that those limitations were aimed at securing safety on the railway and that railway workers were subjected to stricter disciplinary rules than workers in other sectors of industry. The applicant was a locomotive driver; therefore, his work was directly linked to the circulation of trains, shunting, and the provision of services to passengers. The District Court concluded that the applicant had been precluded from participating in the strike. Relying on a report dated 29 April 2008 issued by the Moscow Interregional Transport Prosecutor's Office, the District Court furthermore noted that the strike had caused a number of cancelled and delayed trains which had resulted in "massive violations of the rights and lawful interests of citizens, leading to their belated arrival at their workplaces and educational institutions, at medical facilities providing health care, [and] for long-distance trains, bus runs and flights". The strike had also "contributed to the mass gathering of people on railway platforms, which [had] directly threatened their safety". Given the above and the applicant's earlier transgression, his dismissal had been justified. The District Court did not discuss the question of whether advance notice of the strike had been given or other issues related to the lawfulness of the strike of 28 April 2008. 12. On 29 January 2009, following an appeal by the applicant, the Moscow City Court confirmed the judgment of 19 August 2008.

The applicant has a clear right to assemble with a union. At the same time, one, like the district court, could argue that the lack of work as a locomotive driver endangered public safety.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

4. The applicants were born in 1984 and 1979 respectively and live in Moscow. 5. On 14 December 2012 the State Duma adopted at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited adoption of children of Russian nationality by US citizens. 6. On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading was scheduled for 19 December 2012. 7. According to the applicants, they read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo "pickets" (одиночные пикеты) on 19 December 2012 in front of the State Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo "pickets" was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory three‑day notification period for other types of (group) events. 8. The applicants decided to hold their own solo "pickets" and at around 9 a.m. positioned themselves, holding banners, in the vicinity of the State Duma at some distance from other protesters (see also Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 206-15, 7 February 2017). 9. According to the applicants, they were arrested by the police several minutes later and brought to a police station. At 10.30 a.m. the police drew up a record of the administrative escorting (протокол административного доставления) in respect of each applicant. A record of administrative arrest (протокол административного задержания), drawn up at the same time, stated that the applicants had arrived at the police station at 10.30 a.m. The first applicant, Mr Tsukanov, made a handwritten note on his arrest record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.20 a.m. The second applicant, Mr Torchinskiy, made a handwritten note on his escorting record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.30 a.m. 10. At the police station both applicants were accused of organising and holding a group public event without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter, "CAO"). The administrative offence records indicate that the offences were committed at 10 a.m. The first applicant made a handwritten note that he came to the event venue at 9 a.m. and was arrested at 9.20 a.m. 11. The first applicant was released at 1.20 p.m. The second applicant was released at 1.10 p.m. 12. On 15 January 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the second applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB), (about 495 euros (EUR) at the time). The justice of the peace found it established, on the basis of the records and testimony of police officers, that the applicant had taken part in a "picket" involving fifty people. That "picket" was unlawful because no notification had been submitted by the organisers as required by the Public Events Act (hereinafter "PEA"). The applicant had waved a banner, thereby attracting the attention of passers-by and journalists assembled for the occasion. He had not complied with the police order to stop picketing. 13. On 6 February 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the first applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000 (about EUR 495 at the time), with the reasoning identical to that in the judgment of 15 January 2013. The justice of the peace also relied on police reports and testimony of a police officer who had apprehended the first applicant at the venue of the public event. 14. Both applicants appealed, insisting that each of them had held a solo demonstration which did not require prior notification of the authorities. The first applicant also pointed out that he had been arrested earlier than indicated in the arrest record. 15. On 13 February and 11 March 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgments concerning the second and the first applicant respectively. 16. The second applicant applied for review of the court decisions under Article 30.12 of the CAO. On 28 June 2013 the Deputy President of the Moscow City Court partly allowed his complaint and changed the classification of the administrative charge against him. The second applicant was found guilty of the breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events committed by a participant, an offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. His fine was reduced to RUB 10,000 (about EUR 233 at the time).

Ruled as violated by court

5. On 14 December 2012 the State Duma adopted at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited adoption of children of Russian nationality by US citizens. 6. On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading was scheduled for 19 December 2012. 7. According to the applicants, they read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo "pickets" (одиночные пикеты) on 19 December 2012 in front of the State Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo "pickets" was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory three‑day notification period for other types of (group) events. 9. According to the applicants, they were arrested by the police several minutes later and brought to a police station. At 10.30 a.m. the police drew up a record of the administrative escorting (протокол административного доставления) in respect of each applicant. A record of administrative arrest (протокол административного задержания), drawn up at the same time, stated that the applicants had arrived at the police station at 10.30 a.m. The first applicant, Mr Tsukanov, made a handwritten note on his arrest record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.20 a.m. The second applicant, Mr Torchinskiy, made a handwritten note on his escorting record that he had been actually apprehended at 9.30 a.m. 10. At the police station both applicants were accused of organising and holding a group public event without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter, "CAO"). The administrative offence records indicate that the offences were committed at 10 a.m. The first applicant made a handwritten note that he came to the event venue at 9 a.m. and was arrested at 9.20 a.m. 12. On 15 January 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the second applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB), (about 495 euros (EUR) at the time). The justice of the peace found it established, on the basis of the records and testimony of police officers, that the applicant had taken part in a "picket" involving fifty people. That "picket" was unlawful because no notification had been submitted by the organisers as required by the Public Events Act (hereinafter "PEA"). The applicant had waved a banner, thereby attracting the attention of passers-by and journalists assembled for the occasion. He had not complied with the police order to stop picketing. 13. On 6 February 2013 the justice of the peace of the 369th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the first applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000 (about EUR 495 at the time), with the reasoning identical to that in the judgment of 15 January 2013. The justice of the peace also relied on police reports and testimony of a police officer who had apprehended the first applicant at the venue of the public event. 16. The second applicant applied for review of the court decisions under Article 30.12 of the CAO. On 28 June 2013 the Deputy President of the Moscow City Court partly allowed his complaint and changed the classification of the administrative charge against him. The second applicant was found guilty of the breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events committed by a participant, an offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. His fine was reduced to RUB 10,000 (about EUR 233 at the time).

While public organization protocols serve meaningful democratic interests, the applicants have a clear right to assemble peacefully.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

5. The first applicant (Mr Ryklin) was born in 1958. The second applicant (Mr Sharov) was born in 1956. Both applicants are human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners. They both live in Moscow. 6. On 21 April 2015 the applicants, with three others, sent written notification to the Moscow Mayor's office of their intention to hold a demonstration with some 15,000 participants from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on 6 May 2015 in Bolotnaya Square. After the expiry of the statutory period for the authority's reply, on 28 April 2015 the applicants wrote a letter to the Mayor's office stating that they considered the event of 6 May 2015 to have been approved by the Mayor. 7. On 27 April 2015 the Regional Security and Anti-Corruption Department of Moscow telephoned the applicants and suggested that the event be held on Marshal Vasilevskiy Street. On 30 April 2015 the Department repeated this proposal in a letter. The event organisers were also warned that if they rejected this proposal they would not be allowed to hold a public event at all. 8. According to the applicants, they informed all possible participants in the demonstration about its cancellation by way of posting information on the internet and via various mass-media outlets. 9. At around 7.05 p.m. both the applicants arrived in Bolotnaya Square, where they saw a gathering of some fifty people standing quietly, without any banners. According to the applicants, each positioned himself at a distance from other people with a political banner. The applicants considered that each of them was staging a solo demonstration which did not require prior notification of the authorities. A few minutes later the applicants were arrested and taken to a police van. 10. According to the Government, on 6 May 2015 the applicants, acting in a group of fifty people, organised and held a public assembly without prior notification being given to the authorities. The applicants called upon others to shout the slogans "Freedom to political prisoners", "Death to fascists" and others; the second applicant held a banner stating that all "Bolotnaya participants" were innocent. The applicants did not respond to the multiple demands by the police that they cease their actions, and at 7.35 p.m. they were taken to the Yakimanka district police station. 11. According to the records of transfer to the police station (протоколы доставления) and the administrative arrest records, the first applicant was brought to the police station at 7.40 p.m. on 6 May 2015 and placed under administrative arrest at the same time. The second applicant was brought to the police station at 7.25 p.m. and placed under administrative arrest at 7.40 p.m. The records of the transfer contained an indication that both applicants were taken to the police station for an administrative offence record to be drawn up. 12. According to the Government, the term of the applicants' retention in the police station was extended to forty-eight hours. On 6 May 2015 at 10.15 p.m. the first applicant was transported to the police station in Zamoskvorechye District of Moscow. On 7 May 2015 at 4 p.m. he was taken to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow. The second applicant was taken to that same court on 7 May 2015 at 4.10 p.m. 13. At the police stations both applicants were accused of organising and holding a group public event without notifying the authorities in advance, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter "the CAO"). In particular, they called upon others to shout political slogans; the second applicant had a banner. 14. On 7 May 2015 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court convicted the first applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to ten days' detention. The court found that the first applicant, with the second applicant, had organised and held a group public event in the form of a "meeting" with about fifty participants, without notifying the authorities in advance. It dismissed the applicant's argument that he had staged a solo demonstration, after considering it as a line of defence. The court also refused to admit in evidence a video recording of the events in Bolotnaya Square, because it was "undated and did not contain the entire chronology of events preceding [the applicant's] arrest". 15. On the same day the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court heard the case against the second applicant. The court reiterated the description of the administrative offence imputed to the first applicant, found the second applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, and sentenced him to ten days' detention. The court dismissed the evidence of two eyewitnesses who stated that the second applicant had been standing alone on the bridge with a banner. It also refused to admit in evidence video recordings and photographs showing the second applicant, because neither of them contained "information about the address". 16. Both the applicants appealed, insisting that they had staged solo demonstrations. On 13 May 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgments. Referring to the statutory definition of a "meeting" (the presence of people in a specific place in order to publicly express their opinions, essentially on social and political issues), the appellate court considered that some fifty people had been present in Bolotnaya Square, including the applicants, who had called on others to shout political slogans.

NOT ruled as violated by court

The applicants have rights to assemble peacefully. Still, public organization protocols serve meaningful democratic interests, which the applicants appear to have flouted by demonstrating despite the notice of cancellation.

Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

5. The first applicant (Ms Makarova) was born in 1989 and lived in Moscow. The second applicant (Ms Astakhova) was born in 1985 and lives in Mytishchi, Moscow Region. The third applicant (Ms Fokht‑Babushkina) was born in 1994 and lives in Moscow. 6. On 14 December 2012 the State Duma, the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia, adopted at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited the adoption of children of Russian nationality by citizens of the United States of America. 7. On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading of the draft law was scheduled for 19 December 2012. 8. According to the first applicant, she had read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo demonstrations (одиночные пикеты) on 19 December 2012 in front of the State Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo demonstrations was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory three‑day notification period for other types of (group) events. 9. All of the applicants decided to hold solo demonstrations on 19 December 2012. According to them, at around 9 a.m. they positioned themselves, holding banners, in the vicinity of the State Duma at some distance from other protesters (see also Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 206-15, 7 February 2017). 10. According to the first applicant, she was arrested by the police several minutes later and taken to a police van. There were no orders from police officers to stop the demonstration and leave the area. According to the second and third applicants, after their solo demonstrations they left the area, showing their posters to journalists at their request. At that point, they were arrested by the police and taken to the Tverskoy district police station. 11. According to the Government, at 10 a.m. on 19 December 2012 all of the applicants took part in a group "picket" (пикет) held without prior notification of the authorities. The first applicant had a poster reading "I am looking for an American who will adopt me", the second and the third applicants had posters reading "Orphans are guilty for the death of Mr Magnitskiy? Do not disgrace yourself". The applicants did not react to the lawful demands of the police to stop participating in the event and continued "picketing", attracting the attention of passers-by. At 10.30 a.m. they were arrested and taken to the Tverskoy district police station for the purpose of compiling an administrative-offence record. At 1.20 p.m. on that day the applicants were released. 12. At the police station the applicants were charged with participating in a group public event held without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter, "the CAO"). The administrative-offence record in respect of the first applicant and the police officers' reports in respect of all the applicants indicated that the offence had been committed at 10 a.m. It was also stated that they had taken part in a non-notified group public event and had refused to end it when requested to do so by the police. 13. On 15 January 2013 the justice of the peace of circuit no. 369 of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the first applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB; about 495 euros (EUR) at the time). The court found it established, on the basis of the administrative-offence record, the police officers' reports and oral testimony by a police officer who had arrested the applicant that the latter had taken part in a public event ("picket") which had involved fifty people and had been held without prior notification of the authorities. On 14 February 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant did not attend the appeal hearing, even though she had been duly summoned to it. 14. On 31 January 2013 in two separate proceedings the same justice of the peace convicted the second and the third applicants under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced each of them to fines of RUB 20,000. The court relied on the administrative offence records, the police officers' reports and oral testimony by a police officer who had arrested the applicants. On 21 February and 21 March 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgments in respect of the third and second applicants respectively. Both applicants were absent from the appeal hearings, though the third applicant's lawyer did participate. In the third applicant's case the appellate court examined some documents and interviewed a police officer in a detailed manner before affording the defence counsel an opportunity to cross-examine him; the appeal judge then asked a number of follow-up questions. In its appeal decision the appellate court considered that the third applicant's guilt had been proved by the adverse evidence, such as the administrative-offence record, the escort procedure record and testimonies. 15. On 1 and 5 July 2013 the Moscow City Court examined supervisory review complaints lodged by the second and third applicants. The court reclassified the charges against the applicants as falling under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, namely breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events committed by a participant. Their fines were reduced to RUB 10,000 (about EUR 232 at the time) each.

Ruled as violated by court

6. On 14 December 2012 the State Duma, the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia, adopted at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited the adoption of children of Russian nationality by citizens of the United States of America. 7. On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading of the draft law was scheduled for 19 December 2012. 8. According to the first applicant, she had read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo demonstrations (одиночные пикеты) on 19 December 2012 in front of the State Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo demonstrations was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory three‑day notification period for other types of (group) events. 12. At the police station the applicants were charged with participating in a group public event held without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter, "the CAO"). The administrative-offence record in respect of the first applicant and the police officers' reports in respect of all the applicants indicated that the offence had been committed at 10 a.m. It was also stated that they had taken part in a non-notified group public event and had refused to end it when requested to do so by the police. 13. On 15 January 2013 the justice of the peace of circuit no. 369 of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the first applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB; about 495 euros (EUR) at the time). The court found it established, on the basis of the administrative-offence record, the police officers' reports and oral testimony by a police officer who had arrested the applicant that the latter had taken part in a public event ("picket") which had involved fifty people and had been held without prior notification of the authorities. On 14 February 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant did not attend the appeal hearing, even though she had been duly summoned to it. 14. On 31 January 2013 in two separate proceedings the same justice of the peace convicted the second and the third applicants under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced each of them to fines of RUB 20,000. The court relied on the administrative offence records, the police officers' reports and oral testimony by a police officer who had arrested the applicants. On 21 February and 21 March 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgments in respect of the third and second applicants respectively. Both applicants were absent from the appeal hearings, though the third applicant's lawyer did participate. In the third applicant's case the appellate court examined some documents and interviewed a police officer in a detailed manner before affording the defence counsel an opportunity to cross-examine him; the appeal judge then asked a number of follow-up questions. In its appeal decision the appellate court considered that the third applicant's guilt had been proved by the adverse evidence, such as the administrative-offence record, the escort procedure record and testimonies. 15. On 1 and 5 July 2013 the Moscow City Court examined supervisory review complaints lodged by the second and third applicants. The court reclassified the charges against the applicants as falling under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, namely breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events committed by a participant. Their fines were reduced to RUB 10,000 (about EUR 232 at the time) each.

While public organization protocols serve meaningful democratic interests, the applicants have a clear right to assemble peacefully.

Article 12 Right to marry Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

5. The applicants were born in 1979 and 1983 respectively. The first applicant is serving a life sentence in Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89. The second applicant lives in Obukhiv. 6. On 24 March 2000 the applicants got married. 7. On 16 February 2001 the first applicant was found guilty of a number of criminal offences and was sentenced to life imprisonment. 8. The applicants requested that the prison administration allow them a long-term family visit on many occasions, in particular, in 2006. Their requests were rejected on the grounds that Article 151 of the Code of Execution of Sentences did not provide for long-term visits to life prisoners. 9. In April 2007 the applicants lodged an administrative claim against the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences seeking an entitlement to a long-term conjugal visit every three months. They submitted that they were willing to have a common child and that a denial of that right to them was unlawful and arbitrary. The courts, on three levels of jurisdiction, rejected that claim as not based on law. The final decision of the Higher Administrative Court was delivered on 8 December 2009. 10. According to the information provided by the Government, the first applicant was disciplined on three occasions during the period of his detention from 2001 to 2016: once in 2001 following the discovery of an unreported written message on him; once in 2003 on account of his attempt to get in touch with an inmate in an adjacent cell; and once in 2013 on account of unauthorised possession of a mobile telephone. 11. The applicants got divorced on an unspecified date. According to the Government, it happened "shortly after the introduction of the application". According to the applicants, the divorce took place on an unspecified date in 2014. 12. As indicated in the information note issued on 24 June 2016 by the administration of Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89, during his detention in that prison starting from 2003, the first applicant had had forty short-term visits and nine long-term family visits. More specifically, on 10 December 2003 and 10 June 2004 he had short-term visits from the second applicant, as well as his mother and sister. The second applicant did not pay him visits thereafter. During the period from 2004 to 2012 the first applicant had regular short-term visits from his mother, sister and some other persons. On 13 September 2012 he had a visit from his sister and a certain Ms L. who was registered in the prison's logbook as his fiancée. Since then he had regular short-term visits from Ms L. On 11 July 2014 the first applicant was allowed for the first time a long-term family visit, which was from his sister. On 5 December 2014 the first applicant got married with Ms L. and they were allowed a long-term family visit on that occasion. Subsequently, they enjoyed long-term conjugal visits about every three months.

NOT ruled as violated by court

9. In April 2007 the applicants lodged an administrative claim against the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences seeking an entitlement to a long-term conjugal visit every three months. They submitted that they were willing to have a common child and that a denial of that right to them was unlawful and arbitrary. The courts, on three levels of jurisdiction, rejected that claim as not based on law. The final decision of the Higher Administrative Court was delivered on 8 December 2009. 10. According to the information provided by the Government, the first applicant was disciplined on three occasions during the period of his detention from 2001 to 2016: once in 2001 following the discovery of an unreported written message on him; once in 2003 on account of his attempt to get in touch with an inmate in an adjacent cell; and once in 2013 on account of unauthorised possession of a mobile telephone. 11. The applicants got divorced on an unspecified date. According to the Government, it happened "shortly after the introduction of the application". According to the applicants, the divorce took place on an unspecified date in 2014. 12. As indicated in the information note issued on 24 June 2016 by the administration of Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89, during his detention in that prison starting from 2003, the first applicant had had forty short-term visits and nine long-term family visits. More specifically, on 10 December 2003 and 10 June 2004 he had short-term visits from the second applicant, as well as his mother and sister. The second applicant did not pay him visits thereafter. During the period from 2004 to 2012 the first applicant had regular short-term visits from his mother, sister and some other persons. On 13 September 2012 he had a visit from his sister and a certain Ms L. who was registered in the prison's logbook as his fiancée. Since then he had regular short-term visits from Ms L. On 11 July 2014 the first applicant was allowed for the first time a long-term family visit, which was from his sister. On 5 December 2014 the first applicant got married with Ms L. and they were allowed a long-term family visit on that occasion. Subsequently, they enjoyed long-term conjugal visits about every three months.

The right to get married is not relevant to prison visitation rights.

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants sued different State and municipal unitary companies (the debtor companies) in several unrelated sets of court proceedings. 5. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts by separate judgments made pecuniary awards in favour of the applicants to be paid by the debtor companies. In application no. 34145/11 the courts also ordered the debtor company to take certain action in favour of the applicant, as specified in the appended table. 6. The companies were incorporated as State or municipal unitary enterprises. They provided services specified in the appended table. 7. On various dates insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of some of the debtor companies. The companies were subsequently liquidated. The dates on which the insolvency proceedings started and ended are tabulated below. The applicants' rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

With the liquidation of debtor companies, applicants were denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Mersin. 5. The applicant is a teacher in primary school and at the material time she was a member and secretary of the local branch of the trade union of Education and Science Workers (Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası). 6. On 28 November 2008 the applicant participated in a demonstration organised by the above mentioned trade union on the theme "No to violence against women". 7. On 29 June 2009 the District Directorate of National Education imposed a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand on the applicant for her participation in the aforementioned demonstration under Article 125 of the Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. 8. On 10 July 2009 the applicant objected to this decision and requested its annulment. 9. On 29 July 2009 the Disciplinary Board of the Yenişehir district governor dismissed the applicant's objection considering that the contested decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

With the dismissal of the objection, the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicants were born in 1961 and 1967 respectively and live in Mersin and Diyarbakır. 5. The applicants were civil servants for tax offices attached to the Ministry of Finance in Mersin and Diyarbakır. At the material time they were members of the local branch of the trade union Büro Emekçileri, which is affiliated to Trades Union Confederation of Public Employees (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu-"KESK"). 6. In March and April 2009, the applicants were informed of the disciplinary investigations that were initiated against them for having participated in a statement to the press organised by the trade union of which they were members and were invited to send their defence submissions. 7. Subsequently, the disciplinary sanctions of warning and reprimand were imposed on the applicants for their participation in the aforementioned trade union activities under Section 125 of the Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. 8. The applicants objected to these decisions and requested their annulment. 9. In May 2009 the Disciplinary Board of the tax offices dismissed the applicants' objections considering that the contested decisions were in accordance with law and there were no grounds for annulment. The applicants' rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

With the dismissal of the objection, applicants were denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

6. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Corjova. 7. He had his car registered with the authorities of the Republic of Moldova and had Moldovan registration plates installed on it. 8. On 16 December 2006 a customs officer of the self-proclaimed "Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria" ("MRT") stopped the applicant at a check‑point and seized his car on the ground that upon entry on the territory of Transdniestria he had failed to stop at the border. He was later obliged to pay a fine of 58 United States dollars in order to recover the car. 9. On 19 December 2006 the applicant's driving licence was seized on the ground that he had failed to comply with traffic rules. His car was also seized, on the ground of his failure to comply with customs regulations, but the seizure report was destroyed and he was able to recover his car five hours later after the intervention of a group of Russian peacekeepers. His driving licence was not returned and he was issued a temporary driving licence. 10. According to the applicant, he complained to the authorities of Moldova, but they informed him that there was nothing they could help him with. The Moldovan Government disputed the fact that the applicant had informed them about the circumstances of the present case. 11. Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova, and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, 23 February 2016). The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

With the authorities informing him there was nothing they could do, the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul. 6. At the material time, the applicant was a civil servant in the Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul and a member of the local branch of the Tümbel-Sen trade union, which is affiliated to the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – the Confederation of Public Employees' Trade Unions). 7. In April 2008 two of the largest trade unions, namely the DİSK (Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Revolutionary Workers' Trade Unions) and the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Public Employees' Trade Unions) announced that they were planning a large scale demonstration in Istanbul for 1 May 2008 and that their members would be gathering to celebrate the Labour Day and to commemorate their friends who had lost their lives during the demonstrations of 1 May 1977. 8. In May 2008 the applicant was informed that a disciplinary investigation had been initiated against him for being absent without leave on 1 May 2008 and he was asked to submit his defence submissions. The applicant explained that he had participated in a demonstration organised by his trade union on that day to celebrate International Labour Day. 9. Subsequently, the applicant was given a warning as a disciplinary sanction owing to his being absent without leave on 1 May 2008 pursuant to section 125 of the Civil Servants Act (Law no. 657). 10. On 13 May 2008 the applicant objected to the decision and requested its annulment. 11. On 16 May 2008 the Disciplinary Board of the Istanbul Municipality dismissed the applicant's objection, finding that the contested decision was in accordance with the law and that there were no grounds to annul it. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

With the dismissal of the objection, the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Varna. 6. The applicant and his wife divorced on 21 August 2006 pursuant to a court-approved agreement between the two of them. Under the terms of this agreement, the applicant undertook to pay child support to the two children born during the marriage and agreed to his wife's keeping his family name after the divorce. 7. Subsequently, the applicant learned that his former wife had conceived their second child, born in 2003, as a result of a relationship with another man during her marriage to the applicant. The applicant underwent a DNA test to determine whether he was the father of the younger child. The DNA test ‒ the result of which the applicant received on 15 January 2007 ‒ established that he was not the biological father of the second child. The results of this DNA test were never considered by a court. 8. Shortly thereafter, in February 2007, the applicant brought a civil claim in court, seeking to contest his paternity of the child in question. On 1 March 2007 the Varna Regional Court dismissed his request, finding that it was time-barred due to the expiry – in 2004 – of the year-long limitation period counting from the child's birth or from learning thereof (see the section "Relevant domestic law and practice" below"). This finding was confirmed by two higher judicial instances, the final decision being pronounced by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 19 September 2007. 9. The applicant brought subsequent proceedings in which he sought to stop paying child support to the second child. On 20 May 2008 his claim was rejected by the Varna District Court, which found that it had not been proven that the applicant was not the child's father, given that he had not rebutted the legal presumption under Article 32 (1) of the Family Code 1985 ("the 1985 Code"). The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

8. Shortly thereafter, in February 2007, the applicant brought a civil claim in court, seeking to contest his paternity of the child in question. On 1 March 2007 the Varna Regional Court dismissed his request, finding that it was time-barred due to the expiry – in 2004 – of the year-long limitation period counting from the child's birth or from learning thereof (see the section "Relevant domestic law and practice" below"). This finding was confirmed by two higher judicial instances, the final decision being pronounced by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 19 September 2007.

While the applicant has a right to effective remedy, the courts provided reasonable explanations for the lack of remedy such as time barring. It depends on what the statute means by "effective" remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. 6. On 24 January 2011 a bomb attack at the Domodedovo airport killed 37 people and injured more than 160. It was later established that the explosion was caused by a suicide bomber and organised by a militant group operating in the North Caucasus. The applicant, who was present at the airport at the time of explosion, sustained multiple injuries to her body (wounds, contusions and fractures) which provoked further complications (cerebral oedema, coma, respiratory and cardiac insufficiency and a traumatic shock). The applicant's injuries were life-threatening and caused serious harm to her health. 7. Within the framework of the criminal investigation into the bombing, the investigative authorities arrested four persons. On 11 November 2013 the Moscow Regional Court found them guilty of multiple charges, including commission of an act of terror, organisation of a criminal gang and illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Three defendants received life sentence and the fourth one was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. 8. On 25 November 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 11 November 2013 in substance on appeal. 9. According to the Government, the applicant was granted a victim status. She did not bring a civil action for damages against the convicted persons. 10. On 25 January 2011 the Russian authorities opened criminal investigation on the charges of negligence against the airport managers and employees and the policemen deployed at the airport. On 22 March 2011 the applicant was granted a victim status in the proceedings. On 5 March 2012 the investigator decided to recall it. On 26 March 2012 the investigator discontinued the proceedings. 11. On 22 May 2012 the Deputy President of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of 26 March 2012 and re-opened the case. The proceedings are pending to date. 12. On 3 June 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's complaint against the decision of 5 March 2012. 13. On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil claim against the airport seeking damages resulting from the failure of the airport security to prevent the bombing. 14. On 27 August 2013 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's claims for damages. On 16 December 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 27 August 2013 on appeal. The City Court dismissed, inter alia, as unsubstantiated the applicant's allegation that the suicide bomber had been able to enter the airport owing to the lack of a metal detector at one of the airport entrances noting that such fact should have been established in the course of the relevant criminal investigation. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

While the applicant is pursuing more investigation, they did receive one completed criminal investigation, which seems to serve as effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicants are a family. They were born in 1971, 1968, 1992, 1995, and live in Samara. 5. On 26 April 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara ("the Oktyabrskiy District Court") ordered, inter alia, the management of the State unitary enterprise "16th Military Plant" ("the company") to provide the applicants with a suitable dwelling, while keeping their names on the list of persons awaiting housing. 6. On 11 May 2004 the judgment came into force. 7. On 28 May 2004 the Department of the Bailiffs' Service for Oktyabrskiy District of Samara opened the enforcement proceedings. 8. On 22 December 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the company had no available residential accommodation. 9. On 1 October 2007, due to the reorganisation of the company (see paragraph 16 below), the enforcement file was sent to the Department of the Bailiffs' Service for the Engelsskiy District of Saratov Region. 10. On 21 April 2008 the bailiffs ruled that it was impossible to enforce the judgment in the part relating to the housing, as the new debtor, FGUP 9 TSARZ (see paragraph 16 below), had no available accommodation. The enforcement proceedings were terminated. 11. On 26 August 2009 the Engelsskiy District Court of Saratov Region, following the bailiffs' application, replaced the debtor in the enforcement proceedings from FGUP 9 TSARZ to OAO 9 TSARZ (see paragraph 17 below). 12. On 14 October 2009 the Oktyabrskiy District Court clarified the judgment of 26 April 2004 stating that the applicants should be provided with an apartment in Samara. 13. Several times in 2004-2011 the parties applied to the Oktyabrskiy District Court for changing the mode of enforcement of the judgment. Each time the courts rejected the applications finding that a payment of the amount representing the cost of an apartment would be equal to modifying the original judgment. 14. The judgment of 26 April 2004 remained unenforced. 15. The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise. According to its articles of association, the company's aim was to produce goods and render services for the Ministry of Defense of Russia, as well as for meeting other public needs and making a profit. 16. Under the Order of the Federal Agency for State Property Management dated 22 September 2005 the company was joined to FGUP 9 TSARZ (FGUP 9 Tsentralnyy Avtomobilnyy Remontnyy Zavod – ФГУП 9 ЦАРЗ or ФГУП 9 Центральный Автомобильный Ремонтный Завод). The reorganisation was completed on 13 February 2007, and the latter company became the universal successor of the company. 17. In accordance with the Decree of the President of Russia of 15 September 2008 and the Decree of the Russian Government of 22 November 2008, FGUP 9 TSARZ was further reorganized into OAO 9 TSARZ, a publicly-traded private open joint-stock company incorporated under the laws of Russia. The applicants' rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicants have a right to effective remedy in the form of the housing originally promised, which was never delivered to them through multiple legal struggles.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant, who was born in 1948, lives in Corjova, a village under the formal control of Moldovan authorities, but where agents of the self‑proclaimed "Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic" ("MRT", see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 90, ECHR 2004‑VII for further details) frequently intervened during the events in question, notably by blocking the participation of the local population in elections held in Moldova. 6. On 3 June 2007 local elections were to be held in Moldova, including in Corjova. The applicant, who is an ambulance driver, submitted his candidature for the position of Mayor of Corjova. 7. On 1 June 2007, at 11 p.m., the applicant's ambulance was stopped by the "MRT" road militia and his documents (Moldovan national identity card and driving licence) were taken away from him without any explanation. 8. On 2 June 2007 the applicant went to the "MRT" militia station located in Dubăsari and asked for the return of his documents. He was then arrested and placed in a detention cell. A few hours later a person came to his cell and, without presenting himself, asked him about his work and his electoral propaganda. The applicant later found out that the visitor had been a judge and that, following that discussion in the cell, the judge adopted a decision, finding him guilty of the administrative offence of unlawful electoral propaganda and sentencing him to 15 days' administrative detention. 9. The applicant submits that he was not allowed to contact his relatives or to find a lawyer, and was not issued with a copy of the court's decision, which prevented any possibility of lodging an effective appeal against the decision of 2 June 2007. 10. During his detention the applicant was placed in a cell which, according to him was damp and cold. Food was given once a day. When the applicant's relatives, alerted by his absence, contacted the local authorities in order to find out about his fate, they were informed of the applicant's detention. However, their requests to transmit food to him were allegedly rejected. 11. On 17 June 2007 the applicant was released from detention and he was issued with a copy of the decision of 2 June 2007. The time-limit for lodging an appeal had already expired by that time. Upon release, he was allegedly coughing and was diagnosed with chronic acute bronchitis. He also claims that his eyesight worsened considerably. 12. In the meantime, on 6 June 2007, the applicant complained to the Moldovan prosecutor's office of his unlawful detention. Based on this complaint, a criminal investigation was initiated on 12 June 2007, the applicant and witnesses were subsequently heard. Three high-ranking "MRT" officers were charged and were declared wanted persons. However, on 4 August 2010 the investigation was suspended due to the fact that the three accused were hiding from it in the "MRT". The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

It could be argued that the launch of the investigation serves as effective remedy, but with the suspension of the investigation after years, it seems the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicants were born in 1979 and 1983 respectively. The first applicant is serving a life sentence in Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89. The second applicant lives in Obukhiv. 6. On 24 March 2000 the applicants got married. 7. On 16 February 2001 the first applicant was found guilty of a number of criminal offences and was sentenced to life imprisonment. 8. The applicants requested that the prison administration allow them a long-term family visit on many occasions, in particular, in 2006. Their requests were rejected on the grounds that Article 151 of the Code of Execution of Sentences did not provide for long-term visits to life prisoners. 9. In April 2007 the applicants lodged an administrative claim against the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences seeking an entitlement to a long-term conjugal visit every three months. They submitted that they were willing to have a common child and that a denial of that right to them was unlawful and arbitrary. The courts, on three levels of jurisdiction, rejected that claim as not based on law. The final decision of the Higher Administrative Court was delivered on 8 December 2009. 10. According to the information provided by the Government, the first applicant was disciplined on three occasions during the period of his detention from 2001 to 2016: once in 2001 following the discovery of an unreported written message on him; once in 2003 on account of his attempt to get in touch with an inmate in an adjacent cell; and once in 2013 on account of unauthorised possession of a mobile telephone. 11. The applicants got divorced on an unspecified date. According to the Government, it happened "shortly after the introduction of the application". According to the applicants, the divorce took place on an unspecified date in 2014. 12. As indicated in the information note issued on 24 June 2016 by the administration of Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89, during his detention in that prison starting from 2003, the first applicant had had forty short-term visits and nine long-term family visits. More specifically, on 10 December 2003 and 10 June 2004 he had short-term visits from the second applicant, as well as his mother and sister. The second applicant did not pay him visits thereafter. During the period from 2004 to 2012 the first applicant had regular short-term visits from his mother, sister and some other persons. On 13 September 2012 he had a visit from his sister and a certain Ms L. who was registered in the prison's logbook as his fiancée. Since then he had regular short-term visits from Ms L. On 11 July 2014 the first applicant was allowed for the first time a long-term family visit, which was from his sister. On 5 December 2014 the first applicant got married with Ms L. and they were allowed a long-term family visit on that occasion. Subsequently, they enjoyed long-term conjugal visits about every three months. The applicants' rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

9. In April 2007 the applicants lodged an administrative claim against the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences seeking an entitlement to a long-term conjugal visit every three months. They submitted that they were willing to have a common child and that a denial of that right to them was unlawful and arbitrary. The courts, on three levels of jurisdiction, rejected that claim as not based on law. The final decision of the Higher Administrative Court was delivered on 8 December 2009. 10. According to the information provided by the Government, the first applicant was disciplined on three occasions during the period of his detention from 2001 to 2016: once in 2001 following the discovery of an unreported written message on him; once in 2003 on account of his attempt to get in touch with an inmate in an adjacent cell; and once in 2013 on account of unauthorised possession of a mobile telephone. 11. The applicants got divorced on an unspecified date. According to the Government, it happened "shortly after the introduction of the application". According to the applicants, the divorce took place on an unspecified date in 2014. 12. As indicated in the information note issued on 24 June 2016 by the administration of Dnipropetrovsk Prison no. 89, during his detention in that prison starting from 2003, the first applicant had had forty short-term visits and nine long-term family visits. More specifically, on 10 December 2003 and 10 June 2004 he had short-term visits from the second applicant, as well as his mother and sister. The second applicant did not pay him visits thereafter. During the period from 2004 to 2012 the first applicant had regular short-term visits from his mother, sister and some other persons. On 13 September 2012 he had a visit from his sister and a certain Ms L. who was registered in the prison's logbook as his fiancée. Since then he had regular short-term visits from Ms L. On 11 July 2014 the first applicant was allowed for the first time a long-term family visit, which was from his sister. On 5 December 2014 the first applicant got married with Ms L. and they were allowed a long-term family visit on that occasion. Subsequently, they enjoyed long-term conjugal visits about every three months.

The applicant was subsequently allowed effective remedy of visits.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained in Chișinău. 5. On 24 August 2011 the applicant was taken into police custody on charges of murder and unauthorized possession of a firearm. He was remanded in custody by the Centru District Court on 28 August 2011 and his detention was subsequently extended every thirty days until 21 January 2012 on the grounds that given the seriousness of the charges against him, he might abscond, re-offend and interfere with the investigation. The applicant did not appeal against those decisions. 6. On 17 January 2012 the applicant's case was committed for trial and his detention was extended by the court every three months, finding that the grounds which justified his initial detention had remained valid. 7. In his appeals against the decisions of 12 April, 10 June and 10 July 2013 the applicant complained, inter alia, about the length of his detention which, in his view, was no longer justified. He argued that his detention pending trial had already exceeded the twelve-month time-limit set under Article 186 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the courts had not put forward any exceptional circumstance justifying such a long detention period, while the seriousness of charges could not by themselves constitute sufficient ground for his extended deprivation of liberty. 8. By decisions of 23 April, 20 June and 25 July 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. 9. By a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 17 September 2014 the applicant was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to twenty‑three years of imprisonment. 10. On 28 September 2011 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 13 in Chișinău where he was detained until 4 December 2014. 11. According to the applicant, he was detained in cells with poor lighting, damp walls, and accommodating six inmates in an area of 6 square metres. Due to overcrowding, the applicant had to share a bed with another inmate with whom he took turns to sleep. During his detention the applicant did not receive any bedding or clothing. Certain inmates were diagnosed with tuberculosis or HIV and had bleeding wounds. He was allowed to walk outside the cell only one hour per day. Without a functional ventilation system, in summer the air indoors was hot, humid and smelly which made it difficult to breathe. In cold weather the heating was not turned on and the temperature in the cells was extremely low. The squat toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. The prison laundry was not operational and the applicant was unable to wash his clothes. 12. On 18 April 2014 the applicant's lawyer complained to the Prosecutor General's Office about the applicant's detention conditions in prison no. 13. By a letter of 15 May 2014 the Department of Penitentiary Institutions denied the complaints on overcrowding, TB infected inmates, insufficient food and medical assistance. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

11. According to the applicant, he was detained in cells with poor lighting, damp walls, and accommodating six inmates in an area of 6 square metres. Due to overcrowding, the applicant had to share a bed with another inmate with whom he took turns to sleep. During his detention the applicant did not receive any bedding or clothing. Certain inmates were diagnosed with tuberculosis or HIV and had bleeding wounds. He was allowed to walk outside the cell only one hour per day. Without a functional ventilation system, in summer the air indoors was hot, humid and smelly which made it difficult to breathe. In cold weather the heating was not turned on and the temperature in the cells was extremely low. The squat toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. The prison laundry was not operational and the applicant was unable to wash his clothes.

The applicant received no remedy at all; all appeals were denied.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1968 and has been serving a prison sentence in Lukiškės Remand Prison since 16 January 2002. 5. On 16 May 2014 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the State, alleging that he was being detained in overcrowded and unsanitary cells. He also complained that toilets were not properly partitioned from the rest of the cells and thus the prison staff could see him use the toilet. He submitted that his health had deteriorated as a result of the inappropriate conditions of his detention and claimed 450,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 130,300 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 6. On 19 January 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicant's claim in part. It firstly held that the time-limit for claiming damages was three years after the damage arose, and accordingly dismissed the part of the applicant's claim concerning the period before 16 May 2011 as time-barred. On the basis of documents provided by the prison administration, the court found that from 16 May 2011 to 15 May 2014 the applicant had spent 1,082 days in Lukiškės Remand Prison. During that period, for thirteen days and one afternoon he had had 3.24 sq. m of personal space and on one afternoon he had had 2.65 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the domestic standard of 3.6 sq. m. For the remaining time the personal space available to him was found to be in compliance with the requirement of 3.6 sq. m. 7. The court also quoted the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the CPT") on its visit to Lithuania in 2012. According to that report, nearly all the inmates in Lukiškės Remand Prison were confined to their cells for twenty-three hours per day, with no out-of-cell activities other than outdoor exercise lasting one hour in small and dilapidated yards (see paragraph 13 below). The court noted that the prison administration had not provided any evidence that the situation in the prison had changed. 8. Furthermore, the court ruled that toilets had not been partitioned from the rest of the cells in the manner required by relevant domestic regulations. It stated that, in accordance with accepted social norms, inability to use the toilet in private was degrading and humiliating to the individual. 9. The court considered that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention. It awarded the applicant EUR 80 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, taking into account the "scope, intensity and duration" of the violation of his rights and the economic conditions in the country. 10. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, arguing that the first-instance court had erred by dismissing part of his claim as time-barred, that the conditions in Lukiškės Remand Prison had not improved and that his health had deteriorated because of them. On 10 November 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the first-instance court's decision in its entirety. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

6. On 19 January 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicant's claim in part. It firstly held that the time-limit for claiming damages was three years after the damage arose, and accordingly dismissed the part of the applicant's claim concerning the period before 16 May 2011 as time-barred. On the basis of documents provided by the prison administration, the court found that from 16 May 2011 to 15 May 2014 the applicant had spent 1,082 days in Lukiškės Remand Prison. During that period, for thirteen days and one afternoon he had had 3.24 sq. m of personal space and on one afternoon he had had 2.65 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the domestic standard of 3.6 sq. m. For the remaining time the personal space available to him was found to be in compliance with the requirement of 3.6 sq. m. 8. Furthermore, the court ruled that toilets had not been partitioned from the rest of the cells in the manner required by relevant domestic regulations. It stated that, in accordance with accepted social norms, inability to use the toilet in private was degrading and humiliating to the individual. 9. The court considered that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention. It awarded the applicant EUR 80 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, taking into account the "scope, intensity and duration" of the violation of his rights and the economic conditions in the country. 10. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, arguing that the first-instance court had erred by dismissing part of his claim as time-barred, that the conditions in Lukiškės Remand Prison had not improved and that his health had deteriorated because of them. On 10 November 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the first-instance court's decision in its entirety.

While the applicant has a right to effective remedy, the court awarded some remedies and provided reasonable explanations for other lack of remedy such as time barring. It depends on what the statute means by "effective" remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Chisinau. 5. At the material time, the applicant was a student and was undertaking an unpaid internship at a law firm. 6. On 23 October 2008 criminal proceedings were initiated against T., a lawyer with whom the applicant worked, on charges of trading in influence. In particular, T. was accused of receiving 10,500 euros (EUR) from D. to pass on to the judges examining a criminal case against a relative of D.'s in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient sentence. The applicant had no procedural standing in those proceedings. 7. On 30 October 2008 the police lodged with an investigating judge a request for a warrant to search the applicant's apartment. The request was granted; the decision to issue the warrant read as follows: "The criminal investigation against T. was initiated on 23 October 2008 ... In the course of the investigation it has been established that from March until September 2008, T. extorted and received from D. in several instalments the amount of EUR 10,500, [to be given to] the judges who examined D.'s relative's case, in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient sentence. On 24 October 2008 T. was caught in flagrante receiving 3,800 US dollars (USD) from D., allegedly for influencing the prosecutor not to appeal against the [subsequent] judgment [acquitting the accused]. The evidence in the file and the material obtained through the operational investigation allow the well-founded assumption that at [the applicant's] home, situated at [address], can be found EUR 10,500 received from D. and relevant documents, Decides To order a search of [the applicant's] residence, situated at [address], with the aim of finding and seizing EUR 10,500 received from D. and documents concerning the criminal case." 8. On the same day, a prosecutor lodged a request with the Buiucani District Court for a warrant to be issued for the search of the applicant's apartment. His request took the form of a verbatim copy of the police decision. Also on the same day the Buiucani district investigating judge issued a decision authorising the search. The decision read as follows: "The present criminal proceedings were initiated on 23 October 2008 ... against T. After hearing the prosecutor and examining the material, and taking in consideration the fact that that material had been obtained in [a manner] in compliance with the law, the court finds that the request for the authorisation of the search is well founded and should be upheld. On the basis of Articles 41, 125, 301, 305 and 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court: ... 9. On 10 December 2008 the police searched the applicant's apartment in the presence of her elderly mother [but not the applicant]. They did not find anything. 10. On 21 August 2009 the applicant lodged a request for access to the evidence which had been presented to the judge to justify the search. On 3 September 2009 the Buiucani district investigating judge replied that the case file was held at the [premises of] the investigating authority and that access could only be granted pursuant to the law. 11. It appears from the material in the case file that the criminal proceedings against T. ended with the latter's acquittal. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

With the acquittal of T., the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicants' dates of birth and places of residence are listed in the Appendix. 6. On different dates between 2012 and 2016 (see Appendix) the applicants learned that their right to leave the country had been restricted and that they were no longer allowed to leave Azerbaijan. 7. It appears from the documents in the case files that in all the cases the restriction in question was imposed by the investigating authorities, in the absence of any judicial decision, within the framework of various criminal proceedings in which the applicants were not convicted, accused or suspected persons, but were only questioned as witnesses. 8. The travel bans imposed in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 62775/16 and 43327/16 were lifted by the investigating authorities on 29 January and 21 April 2016 respectively. 9. On various dates the applicants brought an action claiming that the restriction imposed on them was unlawful, either by lodging a complaint with the administrative courts or applying to the ordinary courts for a review of the lawfulness of procedural actions or decisions by the prosecuting authorities under the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter "judicial review"). Some of the applicants used both of the above-mentioned remedies. 10. The applicants claimed, in particular, that the domestic law did not provide for the imposition of travel bans on witnesses in criminal proceedings and that the restriction on their right to leave the country was not justified. 11. In the domestic proceedings relating to all the applications, except application no. 66650/13, the domestic courts refused to examine the applicants' complaint on the merits. Final decisions were adopted on various dates, by the Supreme Court in the administrative proceedings and the Baku Court of Appeal in the proceedings for judicial review (see Appendix). In their decisions, both the administrative and ordinary courts declared that they did not have competence to examine a complaint relating to the lawfulness of travel bans imposed by the investigating authorities. 12. As regards the applicant in application no. 66650/13, by a decision dated 1 April 2013, a judge at the Sabail District Court dismissed his complaint after examining it on the merits. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: "Having assessed all the examined evidence, I conclude that the actions of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan restricting the right of Mursaliyev Azad Oktay oglu to leave the country are lawful, that the procedure for judicial review as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan does not provide for a [decision] on the payment of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages, [and] that, for these reasons, the complaint should not be allowed." 13. On 5 April 2013 the applicant in application no. 66650/13 appealed against that decision, reiterating that there was no legal basis for restricting his right to leave the country under domestic law. 14. On 12 April 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the first-instance court's decision justified. The appellate court repeated the reasoning provided by the first-instance court and made no mention of the complaint concerning the legal basis for the imposition of the travel ban. The applicants' rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

11. In the domestic proceedings relating to all the applications, except application no. 66650/13, the domestic courts refused to examine the applicants' complaint on the merits. Final decisions were adopted on various dates, by the Supreme Court in the administrative proceedings and the Baku Court of Appeal in the proceedings for judicial review (see Appendix). In their decisions, both the administrative and ordinary courts declared that they did not have competence to examine a complaint relating to the lawfulness of travel bans imposed by the investigating authorities. 12. As regards the applicant in application no. 66650/13, by a decision dated 1 April 2013, a judge at the Sabail District Court dismissed his complaint after examining it on the merits. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: "Having assessed all the examined evidence, I conclude that the actions of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan restricting the right of Mursaliyev Azad Oktay oglu to leave the country are lawful, that the procedure for judicial review as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan does not provide for a [decision] on the payment of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages, [and] that, for these reasons, the complaint should not be allowed." 14. On 12 April 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the first-instance court's decision justified. The appellate court repeated the reasoning provided by the first-instance court and made no mention of the complaint concerning the legal basis for the imposition of the travel ban.

With the repeated refusal and dismissal of complaints, the applicants were denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant was born in 1986 in the Georgian SSR of the USSR. In 1996, when he was ten years old, his parents divorced and he moved with his mother to Kaluga in Russia. In 2003, the applicant graduated from high school in Kaluga and began studies at the Finance and Economics Institute. 6. On 4 May and 17 October 2005 the applicant was convicted of various offences and given a custodial sentence. Upon his release on 29 February 2008, he returned to Kaluga. 7. On 12 January 2012 the police stopped the applicant in the courtyard of his house and charged him with illegal residence in Russia. 8. On the following day the Kaluzhskiy District Court in the Kaluga Region found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence under Article 18.8 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (failure to leave Russia upon the expiry of the authorised period of stay and illegal residence) and sentenced him to a fine of 2,500 Russian roubles (62 euros) and administrative removal from the Russian Federation. Pending removal, the District Court held that the applicant should be held in the detention centre. On 24 January 2012 the Kaluga Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision on appeal. 9. The applicant asked the District Court to postpone the enforcement of the removal order, emphasising that it was currently unenforceable because he had no identity documents and because he was not a Georgian national and could not be sent to Georgia. On 12 April 2012 the District Court refused the applicant's request in a summary fashion. 10. The applicant was held in the administrative detention centre operated by the Kaluga regional police. He shared Cell 13 measuring 8.7 square metres with five Uzbek nationals awaiting deportation. The cell had only one window, 90 centimetres by 120 centimetres, protected with three layers of thick netting and fitted with a matte glass. Two light bulbs, 40 Watts each, lit the cell. The cell was not ventilated. 11. The toilet bowl sunk into the floor was located 40 centimetres from the nearest bed. It was cleaned with cold water without detergent. Prisoners were given three litres of water per day, it was not allowed to boil it. Once a week prisoners were taken to the shower room. There was not enough hot water for all of them and they took turns skipping the shower. 12. There was no calendar or clock in the cell. Nor was there a radio, television, books or newspapers. Board games were forbidden. The applicant did not speak the Uzbek language and could not communicate with his cellmates. 13. Prisoners were taken outdoors in groups of thirty. The yard was small, six by four metres, so they huddled together. It had no sports equipment or awning for bad weather. 14. The applicant's complaints to a prosecutor were rejected as unfounded. In January and March 2012 two members of the Kaluga public monitoring commission visited the facility. Their report corroborated the applicant's description of his conditions of detention. 15. In May 2012 the applicant developed pulmonary tuberculosis. He was transferred for treatment to a civilian hospital in Kaluga. Upon his discharge, he took advantage of the absence of police escort and absconded. A search operation was launched; the applicant was located on 30 January 2013 and returned to the detention centre. 16. On 31 January 2013 the applicant was placed on board of a Tbilisi-bound flight and left Russia. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

10. The applicant was held in the administrative detention centre operated by the Kaluga regional police. He shared Cell 13 measuring 8.7 square metres with five Uzbek nationals awaiting deportation. The cell had only one window, 90 centimetres by 120 centimetres, protected with three layers of thick netting and fitted with a matte glass. Two light bulbs, 40 Watts each, lit the cell. The cell was not ventilated.

The applicant never received any remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Simferopol. She is a single mother and has a son who at the time of the accident in question was eight years old. 5. On 24 July 1995 the applicant was knocked down by a trolley bus. She suffered an open craniocerebral injury and contusion of the brain. As a result, the applicant received the status of a disabled person with the lowest degree of disability (третя група інвалідності). 6. In January 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralnyy District Court against the Simferopol Trolley Bus Company, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to her health caused by the accident. In particular, as pecuniary damage the applicant claimed compensation for medicines, additional nutrition, treatment in a sanatorium, transport expenses, and compensation for loss of earnings. 7. On 25 February 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Court (Litvinyuk v. Ukraine, no. 9724/03) complaining, inter alia, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lengthy examination of her case by the domestic courts. 8. On 1 February 2007, while the proceedings were still pending before the national courts, the Court delivered a judgment on the applicant's first application (no. 9724/03), finding that the length of the proceedings in her case had been excessive. The Court took into consideration the period after 11 September 1997, when the Convention had come into force in respect of Ukraine. The length of the proceedings within the Court's competence was nine years and twenty two days. 9. The Court, in particular, noted the following: "47. As for the issues that were at stake for the applicant, the Court notes that following the traffic accident the applicant was seriously injured and received a disability degree. Given that the applicant was a single mother and had a child to raise, the compensations for loss of earnings and for expenses sustained as a result of a poor state of her health were of undeniable importance for the applicant. The Court therefore considers that what was at stake for the applicant called for an expeditious decision on her claims." 10. On 27 March 2007 the Simferopolskiy District Court found against the applicant. On 24 December 2007 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed this decision and remitted the case to a first-instance court for fresh examination. On 23 April 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the court of appeal. 11. On 13 May 2009 the Simferopolskiy District Court partly found for the applicant. On 29 July 2009 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed this decision and remitted the case to a first-instance court for fresh examination. On 15 October 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the court of appeal. 12. On 10 November 2009 the Simferopolskiy District Court left the applicant's case without consideration because she had failed to appear in court without giving plausible reasons on 28 October 2009 and 10 November 2009. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision stating that she had not been aware about the above-mentioned hearings. On 27 January 2010 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea rejected the applicant's appeal. The court noted that the applicant had been duly notified about the date of the hearings. On 5 October 2011 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decisions of the lower courts. A further attempt by the applicant to have the above decisions reviewed in the light of newly discovered circumstances was to no avail. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

10. On 27 March 2007 the Simferopolskiy District Court found against the applicant. On 24 December 2007 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed this decision and remitted the case to a first-instance court for fresh examination. On 23 April 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the court of appeal.

With the dismissal of complaints through multiple courts over such an extended period of time, the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicants, who are police officers, were born in 1967, 1978, 1976, 1979 and 1964 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Chișinău and Caușeni and the remaining applicants live in Bender. 6. On 14 June 2006 officers Mangîr, Vasiliev and Condrea, who were conducting a criminal investigation in Tiraspol, were arrested by the secret service of the self-proclaimed "Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria" ("MRT")[1]. During their arrest they managed to call the Bender police station. 7. The other two applicants (officers Daţco and Pohila) went to Tiraspol to clarify the reasons for the arrest of their colleagues, but were also arrested upon their arrival. 8. The applicants were placed in the Tiraspol Remand Centre (IVS Tiraspol). 9. On 17 June 2006 officers Pohila, Daţco and Vasiliev were released without charge and without any explanation for their arrest. 10. On 18 June 2006 officer Mangîr was allegedly beaten up and injected with an unknown substance, which rendered him unconscious for four days. After his release he was admitted for in-patient treatment in the hospital of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Moldova, where he was diagnosedwith, inter alia, concussion. 11. On 20 June 2006 the Tiraspol City Court issued a warrant for officer Mangîr to be detained for thirty days. On 23 June 2006 the "MRT" authorities released officers Mangîr and Condrea. The head of the "MRT" secret service declared in an interview that the officers had been released after Russian authorities had "given assurances" that Moldovan authorities would not "kidnap people" in the "MRT". 12. The applicants were accused in the "MRT" media of being members of "black squadrons" created for the purpose of kidnapping politicians and other persons causing nuisance to the Moldovan authorities. According to the applicants, during their detention they were questioned by the "MRT" secret service and forced to declare that in Tiraspol they had been trying to kidnap "MRT" politicians. Officers Pohila, Daţco and Vasiliev were allegedly beaten on the soles of their feet and threatened with the killing of members of their families, as well as with being transferred to cells occupied by common criminals, where they would be ill-treated or even killed. 13. Officer Condrea was allegedly subjected to so-called "Palestinian hanging" for up to seven hours and was taken to his cell unconscious thereafter. 14. The applicants described as follows their conditions of detention at the Tiraspol Remand Centre. The cells in which they had been held had been in the basement and had not had access to natural light. In the absence of ventilation and because of overcrowding it had been difficult to breathe. Officer Condrea submits that he was detained in the same cell as that in which Mr Ilie Ilaşcu had been detained (for more details see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004‑VII). 15. During their detention the applicants did not have any daily exercise and were not given access to a shower; they could not receive parcels containing food from their relatives, they did not have bed linen and they were not allowed to be seen by doctors. 16. After the applicants' release the Moldovan authorities initiated two sets of criminal proceedings concerning their unlawful detention and their alleged ill-treatment while in detention. However, several years later the investigation was discontinued. 17. The applicants were also subjected to medical check-ups, which found no traces of violence on their bodies. Only one applicant, Stefan Mangîr, was found to be suffering from the consequences of concussion. The applicants' rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

16. After the applicants' release the Moldovan authorities initiated two sets of criminal proceedings concerning their unlawful detention and their alleged ill-treatment while in detention. However, several years later the investigation was discontinued.

With the discontinuation of the investigation, the applicants were denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. On 23 December 2004 the applicants and 126 others lodged a claim with the Komárno Land Office, an authority that is now part of the Komárno District Office ("the Land Office"), for restitution of land under the Restoration of Land Ownership Act (Law no. 503/2003 Coll., as amended). 6. On 27 May 2010 the Land Office dismissed the claim on the grounds that all the claimants lacked standing to bring it. 7. On 21 November 2011 the Nitra Regional Court upheld that decision following an administrative-law appeal by the claimants, lodged on their behalf by four individuals. 8. However, following an appeal lodged by the claimants with the Supreme Court, on 29 January 2014 that court quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case to it on the grounds that the latter had failed to establish the representatives' authority to act on behalf of all the claimants. The proceedings before the Regional Court had been conducted merely in the presence of the designated representatives and the court had failed to summon the claimants in person and to have its judgment served on them. It had thereby breached the claimants' right of access to a court. 9. Accordingly, it became incumbent on the Regional Court to determine anew the claimants' administrative-law appeal against the decision of the Land Office of 27 May 2010. In those proceedings, the court invited the claimants to clarify issues concerning their legal representation with a view to ensuring that they would be represented by a common representative. 10. In a decision of 4 December 2014 the Regional Court issued several rulings. In so far as relevant for the present application, it ruled that the claimants would all be jointly represented by a lawyer who had up until then represented only some of them. 11. On 25 May 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 4 December 2014 following an appeal lodged by the claimants. 12. The proceedings are still pending before the Regional Court. 13. Meanwhile, on 21 January 2015 the Constitutional Court had rejected a complaint lodged by the applicants about the length of the proceedings in their claim, in so far as they had taken place before the Land Office and the Regional Court. The Constitutional Court held that the length of the administrative proceedings before the Land Office and of the judicial‑review proceedings held before the Regional Court could not be considered together. Having split the complaint into those two segments, the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint concerning the administrative proceedings on the grounds of non-exhaustion of ordinary remedies. In particular, it noted that the applicants had failed to challenge the alleged inactivity of the Land Office under Article 250t § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) (see paragraphs 19 et seq. in "Relevant domestic law and practice" below). As regards the judicial-review proceedings, the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as manifestly ill-founded. It noted that those proceedings as a whole had lasted some four and a half years. However, the case had been pending on appeal before the Supreme Court for about two years of that period. Although the length of the appellate proceedings had been unsatisfactory, as such it had not been complained of by the applicants, who had limited their compliant to the proceedings before the Regional Court. In addition, the Constitutional Court observed that the proceedings had been procedurally complex on account of the number of claimants. In sum, despite the fact that its judgment had been quashed as flawed, the length of the proceedings before the Regional Court had not been excessive. The applicants' rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

13. Meanwhile, on 21 January 2015 the Constitutional Court had rejected a complaint lodged by the applicants about the length of the proceedings in their claim, in so far as they had taken place before the Land Office and the Regional Court. The Constitutional Court held that the length of the administrative proceedings before the Land Office and of the judicial‑review proceedings held before the Regional Court could not be considered together. Having split the complaint into those two segments, the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint concerning the administrative proceedings on the grounds of non-exhaustion of ordinary remedies. In particular, it noted that the applicants had failed to challenge the alleged inactivity of the Land Office under Article 250t § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) (see paragraphs 19 et seq. in "Relevant domestic law and practice" below). As regards the judicial-review proceedings, the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as manifestly ill-founded. It noted that those proceedings as a whole had lasted some four and a half years. However, the case had been pending on appeal before the Supreme Court for about two years of that period. Although the length of the appellate proceedings had been unsatisfactory, as such it had not been complained of by the applicants, who had limited their compliant to the proceedings before the Regional Court. In addition, the Constitutional Court observed that the proceedings had been procedurally complex on account of the number of claimants. In sum, despite the fact that its judgment had been quashed as flawed, the length of the proceedings before the Regional Court had not been excessive.

With the dismissal of the objection, the applicants were denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Bern, Switzerland. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, he was the editor‑in-chief of Ülkede Özgür Gündem, a daily newspaper published in Turkey. 6. On 6 July 2004 an article written by Mr B.G. entitled "Analysing the Kurdish dynamic correctly" was published in Ülkede Özgür Gündem. In his article, Mr B.G. stated his views on the role of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (an illegal armed organisation), a number of organisations associated with the PKK in regional and international politics and political developments in Turkey. Next to the article a photograph of Abdullah Öcalan shaking hands with a group of armed men was published. 7. On 8 July 2004 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul Assize Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of the KONGRA-GEL[1] under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) on account of the article published on 6 July 2004. In the indictment, the public prosecutor quoted the following passage from the article: "... Abdullah Öcalan, who has contributed to the essential dynamic of the Kurdish movement and the HPG[2], the PJA[3] and the KONGRA-GEL, organisations which have acted as military, political and ideological leaders and which have represented his leadership,... [must be well understood]". The public prosecutor stated that a photograph of Abdullah Öcalan in which he was standing in a rural area holding a weapon had been published in the newspaper, next to the article. The public prosecutor considered as a result that the applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation inciting others to violence or other methods of terrorism. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were launched against the applicant before the Istanbul Assize Court. 8. During the proceedings the applicant maintained that the article in question had been a news article and had not contained propaganda inciting to violence. 9. On 24 May 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and a fine. In its judgment, the Istanbul Assize Court held that the content of the article and the publication of Abdullah Öcalan's photograph amounted to dissemination of propaganda in favour of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL. 10. The applicant appealed. In his appeal petition, referring to a number of the Court's judgments, the applicant claimed that he had not had the intention of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation and that his criminal conviction had been in breach of Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention as he had been exercising his right to impart information. He also noted that the first-instance court had failed to examine the article in its entirety. 11. On 16 May 2006 the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation returned the case file to the first-instance court and requested that the latter revise its judgment in the light of the recent legislative amendments. 12. On 28 September 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court once again convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, with the same reasoning that it had adopted on 24 May 2005. The court sentenced the applicant to a fine of 1,802 Turkish liras (TRY). 13. The applicant appealed. 14. On 18 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 28 September 2006. 15. According to a document dated 15 January 2010, signed by the President of the Istanbul Assize Court and the Istanbul public prosecutor, the applicant was required to pay the fine of TRY 1,802. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant never received any remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Weinheim. He is a campaigner against abortion and operates an anti-abortion website. 6. On 12 and 13 April 2005 the applicant distributed leaflets in the vicinity of the medical practice of Dr St., who performed abortions there. The leaflets stated, inter alia, that the abortions performed by Dr St. in his practice, for which he gave the address, were unlawful according to the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court. In addition the leaflet contained the following statements: "According to international criminal law: Aggravated murder is the intentional ‘bringing-to-death' of an innocent human being!" (Sinngemӓβ aus den internationalen Strafgesetzen: Mord ist das vorsӓtzliche "Zu-Tode-Bringen" eines unschuldigen Menschen!) "The murder of human beings in Auschwitz was unlawful, but the morally degraded NS State allowed the murder of innocent people and did not make it subject to criminal liability." (Die Ermordung der Menschen in Auschwitz war rechtswidrig, aber der moralisch verkommene NS-Staat hatte den Mord an den unschuldigen Menschen erlaubt und nicht unter Strafe gestellt.) 7. The applicant also addressed passers-by and the physician's presumed patients and attempted to engage with them in conversations about abortion. 8. Dr St. lodged an application for a civil injunction against the applicant and on 25 October 2005 the Mannheim Regional Court granted the requested injunction. The court ordered the applicant to desist from speaking to passers-by in the immediate vicinity of the medical practice and labelling the abortions performed by the plaintiff unlawful with the objective of irritating female patients and preventing them from visiting Dr St.'s practice. 9. On 24 February 2007 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal upheld the decision and slightly modified the wording specifying the geographical area concerned by the injunction. It also refused to grant leave to appeal on points of law. 10. The Regional Court as well as the Court of Appeal both referred to a previous decision of the Federal Court of Justice in which it had confirmed a civil injunction against similar conduct by the applicant (see paragraph 13 below). The courts held that in the case at issue there were no factual or legal differences justifying deviating from the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice. In so far that the doctor in the present case was slightly more well-known than the doctor in the original case, the Court of Appeal held that this was of minor relevance. The fact that Dr St. had appeared as an expert before the German Parliament many years previously did not have any substantial effects on Dr St's public profile at that time. Moreover, the involvement of Dr St. in different legal disputes was irrelevant, as trying to enforce his rights in the appropriate legal procedure could not redound to Dr St.'s disadvantage. In sum, the applicant had vilified the non‑criminal professional activities of Dr St. by implying that he committed criminal acts and interfered with the relationship of trust between doctor and patient, which deserved special protection against the interventions of others. The applicant had therefore severely interfered with Dr St.'s personality rights. This interference was not justified by the applicant's freedom of expression in view of the massive "pillory effect" the applicant had created by singling out the plaintiff and criticising him in a harsh way in the immediate vicinity of his practice. 11. On 29 May 2007 the Federal Court of Justice refused a request by the applicant for legal aid on the grounds that the applicant's intended appeal on points of law lacked sufficient prospect of success. On 20 July 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant's complaint for adjudication for being inadmissible, without providing reasons (no. 1 BvR 1670/07). The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

With the repeated refusal of complaints, the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Cork. 5. He suffers from severe brain damage. It was asserted on his behalf that his condition was caused by the measles vaccination administered to him in 1988 when he was 15 months old. 6. In November 2002, 14 years after receiving the vaccine, the applicant's mother instituted proceedings on his behalf against four defendants; the local health authority, the State, the Attorney General (collectively described in the domestic proceedings as the State defendants) and the doctor who had administered the vaccination, H. 7. On 5 August 2003, the High Court issued a limited order of discovery addressed to the local health authority seeking all relevant records about the applicant in its possession, as well as information about the vaccine used, about any adverse effects noted at the time with this vaccine, about the manner in which the mother's consent was obtained, and about the health of the other members of the applicant's family. Although the High Court set a time-limit of 8 weeks for discovery, the local health authority only complied with the order in June 2008, that is to say with a delay of over four and a half years. 8. The applicant appealed the scope of the order of discovery of 5 August 2003, leading to the grant of a further limited order of discovery by the High Court on 30 January 2004, addressed to all four defendants. The applicant brought another appeal against the order of discovery of 30 January 2004, but in July 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, making only a minor amendment to the order granted by the High Court. 9. The applicant's mother died in December 2007. 10. In June 2008 the applicant's lawyer wrote to the local health authority to complain that the long delays in litigating the case had caused grave prejudice to the case. The applicant's mother had been a vital witness, and with her death essential evidence had been lost. Settlement of the substantive dispute was proposed but not agreed. 11. In May 2008 the applicant's lawyer sought to have the defence of the State defendants set aside. The High Court refused this application on 12 March 2010. 12. The trial involved ten days of hearings. No factual evidence was called on behalf of the applicant, but independent medical witnesses gave evidence, having read the applicant's medical records, and documentary evidence provided by way of discovery was before the court. On the eleventh day of the trial, 19 July 2011, the judge accepted an application by the defendants to strike the case out for failure to establish a prima facie case against them. 13. Regarding the doctor, he noted that the applicant accepted there was insufficient evidence to establish any negligence in the administration of the vaccine. The claim against the doctor H was dismissed. In relation to the State defendants, the judge held that no evidence had been produced that could support the various grounds relied on by the applicant. 14. The proceedings in the High Court terminated on 19 December 2011. The applicant filed a notice of appeal presenting 30 grounds of appeal. Following the establishment of the Court of Appeal in October 2014, the applicant's case was transferred to it. Outline written submissions were submitted by H in February 2015 and by the State defendants in September 2015. 15. The Court of Appeal gave its judgment on 10 February 2016, dismissing the appeal. In its conclusions, the Court of Appeal stated that, by taking the case at its highest, the trial judge had adopted the correct approach on the question of striking the case out. The Court of Appeal concluded by remarking on the many legal hurdles the applicant would have had to overcome in order to succeed. It found no basis for overturning the decision of the High Court. 16. The proceedings ended on 10 May 2016 when the Supreme Court declined the applicant's request for leave to appeal. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

With the repeated dismissal of appeals, the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Oryol. He is currently serving his sentence in IK-7 in the village of Areyskoye, Krasnoyarsk Region. 6. The applicant, his partner and his mother were living in Oryol when the applicant was charged with drug-related crimes. 7. On 2 December 2009 the Federal Penal Authority ("Федеральная служба исполнения наказаний", "the FSIN") of Russia sent a telegram to the FSIN department for the Oryol Region ("the Oryol FSIN") instructing the latter to send each month up to forty people detained in remand prisons and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a strict-regime facility to the Krasnoyarsk Region. The instruction was valid as of 1 December 2009 until further notice. 8. On 7 December 2009 the Sovetskiy District Court of Oryol convicted the applicant of drug-related crimes and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment in a strict-regime post-conviction detention facility. On 2 February 2010 the Oryol Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 9. Acting on the basis of the FSIN of Russia's instruction of 2 December 2009, on an unspecified date the Oryol FSIN decided, in view of the overcrowding in the post‑conviction detention facilities in the Oryol Region, that the issue of which particular facility the applicant would be transferred to should be resolved by the FSIN department for the Krasnoyarsk Region ("the Krasnoyarsk FSIN"). The latter allocated the applicant to IK-7, a strict-regime post-conviction detention facility in the village of Areyskoye, Krasnoyarsk Region (about 4,200 km from Oryol), to serve his sentence. The applicant has been detained there since 20 April 2010. 10. The applicant has repeatedly asked the penal authorities at different levels to transfer him to a detention facility located closer to Oryol so that he could effectively maintain family ties while serving his sentence. 11. On 12 November 2010 the FSIN of Russia rejected the applicant's request, informing him that, under Article 81 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences ("the CES"), in the absence of exceptional circumstances convicts were to serve their prison term in its entirety in the same detention facility, and that there were no such exceptional circumstances in the applicant's case. They noted as follows: "[a]s regards maintaining the convict's social ties, the right to receive visits and parcels as well as the right to correspondence and phone calls should be realised in accordance with the laws on execution of sentences in force and does not depend on the place in which he is serving the sentence." 12. The applicant brought civil proceedings against the Oryol FSIN, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage caused by their decision to transfer him to a penal facility in the Krasnoyarsk Region in breach of his right, under Article 73 § 1 of the CES, to serve his prison sentence in his home region, which had adversely affected his capacity to maintain his family and social ties. 13. On 3 August 2012 the Zavodskoy District Court of Oryol dismissed the claims for damages with reference to Article 73 § 2 of the CES and Ruling No. 1700-O-O of the Constitutional Court of Russia. The court held that the Oryol FSIN's decision had been lawful because between December 2009 and February 2010 the penal facilities in the Oryol Region had been overcrowded. It also noted that the defendant had acted in accordance with the FSIN of Russia's instructions. The court did not address the applicant's argument regarding his difficulties in maintaining family ties because of the distance between his family home and the detention facility. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment. 14. Between July 2011 and October 2013 the applicant's partner made long-term family visits to IK-7 on six occasions. In 2014 she gave birth to the couple's daughter. While in IK-7, the applicant received a number of parcels and phone calls from his mother and partner. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant never received any remedy. However, the applicant also appears not to have moved to, as they did not appeal and continued to receive visits.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The first applicant was born in 1972 and is detained in Vilnius. The second applicant was born in 1982 and is detained in Pravieniškės. 6. The first applicant has been detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison since 17 March 2008. 7. On 27 July 2012 he lodged a civil claim against the State, alleging that he was being detained in overcrowded and unsanitary cells. He claimed 74,690 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 21,630 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 8. On 8 November 2012 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed in part the applicant's claim. It firstly held that the time‑limit for claiming damages was three years after the damage arose, and accordingly dismissed the part of the applicant's claim concerning the period before 27 July 2009 as time‑barred. The court then examined various documents provided by the prison authorities and found that, during the remaining period, for about one year and seven months the size of the personal space afforded to the applicant had not complied with the domestic requirements (until 11 May 2010 the minimum personal space in prison cells stipulated by domestic law was 5 sq. m, and from 11 May 2010 it was 3.6 sq. m). 9. The court also found, on the basis of reports submitted by domestic public healthcare authorities, that the temperature and the amount of natural light in some of the cells in which the applicant had been detained had not complied with domestic hygiene norms. However, it dismissed as unproved the applicant's allegations that the cells had been dilapidated and that there had been parasites and rodents. Furthermore, the court considered that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention. 10. The applicant was awarded LTL 1,500 (approximately EUR 434) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 11. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, but on 20 May 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the lower court's decision in its entirety. 12. The second applicant was detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility from 8 June 2012 to 5 February 2016. 13. On 4 October 2013 he lodged a civil claim against the State, alleging that he was being detained in overcrowded dormitory‑type rooms. He claimed LTL 11,000 (approximately EUR 3,200) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. 14. On 12 March 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed in part the applicant's claim. The court found that for seventy‑nine days the applicant had had 2.9 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the domestic requirement of 3.1 sq. m applicable to dormitory‑type rooms. It also found that for eighteen days, when the applicant had been kept under stricter disciplinary regime, he had had 3.34 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the domestic requirement of 3.6 sq. m applicable to such cells. 15. However, the court noted that the applicant had been allowed to move freely around the correctional facility during the day, except when he had been serving disciplinary penalties, and that the material conditions of his detention had been appropriate. It also considered that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention. The court therefore dismissed the applicant's claim for non‑pecuniary damages. 16. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision and on 15 May 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld in part his appeal. It found that, according to the applicant's submissions which the administration of the correctional facility had failed to refute, for 274 days he had had between 2.33 and 3.04 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the relevant domestic requirements. The court considered that, despite the fact that the applicant had been allowed to move freely during the day and that the material conditions of detention had been appropriate, there were grounds to award him non-pecuniary damages. The applicant was awarded EUR 130. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

6. The first applicant has been detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison since 17 March 2008. 8. On 8 November 2012 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed in part the applicant's claim. It firstly held that the time‑limit for claiming damages was three years after the damage arose, and accordingly dismissed the part of the applicant's claim concerning the period before 27 July 2009 as time‑barred. The court then examined various documents provided by the prison authorities and found that, during the remaining period, for about one year and seven months the size of the personal space afforded to the applicant had not complied with the domestic requirements (until 11 May 2010 the minimum personal space in prison cells stipulated by domestic law was 5 sq. m, and from 11 May 2010 it was 3.6 sq. m). 9. The court also found, on the basis of reports submitted by domestic public healthcare authorities, that the temperature and the amount of natural light in some of the cells in which the applicant had been detained had not complied with domestic hygiene norms. However, it dismissed as unproved the applicant's allegations that the cells had been dilapidated and that there had been parasites and rodents. Furthermore, the court considered that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention. 10. The applicant was awarded LTL 1,500 (approximately EUR 434) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 12. The second applicant was detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility from 8 June 2012 to 5 February 2016. 15. However, the court noted that the applicant had been allowed to move freely around the correctional facility during the day, except when he had been serving disciplinary penalties, and that the material conditions of his detention had been appropriate. It also considered that the applicant had not proved that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions of his detention. The court therefore dismissed the applicant's claim for non‑pecuniary damages. 16. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision and on 15 May 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld in part his appeal. It found that, according to the applicant's submissions which the administration of the correctional facility had failed to refute, for 274 days he had had between 2.33 and 3.04 sq. m of personal space, in breach of the relevant domestic requirements. The court considered that, despite the fact that the applicant had been allowed to move freely during the day and that the material conditions of detention had been appropriate, there were grounds to award him non-pecuniary damages. The applicant was awarded EUR 130.

The applicant was awarded effective remedy and did not appeal further.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

6. The applicants, Mr Ömer Yaman (first applicant), Mr Mustafa Ürek (second applicant), and Mr Kerem Bilen (third applicant) were born in 1956, 1967 and 1977 respectively. 7. On 20 June 1999 the applicants were arrested in the course of a military operation in Şırnak. They were subsequently interrogated by the gendarmes in the absence of a lawyer. In their statements, the applicants accepted the charges against them and gave a detailed account of their involvement in the PKK (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation). 8. On 23 June 1999 the applicants were brought before the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor and subsequently before the investigating judge. The first and second applicants were provided with an interpreter during their interrogation. Before the public prosecutor and the judge, the applicants denied the charges against them. They further stated that they had signed their gendarmerie statements without reading them. Following the questioning, the investigating judge remanded the applicants in custody. 9. On 2 July 1999 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court and accused the applicants of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory, under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. 10. The proceedings resumed before the Diyarbakır State Security Court and the first and second applicants were authorised to have the assistance of an interpreter. In their defence submissions before the trial court, the applicants retracted the statements they had allegedly made during the preliminary investigation stage. They submitted that the gendarmes had made them sign their statements without reading them. 11. On 7 May 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court found the applicants guilty as charged and convicted them under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. It further sentenced the applicants to life imprisonment. In convicting them, the court had regard to the applicants' statements taken by the gendarmes. 12. On 25 March 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that during the trial certain witness statements, which had been taken on commission before other courts, had not been read out to the applicants for comment during the trial. The case was accordingly remitted to the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 13. In the meantime, State Security Courts were abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, and therefore, the case against the applicants was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 14. On 7 March 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court complied with the decision of the Court of Cassation and witness statements that had been taken on commission were read out to the applicants for their comments. At the end of the trial, the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 15. On 17 June 2005 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation decided that the case file should be remitted to the Diyarbakır Assize Court for examination of whether the new Criminal Code which had entered into force on 1 June 2005 (Law no. 5297) provided more favourable provisions for the applicants. The case was thus once again examined by the Diyarbakır Assize Court in view of the recent legislative changes. 16. On 25 October 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court once again convicted the applicants under Article 125 of the former Criminal Court, finding that this provision was more favourable to them than the corresponding provision of the new criminal code. 17. On 30 May 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on procedural grounds, holding in particular that certain documents which had been relied on by the first-instance court in its judgment were not of an official nature. 18. On 24 April 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court, after obtaining official copies of all the documents in the case file, convicted the applicants under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 19. On 11 December 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicants' rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicants never received any remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

6. The applicant was born in 1991 and lives in Skopje. 7. In 1999 the applicant (eight years old at the time) and her family (parents and three siblings) fled Kosovo[1] and settled in the respondent State, where she has been living ever since. In 2005 she was granted asylum and a residence permit. She entered into a common-law partnership with a Macedonian national, with whom she has three minor children (the children also have Macedonian nationality). Her residence permit was extended each year until 3 February 2014, when the Ministry of the Interior terminated her asylum, holding that she was "a risk to [national] security." The decision was preceded by an interview at which the applicant, who had been legally represented, had confirmed her family situation and her intention to marry her partner. That the applicant represented a security risk was not discussed at the interview. The decision further stated: "[the applicant] is obliged to leave the respondent State within twenty days of receipt of the final decision." 8. The applicant, through her lawyer, challenged the decision as arbitrary. She argued that there was no evidence that her presence in the respondent State represented a threat to national security. Furthermore, she had not been given an opportunity to challenge any such evidence. 9. On 3 July 2014 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the decision of the Ministry, noting that the latter had obtained a classified written note (службена белешка со назнака за доверлив документ) from the Security and Counter Intelligence Agency ("the Intelligence Agency") indicating that she represented a threat to national security. The court did not provide any further details regarding that document. It ruled accordingly that the impugned proceedings had been lawful. 10. The applicant's representative appealed against that decision before the Higher Administrative Court, reiterating the arguments raised previously. She further alleged that the wording used by the Administrative Court implied that there were some documents on which the impugned decision had been based. However, she had not been given an opportunity to have knowledge of or to comment on that evidence. 11. By a decision of 1 July 2015, served on the applicant on 6 October 2015, the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the Ministry's decision. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: "... [The Ministry] decided on the basis of ... classified information obtained from a relevant body (which) proves indisputably that her presence in (the respondent State) represents a threat to its security. The Higher Administrative Court has examined the (applicant's) allegations ... that information provided by the relevant body within the Ministry of the Interior was not forwarded to her and her representative, but it considers them irrelevant ..." 12. In the proceedings before the Court, the Government submitted a redacted version of the classified note that the Intelligence Agency had sent on 19 September 2013 to the Ministry of the Interior. The relevant parts of the note read as follows: "... following security checks of [the applicant], it has been established that recognition of her asylum status would be a threat to the (national) security of the [respondent State]. It has been established that her (hidden text) ... are perpetrators of tens of crimes (serious thefts, thefts and acts of concealment). The applicant was aware of and supported all crimes committed by her (hidden text) ... She has also been living in a common-law partnership with M.M. in order to obtain the monetary allowance to which she was entitled having been granted asylum. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that she should not be granted asylum in [the respondent State]." 13. On 11 November 2015 the Ministry granted a request by the applicant to leave the respondent State in order to obtain, as she had stated, documents from the Serbian authorities for marrying her common-law partner in the respondent State. She was allowed re-entry to the respondent State in January 2016, which was one month after the expiry of the time‑limit for returning to the respondent State. In February 2016 she contacted the Ministry with a view to submitting the relevant documents. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

7. In 1999 the applicant (eight years old at the time) and her family (parents and three siblings) fled Kosovo[1] and settled in the respondent State, where she has been living ever since. In 2005 she was granted asylum and a residence permit. She entered into a common-law partnership with a Macedonian national, with whom she has three minor children (the children also have Macedonian nationality). Her residence permit was extended each year until 3 February 2014, when the Ministry of the Interior terminated her asylum, holding that she was "a risk to [national] security." The decision was preceded by an interview at which the applicant, who had been legally represented, had confirmed her family situation and her intention to marry her partner. That the applicant represented a security risk was not discussed at the interview. The decision further stated: "[the applicant] is obliged to leave the respondent State within twenty days of receipt of the final decision." 12. In the proceedings before the Court, the Government submitted a redacted version of the classified note that the Intelligence Agency had sent on 19 September 2013 to the Ministry of the Interior. The relevant parts of the note read as follows: "... following security checks of [the applicant], it has been established that recognition of her asylum status would be a threat to the (national) security of the [respondent State]. It has been established that her (hidden text) ... are perpetrators of tens of crimes (serious thefts, thefts and acts of concealment). The applicant was aware of and supported all crimes committed by her (hidden text) ... She has also been living in a common-law partnership with M.M. in order to obtain the monetary allowance to which she was entitled having been granted asylum. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that she should not be granted asylum in [the respondent State]." 13. On 11 November 2015 the Ministry granted a request by the applicant to leave the respondent State in order to obtain, as she had stated, documents from the Serbian authorities for marrying her common-law partner in the respondent State. She was allowed re-entry to the respondent State in January 2016, which was one month after the expiry of the time‑limit for returning to the respondent State. In February 2016 she contacted the Ministry with a view to submitting the relevant documents.

While the applicant was originally denied remedy by the state, it appears this was for legitimate legal reasons, and she was ultimately able to reenter the state.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained in the Corradino Correctional Facility, Paola, Malta. 6. The applicant is currently serving a term of imprisonment for drug-related offences. On 3 December 2009 he was sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment and fined 40,000 euros (EUR) by the Criminal Court. The punishment was confirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 19 September 2013. 7. The applicant started to serve his prison sentence and on 10 December 2009 he had been placed in Division 2 (cell no. 88) of the Corradino Correctional Facility. He remained in various cells in Division 2 to date, except for two brief periods in 2011 where he had been placed in Division 6 (a high security unit) for nine and eleven days respectively, the latter ending on 4 December 2011. In particular after 4 December 2011 the applicant had been staying in cell no. 45 until 26 December 2014 and thereafter had been hosted in cell no. 70, both in Division 2. 8. The applicant alleged that a huge amount of maintenance was needed to the area due to its old age (around 200 years old) and that it lacked both light and air. Windows were behind two iron grids and a third layer of exterior iron bars (hereinafter referred to as ‘triple‑barred windows'). Division 2 also had three skylights, which were kept closed even during the summer months, leading to a great amount of heat. The "environment" was squalid and had a bad smell. 9. In the period during which he had been placed in cell no. 45, the applicant had had to suffer the fumes and excessive heat from the bakery close to his cell, which fumes and heat poured into his poorly ventilated cell. The applicant also described the cell as being nearly underground and as structurally condemned. Due the triple-barred windows he could barely see outside. In winter the cell was very humid and cold. 10. When, on 26 December 2014, he moved to cell no. 70 (see paragraph 7 above), which was very small and had very little ventilation; the applicant felt claustrophobic. Furthermore, he claimed to hardly ever having had access to running water. 11. According to the applicant, in Division 2 the food was of a very poor quality, non-nutritious, and portions were too small. Additionally, the food quality was so terrible that between 1 and 4 September 2015 prisoners had to be taken to hospital as a result of food poisoning. The applicant claimed that the kitchen was so dirty that mice were found dead in it. 12. The applicant complained that there was no combined automated toilet‑flushing system installed. Therefore, inmates had to flush their own personal toilet by means of a water bucket which was provided to them. Moreover, at times there was no access to running water in the cell. Access to water was limited in general, and water available was not potable. While inmates were permitted to buy bottled water, they were forced to reduce their daily intake when they were short on cash. 13. As to the showers, hot water was often not available and the water was dirty. The applicant submitted that there were not enough showers, with one of the showers having a broken and cracked tray that could cause injury if one were not careful. He alleged that, for all the inmates in Division 2, only one shower was available most of the time, with two showers being available during the summer months. 14. The applicant claimed that the cost to make telephone calls was very high and had been increased on 3 December 2014. He had complained to the prison authorities to no avail. 15. He complained that the prison allowance given to detainees was too little. This made everything available at the tuck shop excessively expensive. It inevitably also impacted the inmates' ability to buy bottled water and make telephone calls. 16. The applicant claimed to have suffered health issues and had even been confined to his bed because of illness for some time. The emergency buzzer in the cell never worked and when he had been confined to his bed because of illness and tried to ring it, no one came, since the buzzer did not work. It took thirty minutes for someone from the staff to show up, at which point he was told off by the staff member. 17. Petitions were filed in regard to these conditions. Furthermore, some of his fellow inmates had lodged constitutional cases concerning the situation. However, none led to any change. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

7. The applicant started to serve his prison sentence and on 10 December 2009 he had been placed in Division 2 (cell no. 88) of the Corradino Correctional Facility. He remained in various cells in Division 2 to date, except for two brief periods in 2011 where he had been placed in Division 6 (a high security unit) for nine and eleven days respectively, the latter ending on 4 December 2011. In particular after 4 December 2011 the applicant had been staying in cell no. 45 until 26 December 2014 and thereafter had been hosted in cell no. 70, both in Division 2. 8. The applicant alleged that a huge amount of maintenance was needed to the area due to its old age (around 200 years old) and that it lacked both light and air. Windows were behind two iron grids and a third layer of exterior iron bars (hereinafter referred to as ‘triple‑barred windows'). Division 2 also had three skylights, which were kept closed even during the summer months, leading to a great amount of heat. The "environment" was squalid and had a bad smell. 16. The applicant claimed to have suffered health issues and had even been confined to his bed because of illness for some time. The emergency buzzer in the cell never worked and when he had been confined to his bed because of illness and tried to ring it, no one came, since the buzzer did not work. It took thirty minutes for someone from the staff to show up, at which point he was told off by the staff member.

With the lack of change or response to petitions, the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1971 and at the time of introduction of the application to the Court he was detained in Diavata Prison. 6. The applicant is serving a life sentence for drug dealing. He was initially placed in Diavata Prison from 1 October 2014 until 24 November 2015. On that date he was transferred to Malandrino Prison, from where he was transferred back to Diavata Prison on 9 May 2016. Lastly, on 20 December 2016 he was transferred back to Malandrino Prison. 7. The applicant alleged that he had been detained initially in cell no. B 14, which had measured 9 sq. m and had held four detainees in total. On 7 August 2016 he had been placed in cell no. GR 2 on the ground floor, which had measured 24 sq. m and had held ten detainees. In both cases, therefore, the living space afforded to him had been less than 3 sq. m. Overcrowding had exposed him to infectious diseases and he had suffered from passive smoking. In addition, detainees had had barely any space to move within their cell and their bunk beds had been low, not allowing them to sit up comfortably. 8. Apart from the overcrowding, the applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention had been very poor. Access to natural light and ventilation had been inadequate. Sanitary facilities and supplies had been old, broken and insufficient to ensure the detainees' well‑being and personal hygiene. Heating had been provided only for one hour per day from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., while hot water during winter had been provided for two hours per day and had not sufficed for all detainees. They had been forced to wash themselves using buckets of water, as the water pressure in showers had been insufficient. In each ten-person cell there had been five bunk beds, five stools, a small table and five side tables but no lockable space for personal belongings. In the four-person cell there had been two bunk beds and two stools. The mattresses had been old, mouldy and smelly, and sheets and towels had not been provided. 9. In general, detainees had lacked access to cultural, recreational and sports activities. They had had to rely on visits from friends and family in order to obtain any newspapers or magazines, which had intensified their feeling of isolation. The hours that they had been allowed to spend in the corridors had been insufficient, taking into account that they had coincided with the meal times as well as with the times they had been allowed to receive visits or make phone calls. The yard had included a football field but no balls had been provided to the detainees and the yard had not offered any opportunities for spending time creatively. The applicant further complained of the quantity and the quality of the food, claiming that it had been repetitive and lacking any nutritional value. 10. Lastly, the applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention had led him having several cardiac arrests. 11. The Government, referring to a document provided by the prison authorities, submitted that Diavata Prison had a capacity of 358 detainees on the basis of allocation of 4 sq. m per detainee according to the minimum standards set by the CPT. At the time the applicant had been detained, the prison facility had exceeded its capacity by accommodating 460 to 500 detainees. The applicant had been detained in cell no. 11 on the first floor, which had measured 24 sq. m, including a toilet measuring 2 sq. m. The cell had had a capacity of ten detainees; however, following a new law in April 2015 aimed at relieving overcrowding in prisons, many detainees had been released and that had resulted in the applicant sharing the cell with four to six detainees. Therefore, the living space afforded to the applicant had ranged from 3.14 to 4.4 sq. m. 12. As regards the rest of the applicant's complaints, the Government argued that the prison had had a central heating system, in addition to the electric heating devices that had been provided to each cell. The cell in which the applicant had been detained had had large windows. Detainees had had access to hot water and had been provided regularly with personal hygiene products. The cells had been regularly disinfected. As regards prisoners' meals, the Government submitted the menu of various random weeks to demonstrate that they had been comprised of a variety of food. 13. The Government submitted the applicant's medical file in order to prove that the applicant had already suffered from cardiac conditions when his incarceration had started. The applicant's medical needs had been fully fulfilled during the time he had spent in Diavata Prison either by visits to the prison doctor or by his transfer to nearby hospitals. Lastly, the applicant had been granted fifteen days of leave in order to take matriculation exams. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

7. The applicant alleged that he had been detained initially in cell no. B 14, which had measured 9 sq. m and had held four detainees in total. On 7 August 2016 he had been placed in cell no. GR 2 on the ground floor, which had measured 24 sq. m and had held ten detainees. In both cases, therefore, the living space afforded to him had been less than 3 sq. m. Overcrowding had exposed him to infectious diseases and he had suffered from passive smoking. In addition, detainees had had barely any space to move within their cell and their bunk beds had been low, not allowing them to sit up comfortably. 11. The Government, referring to a document provided by the prison authorities, submitted that Diavata Prison had a capacity of 358 detainees on the basis of allocation of 4 sq. m per detainee according to the minimum standards set by the CPT. At the time the applicant had been detained, the prison facility had exceeded its capacity by accommodating 460 to 500 detainees. The applicant had been detained in cell no. 11 on the first floor, which had measured 24 sq. m, including a toilet measuring 2 sq. m. The cell had had a capacity of ten detainees; however, following a new law in April 2015 aimed at relieving overcrowding in prisons, many detainees had been released and that had resulted in the applicant sharing the cell with four to six detainees. Therefore, the living space afforded to the applicant had ranged from 3.14 to 4.4 sq. m.

The applicant never received any remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Novocheboksarsk. 6. The facts of the applicant's ill-treatment in police custody were established in a judgment of the Novocheboksarsk Town Court of the Chuvash Republic ("the Town Court") of 22 August 2008 and upheld on 11 November 2008 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic. The facts are as follows. 7. On 10 April 2007 the applicant was stopped by police officers on a street near his home and taken to district police station no. 1 of Novocheboksarsk to have his identity checked. At the police station a district police officer (участковый уполномоченный милиции), Officer M. from the Novocheboksarsk town police station, who wore a police uniform, threatened the applicant by saying that a criminal case against him would be opened, grabbed him by his clothing, violently pushed him backwards against a wall several times and punched his left ear. 8. According to a forensic medical expert's report, the applicant had a traumatic rupture of the left eardrum with a haemorrhage, which caused a short-term – lasting between six and twenty-one days – health disorder. Accordingly, this qualified as "insignificant" health damage. 9. Officer M. was convicted under Article 286 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code (abuse of power with the use of violence) and sentenced to three years' imprisonment and a two‑year ban on exercising official power. 10. In January 2009 the applicant brought a civil claim in the amount of 312,487 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Ministry of Finance of the Chuvash Republic in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He argued, inter alia, that his ill‑treatment by the police had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"), and that, in accordance with the Plenary Supreme Court Resolution no. 5 of 10 October 2003, the domestic courts were to apply the Convention in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court"). He also argued that, in calculating the amount of compensation due in respect of non‑pecuniary damage for a violation of the Convention, the domestic courts therefore had to take into account the sums awarded by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention in similar cases. He stated that his claim had been calculated based on the sum awarded by the Court in the case of Ribitsch, in which a violation of Article 3 of the Convention had been found on account of inhuman and degrading treatment in police custody (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336). 11. On 6 April 2009 the Town Court allowed the applicant's civil claim in part. It noted that, under Article 61 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment in a criminal case which had become enforceable was binding on a court examining the civil-law consequences of the acts of a person against whom the judgment had been delivered, in so far as it established whether those acts had taken place and whether they had been committed by that person. Article 53 of the Constitution and Articles 151 and 1069 of the Civil Code provided for State liability for harm caused to individuals by State agents. Relying on Articles 1099-1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and section 8 of the Plenary Supreme Court Resolution no. 10 of 20 December 1994, the Town Court held that RUB 20,000 would be just and reasonable satisfaction for the applicant's mental suffering as a result of his ill-treatment by the police officer, treatment which had undermined his honour and dignity and caused him insignificant health damage. 12. The applicant appealed against the judgment. On 6 May 2009 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic upheld the judgment on appeal, fully endorsing the Town Court's calculation of the amount of compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. It disagreed with the applicant that, in determining the amount of compensation for non‑pecuniary damage, the domestic courts had to be guided by the amounts of such compensation awarded by the Court in similar cases, stating as follows: "Indeed, in accordance with Article 15 § 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, commonly recognised principles and norms of international law and international agreements of the Russian Federation are an integral part of [the Russian Federation's] legal system. However, this does not mean that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage determined by the European Court of Human Rights in a specific case has a binding effect on national courts examining other cases where a violation of similar norms and principles can be found. The determination of the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in specific cases is the prerogative of national courts examining such cases." The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

While the applicant continued to appeal, the government provided remedy and reasons for its effectiveness.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bílovice nad Svitavou (the Czech Republic). 6. On 30 December 1992 the applicant's legal predecessor and two others applied to the Bratislava Land Office for the restitution of some plots of land under the Land Ownership Act of 1991. The date on which the applicant subsequently became a party to the proceedings is not specified. 7. On 23 June 1997 the Land Office issued a decision approving an agreement whereby the proceedings would end in relation to part of the property but continue in relation to the remainder. 8. By a decision of the Land Office of 17 May 1999, the proceedings in respect of another part of the property ended. However, on 23 May 2003 the relevant part of the proceedings was reopened. 9. On 12 July 2013 the Land Office stayed the restitution proceedings on the grounds that the parties had failed to furnish it with their consent to process, in the course of the proceedings, their personal data. 10. On 11 September 2015 the Land Office dismissed part of what was left of the applicant's claim. 11. On 19 October 2015 the Land Office stayed the examination of the remainder of the claim, inviting a number of institutions to submit relevant documentation, which they did by the end of 2015. 12. The remainder of the applicant's claim is still pending. 13. Following repeated requests for acceleration of the proceedings and complaints, on 18 June 2011 the Bratislava Regional Land Office acknowledged that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Land Office. 14. On 20 December 2011 the applicant brought an action in the Bratislava Regional Court for acceleration of the proceedings under Article 250t § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("the CCP"). 15. On 19 April 2012 the Regional Court dismissed the action on the grounds that the Land Office was short of staff and overburdened with complex and time-consuming restitution claims. It also noted that the Land Office had maintained active correspondence with the applicant and had therefore not caused any undue delays. 16. The decision of 19 April 2012 was quashed by the Constitutional Court following the applicant's constitutional complaint (see paragraph 22 below). This led to re-examination of the case by the Regional Court, which decided on 11 April 2013 to allow the action and to order the Land Office to decide on the applicant's claim within sixty days. 17. On 12 November 2013, in response to a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Bratislava II District Office of the Public Prosecution Service ("the PPS") informed him that the PPS had reprimanded the Land Office for unjustified delays in the restitution proceedings. 18. On 21 August 2014 the applicant lodged a fresh action with the Regional Court under Article 250t § 1 of the CCP, arguing that the Land Office had failed to abide by the order of 11 April 2013. 19. On 27 May 2015 the Regional Court allowed the action, issuing a fresh order to the Land Office to decide on the matter within three months. At the same time, it fined it 1,000 euros (EUR) payable to the account of the Regional Court. 20. On 4 July 2012 the applicant lodged two constitutional complaints. 21. The first complaint was directed against the Land Office, in particular at the length of the proceedings on his restitution claim before it. On 23 August 2012 the Constitutional Court rejected that complaint for lack of jurisdiction to examine it. The Constitutional Court noted that under Article 250t § 1 of the CCP examination of delays in proceedings before administrative authorities fell within the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals, which excluded the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, as the administrative proceedings were still pending, the applicant should have lodged a fresh complaint about the alleged inactivity of the Land Office with the Regional Court. Even though the applicant had already been unsuccessful in using such a remedy, the Regional Court continued to have jurisdiction over actions of that type. 22. The second complaint was directed against the Regional Court. The applicant contested, inter alia, the fairness of the proceedings leading to its decision of 19 April 2012 (see paragraph 15 above). In a constitutional judgment of 16 January 2013, the Constitutional Court allowed the relevant part of the applicant's complaint and found a violation of his right to a fair hearing. It held, in particular, that the Regional Court had failed to take account of relevant aspects of the case and to give adequate reasoning in respect of them. Accordingly, it quashed the Regional Court's decision of 19 April 2012 and remitted the applicant's action of 20 December 2011 to the Regional Court for fresh examination. Moreover, it awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

13. Following repeated requests for acceleration of the proceedings and complaints, on 18 June 2011 the Bratislava Regional Land Office acknowledged that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Land Office. 16. The decision of 19 April 2012 was quashed by the Constitutional Court following the applicant's constitutional complaint (see paragraph 22 below). This led to re-examination of the case by the Regional Court, which decided on 11 April 2013 to allow the action and to order the Land Office to decide on the applicant's claim within sixty days. 17. On 12 November 2013, in response to a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Bratislava II District Office of the Public Prosecution Service ("the PPS") informed him that the PPS had reprimanded the Land Office for unjustified delays in the restitution proceedings. 19. On 27 May 2015 the Regional Court allowed the action, issuing a fresh order to the Land Office to decide on the matter within three months. At the same time, it fined it 1,000 euros (EUR) payable to the account of the Regional Court. 21. The first complaint was directed against the Land Office, in particular at the length of the proceedings on his restitution claim before it. On 23 August 2012 the Constitutional Court rejected that complaint for lack of jurisdiction to examine it. The Constitutional Court noted that under Article 250t § 1 of the CCP examination of delays in proceedings before administrative authorities fell within the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals, which excluded the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, as the administrative proceedings were still pending, the applicant should have lodged a fresh complaint about the alleged inactivity of the Land Office with the Regional Court. Even though the applicant had already been unsuccessful in using such a remedy, the Regional Court continued to have jurisdiction over actions of that type. 22. The second complaint was directed against the Regional Court. The applicant contested, inter alia, the fairness of the proceedings leading to its decision of 19 April 2012 (see paragraph 15 above). In a constitutional judgment of 16 January 2013, the Constitutional Court allowed the relevant part of the applicant's complaint and found a violation of his right to a fair hearing. It held, in particular, that the Regional Court had failed to take account of relevant aspects of the case and to give adequate reasoning in respect of them. Accordingly, it quashed the Regional Court's decision of 19 April 2012 and remitted the applicant's action of 20 December 2011 to the Regional Court for fresh examination. Moreover, it awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

While there were some early dismissals, the process ultimately ended in some remedy. It depends on what the statute means by "effective" remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1991 and lives in Orenburg. 5. The facts of the applicant's ill-treatment were established in a judgment of the Promyshlenniy District Court of Orenburg of 15 December 2011, as upheld on 14 February 2012 by the Orenburg Regional Court, and are as follows. 6. At around 7 p.m. on 30 August 2009 the applicant was arrested at a bus stop by police officers of the criminal investigation unit and taken to a police station in Orenburg (УВД по г. Оренбургу). From 8 p.m. to midnight on 30 August 2009, and from 12 noon to 6 p.m. on 31 August 2009, police officers K. and M. subjected the applicant to physical and psychological violence in order to obtain a confession from him about a drug-related crime which they suspected him of having committed. 7. The facts of the ill-treatment on 30 August 2009 were established as follows. Officers K. and M. pushed the applicant to the floor and punched and kicked him numerous times in the head, face, chest, arms and legs. K. placed a plastic bag over his head, closing off his access to air, while M. held him down. As regards the ill-treatment on 31 August 2009, officers K. and M. punched the applicant numerous times in the head and threatened to detain him. 8. At 8 p.m. on 31 August 2009 the applicant was formally arrested on suspicion of possession of drugs and placed in a temporary detention facility. 9. On 2 September 2009 the applicant was released after giving an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. On the same day he sought medical help at a traumatology centre (TP no. 2). According to his medical records, he had abrasions on his forearms, a bruise under his right eye, a bruise in the left lumbar region and abrasions on his legs. 10. On 3 September 2009 the applicant made a complaint to the Orenburg regional investigative committee regarding his ill‑treatment. 11. On 4 September 2009 he underwent a forensic medical examination ordered by the investigation authority. According to report no. 6368, he had the following injuries: (i) a haematoma (swelling) of the soft tissues in the parietal region of the head, measuring 4 by 3 cm; (ii) four bruises of indefinite form on the right infraorbital region of the face, on his neck, on the left side of his chest and around the right iliac (hip) bone, measuring up to 4 by 3 cm each; and (iii) seventeen abrasions, some linear and some of indefinite form, on both forearms, his right hip and left lower leg, measuring from 0.8 by 0.5 cm to 2.5 by 1 cm each. The expert concluded that the applicant's injuries had resulted from being struck repeatedly with a hard, blunt object with a limited surface area on the day of the alleged incident, and had not caused any "health damage". Subsequent forensic medical expert reports of 4 December 2009 and 21 October 2010 came to similar conclusions. It was stated in the first of those reports that the applicant's injuries had been caused by at least twenty traumatic blows to his body. 12. Officers K. and M. were convicted under Article 286 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code and banned from exercising official duties for three years. They were also given a three-year suspended sentence with a three-year probation period, which required them to appear monthly before the Service for the Execution of Sentences and disclose any change of place of work or residence. 13. The following circumstances were taken into account in sentencing the police officers. The fact that officer K. had a child under 14 years old was considered a mitigating circumstance, while the fact that he and M. had committed the crime with a group of other officers was considered an aggravating circumstance. It was further taken into account that K. and M. had positive references from their places of work and residence, had no previous convictions, and had led a law-abiding way of life without committing any administrative offences for more than two years since the crime had been committed. 14. On 31 November 2009 criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 228 § 2 of the Criminal Code (possession of large quantities of drugs) were terminated for absence of a crime, pursuant to Article 24 § 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. In 2012 the applicant brought a civil claim against the Russian Ministry of Finance, seeking 2,655,936 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for his unlawful detention and ill‑treatment in police custody by K. and M. 16. On 28 June 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg allowed the applicant's claim in part and awarded him RUB 20,000. In determining the amount of compensation, the court found that the applicant had sustained injuries as a result of the police officers' actions and had experienced physical and mental suffering, but that this had not caused him any "health damage". 17. The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Orenburg Regional Court, which on 19 September 2012 increased the amount of compensation to RUB 80,000. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

12. Officers K. and M. were convicted under Article 286 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code and banned from exercising official duties for three years. They were also given a three-year suspended sentence with a three-year probation period, which required them to appear monthly before the Service for the Execution of Sentences and disclose any change of place of work or residence. 13. The following circumstances were taken into account in sentencing the police officers. The fact that officer K. had a child under 14 years old was considered a mitigating circumstance, while the fact that he and M. had committed the crime with a group of other officers was considered an aggravating circumstance. It was further taken into account that K. and M. had positive references from their places of work and residence, had no previous convictions, and had led a law-abiding way of life without committing any administrative offences for more than two years since the crime had been committed.

The applicant received all effective remedy pursued.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Galashki, Ingushetia Republic. 5. On 11 December 2009 the applicant was abducted by S. with intent to marry her. The applicant's mother opposed the marriage and on the same day S.'s relatives took the applicant back to her mother's house. 6. On 12 December 2009 the relatives of the applicant's deceased father made the applicant go back to S.'s, because of the presumed consummation of the marriage. They also threatened to kill S., should the applicant decide to leave him. 7. The applicant had to live with S.'s family as his wife. The marriage was not officially registered. She was kept locked in a room without being able to communicate with people outside S.'s family. S. moved to a different town. On rare occasions S.'s sister let the applicant use her mobile phone so that she could call her mother. She complained that S.'s family, especially her mother-in-law, treated her poorly. She did not feel well and complained about dizziness, numbing of the lower jaw and difficulty to breathe. According to the applicant's mother, the applicant told her once that her mother-in-law did not let her see S. and claimed that the applicant would not last living with them longer than two months. On several occasions the applicant lost consciousness and foamed at the mouth. 8. On 28 December 2009 the applicant was taken to a municipal hospital. The doctor diagnosed her with renal colic. 9. On 29 December 2009 during another visit to hospital the applicant was diagnosed with poisoning by unknown substance. 10. On 1 February 2010 the applicant foamed at the mouth again and was taken to hospital. She was released on the same day. 11. On 2 February 2010 the applicant lost consciousness and was taken to hospital. A general practitioner and a neuropathologist examined her. She was diagnosed with stress and overdose of sedatives and placed in an intensive care unit. Subsequently she was diagnosed with post-hypoxic encephalopathy and vegetative state. She has not regained consciousness since then. 12. In April 2010 the applicant was released to her mother's care. 13. On 23 September 2010 the applicant's mother complained to the local police department and prosecutor's office that the applicant had been forcefully held by S.'s family in inhuman conditions which led to deterioration of her health and coma. 14. On 10 October 2010 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S.'s family on the charges of incitement of suicide and causing damage to health. 15. On 24 October 2011 the applicant's mother lodged another complaint with the local police department alleging that the applicant had been poisoned while staying at S.'s house. She also stated that the applicant had been repeatedly beaten up and deprived of her liberty. 16. According to the forensic medical report completed on 8 November 2011, a vegetative state, similar to the applicant's, could be caused primarily by intoxication. The expert, however, was unable to determine the cause of the applicant's condition. 17. On 24 November 2011 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S.'s family. The applicant appealed. 18. On 29 July 2012 the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of 24 November 2011 and ordered further inquiry into the matter. 19. On 3 August 2012 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of attempted murder. 20. On 1 October 2012 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of causing serious damage to health. The applicant appealed. 21. On 26 July 2013 the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Ingushetiya Republic quashed the decision of 1 October 2012. The court noted that the inquiry had been incomplete. The investigator had failed (1) to question a number of important witnesses and (2) to determine the cause of the applicant's condition. 22. On 26 September 2013 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings reiterating verbatim his reasoning set out in the decision of 1 October 2013. 23. On 15 January, 14 March and 21 May 2014 the deputy head of the district police department ordered a new inquiry noting that the previous inquiry had been incomplete. 24. On 18 January and 18 March 2014 the investigator refused to open a criminal investigation reproducing verbatim the earlier decisions of 1 October 2012 and 26 September 2013. 25. On 21 May 2014 the investigator again refused to open a criminal investigation. In addition to his earlier findings, he studied the applicant's medical case-file and concluded that it did not contain information accounting for the cause of her medical condition. 26. On 28 February 2015 the district deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of 21 May 2014 and ordered a further inquiry. 27. The case-file materials submitted by the Government contain two decisions dated 6 March 2015. The first decision was taken by the investigator who refused to institute a criminal investigation in the applicant's case. The second decision was taken by the district deputy prosecutor who ordered a new inquiry, which nothing came out of. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

With the refusal to investigate and lack of remedy, the applicant was denied effective remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated; edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

5. The applicant was born in 1963. 6. From 22 July 2016 the applicant was held in the Chernigiv pre-trial detention centre ("the SIZO") as a suspect in respect of a crime. 7. On 8 September 2016, while being held at the SIZO, the applicant suffered acute myocardial infarction. He was treated at Kozeletsk Town Hospital from 8 until 19 September 2016. 8. On 27 September and 6 October 2016 the applicant underwent examinations at the Chernigiv Regional Cardiological Centre. He was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease; acute myocardial infarction; third‑stage hypertonic disease; a hypertensive heart; and second-degree heart failure. The applicant was prescribed outpatient medical treatment and a further heart examination. On the last mentioned date he was recommended to undergo a cardiac ventriculography test. 9. On 7 February 2017, in response to a request for information lodged by the Chernigiv regional prosecutor's office, Chernihiv City Hospital ("the Hospital") noted that the applicant's state of health posed a high risk to his life. 10. On 15 March 2017, the Hospital informed the SIZO authorities that the cost of a cardiac ventriculography test was 4,000 hryvnias (UAH – approximately 140 euros (EUR)). 11. Following a deterioration in the applicant's health, on 23 May 2017 the Court indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that they should immediately ensure that the recommended treatment was available and provided to the applicant and that the applicant was placed in a specialised medical institution for medical treatment – including surgery, if appropriate. 12. On 23 May 2017 the applicant was transported to the Hospital, where the previous diagnosis was confirmed (see paragraph 8 above). On the same day he was returned to the SIZO and provided with outpatient treatment. 13. On 25 May 2017 the Hospital informed the SIZO that in order for the applicant to be provided with qualified medical advice, he needed a cardiac ventriculography test. In view of the complexity of the applicant's state of health, before the cardiac ventriculography test the Hospital requested that the applicant have an additional consultation at the Amosov Cardiology Institute. 14. According to the Government, the SIZO administration offered the applicant transportation to the Kyiv SIZO in a prison van with a view to his undergoing a further medical examination at the Amosov Cardiology Institute. On 16 June 2017 the applicant refused that offer, arguing that he could not be transported in a prison van owing to his state of health. The case file contains a statement by the applicant dated 16 June 2017 addressed to the head of the SIZO, according to which he did not refuse transportation but insisted on it being in a form that was compatible with his state of health. 15. Following a further deterioration in the applicant's health, on 22 June 2017 the ambulance took him to the Hospital, where the previous diagnosis (see paragraph 8 above) was confirmed, electrocardiography and cardiac ventriculography tests were recommended, and he was prescribed some medication. 16. The case file contains an extract from the applicant's medical file bearing no date and signed by the head of the SIZO medical unit; according to the extract, the SIZO had no cardiologist on its staff and high-quality medical treatment was not possible at the SIZO. The applicant did not receive the prescribed medication in full owing to a lack of funds. The extract furthermore stated that he remained under the supervision of the SIZO medical staff and did not require inpatient medical treatment. 17. On 10 July 2017 the Court reiterated its previous decision (see paragraph 11 above) indicating that the authorities were to ensure that the applicant was transported promptly, and in conditions commensurate with his state of health, to a specialised medical institution to undergo the necessary medical examinations, such as a cardiac ventriculography test, in order that a correct diagnosis could be made and the applicant could receive medical treatment, if necessary. On 8 August 2017 the Government submitted that the applicant had not been transported to a specialised medical institution, as had been indicated by the Court, owing to his refusal of 16 June 2017 (see paragraph 14 above). 18. According to the available information, from August 2016 until September 2017 the applicant underwent more than fifteen examinations, both within the SIZO and at civilian hospitals, and an ambulance was called twelve times to provide him with urgent treatment. 19. On an unspecified date the applicant was released from custody. On 7 November 2017 he underwent an examination at the Amosov Cardiology Institute. According to the results of the examination, he was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease, exertional angina (class III), postinfarction cardiosclerosis, and atherosclerosis of the aorta and of the coronary arteries. It was recommended that he undergo surgery for his ischemic heart disease, together with further inpatient treatment. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

11. Following a deterioration in the applicant's health, on 23 May 2017 the Court indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that they should immediately ensure that the recommended treatment was available and provided to the applicant and that the applicant was placed in a specialised medical institution for medical treatment – including surgery, if appropriate. 14. According to the Government, the SIZO administration offered the applicant transportation to the Kyiv SIZO in a prison van with a view to his undergoing a further medical examination at the Amosov Cardiology Institute. On 16 June 2017 the applicant refused that offer, arguing that he could not be transported in a prison van owing to his state of health. The case file contains a statement by the applicant dated 16 June 2017 addressed to the head of the SIZO, according to which he did not refuse transportation but insisted on it being in a form that was compatible with his state of health. 17. On 10 July 2017 the Court reiterated its previous decision (see paragraph 11 above) indicating that the authorities were to ensure that the applicant was transported promptly, and in conditions commensurate with his state of health, to a specialised medical institution to undergo the necessary medical examinations, such as a cardiac ventriculography test, in order that a correct diagnosis could be made and the applicant could receive medical treatment, if necessary. On 8 August 2017 the Government submitted that the applicant had not been transported to a specialised medical institution, as had been indicated by the Court, owing to his refusal of 16 June 2017 (see paragraph 14 above).

While there were some early refusals of treatment, the process ultimately ended in some remedy. It depends on what the statute means by "effective" remedy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated; edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Klaipėda. 5. On 2 July 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of possession of drugs with intention to distribute. On 9 July 2013 the applicant was brought to Šiauliai Remand Prison and was held there until 31 May 2016. In judgment of 23 December 2015 the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment by the Klaipėda District Court. Following an appeal by the applicant, the judgment became final on 25 May 2016. The applicant was then transferred to Alytus Correctional Facility and after serving his sentence was released on 30 June 2017. 6. In April 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court about his conditions of detention in Šiauliai Remand Prison. He complained of: overcrowding; of there being no partition wall between toilets and cells; of insufficient ventilation; of insufficient time in the open air; of insufficient time for showering; of the presence of cockroaches; of inmates smoking in the cells; of no long-stay or short visits; of the fact that he had not been allowed to go home; of the low energy value of the food provided; of the prohibition on receiving food from relatives and friends; and of the prohibition on having his own blanket and a music player. 7. On 27 June 2014 the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court held that for 135 days the applicant had been housed in cell no. 53, and the personal space available to him had varied between 1.87 and 3.12 sq. m. This had been a clear violation of domestic norms. For eighty-seven days the applicant had been held in cell no. 50, where the personal space available to him had varied between 1.86 and 4.65 sq. m, and it had come close to a violation of domestic norms. The court further held that the presence of toilets in the applicant's cell had not corresponded to the requirements of domestic law, that the lighting had been insufficient and the temperature had been too low, and that the food provided had had insufficient energy value. The court noted that inmates could buy food and other necessities in the shops of the facility. The applicant's other complaints were dismissed as unsubstantiated. As regards the prohibition on having his own blanket and a music player, the court held that the use of personal blankets was not allowed in accordance with domestic norms. As for music players, inmates could use television sets, computers, computer-game devices, discs that could not be rewritten, other memory cards of up to 4GB and bedding (except for a pillow, a mattress and a blanket) that could be given to them by their spouses, partners or close relatives. As regards long-stay and short visits, the court held that remand prisoners did not have a right to long-stay visits but he had a right to short visits of up to two hours. The applicant asked for a long-stay visit but on 20 January 2014 the prosecutor decided not to allow him such a visit. The court also held that inmates could be allowed to go home for up to five days in the event of the death or serious illness of a spouse, partner or close relative, or in the event of a natural disaster that had caused serious pecuniary damage to the inmate, his or her spouse, partner or close relatives. However, in his request of 31 January 2014 the applicant did not indicate any of those circumstances. As a result, the applicant was awarded 1,200 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 348 euros (EUR)) in compensation for inadequate material conditions of detention for 222 days during the period between 9 July 2013 and 3 April 2014. 8. The applicant appealed, and on 11 February 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court held that it was impossible to calculate for how many days the applicant had had sufficient personal space at his disposal, and decided to hold that for 245 days the applicant had not had sufficient personal space, and that this had been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The court thus decided to increase the compensation to EUR 1,500. 9. In October 2014 the applicant lodged a new complaint concerning his material conditions in Šiauliai Remand Prison. He complained of overcrowding, low temperature, dampness, insufficient lighting, prisoners smoking in the cells, that his partner had not been able to pay him a long‑stay visit and that he had not been allowed to "take holidays". It appears that the applicant had asked the prison management to allow him to receive a long-stay visit from his spouse and his sister on 28 April 2014. 10. On 5 December 2014 the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court held that during the period between 4 April and 5 October 2014 – for 176 days – the applicant had had insufficient cell space. As regards long-stay visits, the court agreed with Šiauliai Remand Prison and stated that the applicant had not been entitled to them under domestic law; he could have had short visits but, however, he had never asked for them. The court accepted the argument of the Šiauliai Remand Prison that remand detainees had been held in prisons or correctional facilities for short periods of time and they were not in a similar situation to convicted inmates. The court awarded the applicant EUR 869 in compensation for the material conditions of his detention. 11. The applicant appealed, and on 21 September 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision in its entirety. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

NOT ruled as violated by court

5. On 2 July 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of possession of drugs with intention to distribute. On 9 July 2013 the applicant was brought to Šiauliai Remand Prison and was held there until 31 May 2016. In judgment of 23 December 2015 the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment by the Klaipėda District Court. Following an appeal by the applicant, the judgment became final on 25 May 2016. The applicant was then transferred to Alytus Correctional Facility and after serving his sentence was released on 30 June 2017. 7. On 27 June 2014 the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court held that for 135 days the applicant had been housed in cell no. 53, and the personal space available to him had varied between 1.87 and 3.12 sq. m. This had been a clear violation of domestic norms. For eighty-seven days the applicant had been held in cell no. 50, where the personal space available to him had varied between 1.86 and 4.65 sq. m, and it had come close to a violation of domestic norms. The court further held that the presence of toilets in the applicant's cell had not corresponded to the requirements of domestic law, that the lighting had been insufficient and the temperature had been too low, and that the food provided had had insufficient energy value. The court noted that inmates could buy food and other necessities in the shops of the facility. The applicant's other complaints were dismissed as unsubstantiated. As regards the prohibition on having his own blanket and a music player, the court held that the use of personal blankets was not allowed in accordance with domestic norms. As for music players, inmates could use television sets, computers, computer-game devices, discs that could not be rewritten, other memory cards of up to 4GB and bedding (except for a pillow, a mattress and a blanket) that could be given to them by their spouses, partners or close relatives. As regards long-stay and short visits, the court held that remand prisoners did not have a right to long-stay visits but he had a right to short visits of up to two hours. The applicant asked for a long-stay visit but on 20 January 2014 the prosecutor decided not to allow him such a visit. The court also held that inmates could be allowed to go home for up to five days in the event of the death or serious illness of a spouse, partner or close relative, or in the event of a natural disaster that had caused serious pecuniary damage to the inmate, his or her spouse, partner or close relatives. However, in his request of 31 January 2014 the applicant did not indicate any of those circumstances. As a result, the applicant was awarded 1,200 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 348 euros (EUR)) in compensation for inadequate material conditions of detention for 222 days during the period between 9 July 2013 and 3 April 2014. 8. The applicant appealed, and on 11 February 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court held that it was impossible to calculate for how many days the applicant had had sufficient personal space at his disposal, and decided to hold that for 245 days the applicant had not had sufficient personal space, and that this had been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The court thus decided to increase the compensation to EUR 1,500. 9. In October 2014 the applicant lodged a new complaint concerning his material conditions in Šiauliai Remand Prison. He complained of overcrowding, low temperature, dampness, insufficient lighting, prisoners smoking in the cells, that his partner had not been able to pay him a long‑stay visit and that he had not been allowed to "take holidays". It appears that the applicant had asked the prison management to allow him to receive a long-stay visit from his spouse and his sister on 28 April 2014. 10. On 5 December 2014 the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court held that during the period between 4 April and 5 October 2014 – for 176 days – the applicant had had insufficient cell space. As regards long-stay visits, the court agreed with Šiauliai Remand Prison and stated that the applicant had not been entitled to them under domestic law; he could have had short visits but, however, he had never asked for them. The court accepted the argument of the Šiauliai Remand Prison that remand detainees had been held in prisons or correctional facilities for short periods of time and they were not in a similar situation to convicted inmates. The court awarded the applicant EUR 869 in compensation for the material conditions of his detention. 11. The applicant appealed, and on 21 September 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision in its entirety.

While the applicant continued to appeal, the government provided remedy and reasons for its effectiveness.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicants, Ms Bozhana Boyanova Uzunova and Mr Ferad Ismail Seid, were born in 1978 and 1955 respectively, and live in Kardzhali. 5. The applicants co-owned a plot of land of 15,276 square metres near the town of Kapitan Andreevo. 6. On 30 November 2007 the Council of Ministers decided to expropriate 6,218 square metres of the applicants' plot with a view to building a motorway. The decision allowed preliminary enforcement of the expropriation and stated that the owners were to be given BGN 13,023 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 6,657) in compensation. The decision recorded as owner of the expropriated plot the person from whom the applicants had bought the property. 7. The applicants brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the expropriation decision before the Supreme Administrative Court. In a final judgment of 3 April 2009 that court declared the decision null and void as it had failed to specify the actual owners of the plot to whom compensation was due, and referred the case back to the administrative authorities. The Road Infrastructure Agency requested re-opening of the judicial review proceedings on the ground that it had not been able to take part in them as an interested third party even though its participation was mandatory under the State Property Act 1996 as investor in the construction of the motorway. In a judgment of 12 October 2009 a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the request, quashed the judgment of 3 April 2009 and remitted the case to be re-examined by a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court. 8. In a final judgment of 28 December 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court found that compensation was due to the applicants as owners of the plot at issue and that it had to be increased to BGN 59,817 (the equivalent of EUR 30,577), in accordance with the conclusions of an expert report obtained in the course of the proceedings. The court also awarded the applicants BGN 600 in costs, to be paid by the Council of Ministers. 9. On 13 January 2011 the applicants invited the Road Infrastructure Agency to pay the compensation due to them. In its response of 21 February 2011, the Agency informed the applicants that due to some changes in the layout of the motorway, a new decision for expropriation of the affected property was being prepared. 10. On 5 July 2011 the Council of Ministers issued a new decision for expropriation, in accordance with which 5,215 square metres of the applicants' plot were to be expropriated against compensation in the amount of BGN 1,794 (the equivalent of EUR 917). The applicants brought judicial review proceedings in respect of this decision. In a judgment of 26 June 2012, the Supreme Administrative Court declared the decision of 5 July 2011 null and void as it had failed to take account of the binding character of the judgment of 28 December 2010, the latter having determined the dispute between the parties with final effect. In March 2012 the Ministry of Finance unsuccessfully sought reopening of the proceedings ending with the judgment of 28 December 2010 before the Supreme Administrative Court. 11. On 4 July 2012 the applicants once again invited the Road Infrastructure Agency to pay the compensation due to them. They subsequently wrote to the agency again on 15 October 2012, to the Council of Ministers on 14 October 2013 submitting also a writ of enforcement in respect of the sum due, and to the regional governor on 21 February 2014. 12. On 26 February 2015, at the time of submitting their observations on the admissibility and merits in this case, the Government informed the Court that on 15 May 2014 the Road Infrastructure Agency had paid to each applicant BGN 29,908.50, or altogether BGN 59,817 pursuant to the final judgment in their favour of 28 December 2010. 13. On 10 December 2014, 20 January 2015 and 23 March 2015 respectively, the applicants wrote to various authorities, without success, seeking the payment of interest on the above amount for the period of over three years when it had remained unenforced. 14. In the meantime, on 22 November 2013 the applicants brought proceedings before the Sofia Administrative Court in relation to the lack of enforcement of the final judicial decision of 28 December 2010. In particular, they claimed they had incurred pecuniary damage as a result of the lack of enforcement; they also claimed interest on the amount determined in the said judgment for the period of its non-enforcement. On 18 December 2013 the court dismissed their claim as inadmissible. It found, on the one hand, that the applicants had not indicated an individual administrative act as the subject of their judicial review proceedings. If, on the other hand, the applicants' claim was about the lack of enforcement of a final judicial decision, the court held that the competent body in that connection was the bailiff and the relevant procedure was under chapter XVII of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 ("the 2006 Code"). 15. The applicants appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court, alleging a breach of Article 203 of the 2006 Code and a breach of section 1(1) of the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (the "SMRDA"), and challenging the lower court's decision as being unreasoned. In a final decision of 13 February 2014, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the lower court's decision. The applicants' rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

12. On 26 February 2015, at the time of submitting their observations on the admissibility and merits in this case, the Government informed the Court that on 15 May 2014 the Road Infrastructure Agency had paid to each applicant BGN 29,908.50, or altogether BGN 59,817 pursuant to the final judgment in their favour of 28 December 2010.

While the government gave reasonable explanation for the effectivness of its remedy, the applicants have a right to effective remedy in the form of the full monetary sum originally promised.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated

Article 13 Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

4. The applicant was born in 1978. According to the most recently available information, at the time of the events in June 2016 the applicant was detained in Kirovograd pre-trial detention facility no. 14 ("the SIZO"). 5. In January 2013 the applicant started serving a sentence of ten years' imprisonment for murder. In February 2013 he was placed in Kirovograd prison no. 6 ("the Prison"). 6. In April 2014 the applicant's health deteriorated. He complained of fever, abdominal pain and vomiting. Following his examination in Kirovograd Regional Hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with chronic calculous cholecystitis (calculi within the gallbladder) and acute chronic gastroduodenitis. 7. On 11 April 2014 the applicant complained of feeling unwell to the Prison medical unit. He was examined immediately and diagnosed with acute gastroduodenitis and chronic calculous cholecystitis. According to the case-file material, he was not prescribed medical treatment. 8. On 22 August 2014 the applicant further complained to the Prison medical unit of feeling unwell. He was diagnosed with acute chronic gastroduodenitis and was prescribed dietary treatment for three days. 9. On 6, 8 and 13 October and 5 November 2014, and 6 March 2015, in response to further complaints by the applicant, he was prescribed outpatient treatment. According to the Government, the outpatient treatment consisted of medicine, which was administered to the applicant in various combinations, notably, papaverine, co-trimixazole, azithromycin, and bromhexin. 10. Following another such complaint, on 16 April 2015 the Prison doctor diagnosed the applicant with acute chronic gastroduodenitis and recommended that he be further examined at a specialist institution with a view to deciding whether he required surgery. 11. From 2 to 29 May and from 3 to 11 June 2015 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment for acute chronic gastroduodenitis in the Prison medical unit. According to the Government, he was administered the prescribed medication and his state of health improved. 12. On 10 July 2015 he was examined by a general practitioner of Kirovograd City Hospital, who confirmed the earlier diagnoses and recommended inpatient treatment and dietary treatment. 13. From 28 July to 10 September 2015 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment for calculus cholecystitis in unstable remission at the hospital in Bucha prison no. 85. The applicant alleged that the treatment which he had received there had been inadequate and had led to an aggravation of his condition. He also alleged that surgery for his calculus cholecystitis had been scheduled but had not been performed owing to lack of funds. 14. On 21 September 2015 he was transferred back to the Prison. In the meantime he had been detained in the Kyiv SIZO and the Odessa SIZO. During his detention from 14 to 21 September 2015, he complained to the SIZOs' administration of abdominal pain and vomiting, but allegedly to no avail. 15. On 8 October 2015 the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell in the Prison for three months as a penalty for consumption of alcohol. According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention there were very poor: he suffered from lack of fresh air, low temperatures, unsanitary conditions and high humidity. Furthermore, he allegedly had no mattress to sleep on. 16. According to the Government, on 8 October 2015 the Prison governor issued a decision on the applicant' placement in a disciplinary cell for consumption of alcohol. On 30 December 2015 he was early released from the disciplinary cell. 17. On 12 October 2015 the applicant's lawyer complained to the Kirovograd regional prosecutor's office that the applicant was not receiving the requisite medical care in detention. He submitted, in particular, that the surgery which the applicant required had been postponed owing to the lack of funds. 18. On 23 October 2015 the Prison doctor examined the applicant once again and diagnosed him with chronic calculous cholecystitis in unstable remission. He prescribed the applicant medication and recommended elective surgery. 19. On 9 November 2015 the prison service of Kirovograd Region sent a request for the applicant's placement in the hospital in Bucha prison no. 85. On 9 December 2015 this request was refused owing to the lack of available places in the hospital. 20. On 11 December 2015 and 16 January 2016 the prison service again requested the applicant's placement in the hospital at correctional colony no. 4 of Dnipropetrovsk Region. On 27 January 2016 the prison service took a decision on the applicant's transfer to the hospital for the required surgery. 21. On 12 February 2016 the applicant informed the Prison governor that he had refused the treatment offered to him in the hospitals within the Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv SIZOs because of lack of trust in the doctors of those facilities. On the same day the applicant gave his consent to receive treatment at any other medical institution. 22. On 22 April 2016 following deterioration of his health, the applicant was transferred by ambulance to Kirovograd Regional Hospital, where he was examined by a surgeon and diagnosed with calculous cholecystitis, chronic pancreatitis and "diffusive changes" of the liver (дифузні зміни печінки). 23. According to the Government, as of November 2016 the applicant's state of health was satisfactory. The Government did not provide documentary evidence in respect of that statement. The applicant's rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention were violated.

Ruled as violated by court

6. In April 2014 the applicant's health deteriorated. He complained of fever, abdominal pain and vomiting. Following his examination in Kirovograd Regional Hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with chronic calculous cholecystitis (calculi within the gallbladder) and acute chronic gastroduodenitis. 8. On 22 August 2014 the applicant further complained to the Prison medical unit of feeling unwell. He was diagnosed with acute chronic gastroduodenitis and was prescribed dietary treatment for three days. 9. On 6, 8 and 13 October and 5 November 2014, and 6 March 2015, in response to further complaints by the applicant, he was prescribed outpatient treatment. According to the Government, the outpatient treatment consisted of medicine, which was administered to the applicant in various combinations, notably, papaverine, co-trimixazole, azithromycin, and bromhexin. 10. Following another such complaint, on 16 April 2015 the Prison doctor diagnosed the applicant with acute chronic gastroduodenitis and recommended that he be further examined at a specialist institution with a view to deciding whether he required surgery. The parties did not inform the Court whether the applicant had undergone the recommended examination. 17. On 12 October 2015 the applicant's lawyer complained to the Kirovograd regional prosecutor's office that the applicant was not receiving the requisite medical care in detention. He submitted, in particular, that the surgery which the applicant required had been postponed owing to the lack of funds. 18. On 23 October 2015 the Prison doctor examined the applicant once again and diagnosed him with chronic calculous cholecystitis in unstable remission. He prescribed the applicant medication and recommended elective surgery. 19. On 9 November 2015 the prison service of Kirovograd Region sent a request for the applicant's placement in the hospital in Bucha prison no. 85. On 9 December 2015 this request was refused owing to the lack of available places in the hospital. 21. On 12 February 2016 the applicant informed the Prison governor that he had refused the treatment offered to him in the hospitals within the Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv SIZOs because of lack of trust in the doctors of those facilities. On the same day the applicant gave his consent to receive treatment at any other medical institution. 22. On 22 April 2016 following deterioration of his health, the applicant was transferred by ambulance to Kirovograd Regional Hospital, where he was examined by a surgeon and diagnosed with calculous cholecystitis, chronic pancreatitis and "diffusive changes" of the liver (дифузні зміни печінки).

The government denied the applicant's requests for effective remedy in terms of treatment multiple times. However, the patient ended up healthy.

edited by me to add that applicant rights were violated; edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

4. The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Bukhara, Uzbekistan. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. The applicant was born in Uzbekistan. In 2003 his father, mother, brother and sister moved to Vladivostok in Russia and subsequently acquired Russian nationality, while he continued to live with his grandfather in Bukhara, visiting them in the summer months. After his grandfather had died and the applicant had finished the secondary school, in June 2011 he joined his family in Russia. 7. The applicant took a mandatory blood test with a view to obtaining a health certificate to support his application for a temporary residence permit. He was found to be HIV-positive. 8. On 23 September 2011 the Consumer Protection Authority declared the applicant's presence in Russian undesirable (the "exclusion order") on the ground that he was HIV-positive. 9. By judgment of 19 December 2011, the Sovetskiy District Court in Vladivostok rejected the applicant's challenge to the exclusion order, finding that it was issued in full compliance with Russian law. 10. On 13 February 2012 the Primorskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 11. On 22 February 2012 the applicant left Russia to comply with the exclusion order.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant was discriminated on by basis of HIV status.

Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

4. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Adıyaman. 5. On 17 October 1999 the applicant sat an examination in order to become a public servant. She was successful in the examination and on 27 June 2000 she was notified by the State Personnel Department attached to the Prime Minister's office that she had been appointed to the post of security officer in the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ, the state-run Electricity Company. 6. On 4 September 2000 the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ informed the applicant that she would not be appointed to a post in that office as she did not fulfil the requirements of "being a man" and "having completed military service". 7. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an action against TEDAŞ with the Ankara Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the decision of the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ. In her deposition, the applicant noted that being a man was not a requirement for appointment to the post in question and that she fulfilled all the requirements for that post. 8. On an unspecified date the general directorate of TEDAŞ submitted to the administrative court that one of the requirements for the post in question had been declared by the State Personnel Department as "having completed military service" and that therefore only men could be appointed to the post. The applicant, being a woman, could therefore not be recruited as a security officer. 9. On 28 November 2001 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Kilis branch of TEDAŞ. The court held that the requirement of "having completed military service" should be considered to apply only to male candidates and that there had been no restriction on women working as security officers in TEDAŞ. 10. On 30 January 2002 TEDAŞ lodged an appeal against the judgment of 28 November 2001. 11. On 1 April 2003 the applicant was recruited by TEDAŞ. 12. On 21 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Ankara Administrative Court, holding that the requirement regarding military service demonstrated that the post in question was reserved for male candidates. The high court therefore found that the administration's decision had been in accordance with the law. 13. On 19 March 2004 the applicant was dismissed from her post. 14. On 30 December 2004 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's case, taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court. 15. On 7 May 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 30 December 2004. 16. On 12 July 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment was notified to the applicant.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant was discriminated on by basis of gender.

Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

5. The applicant was born in 1974 in Khabarovsk and is serving a life sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region. 6. From 25 May 2012 to 10 April 2014 the applicant was held in penal colony IK-56 in the Sverdlovsk Region. He was able to have five short visits in 2013 and one short visit in 2014. 7. On 15 July 2013 the applicant asked the governor to allow him a short meeting with four adult relatives, his mother, sister and two cousins. He also asked for the meeting to be held without a glass partition between him and his visitors or the presence of a prison officer. The governor signed his decision on the petition: "Rejected. Not allowed under the Code of Execution of Sentences". 8. From 15 May to 16 July 2014 the applicant was transferred to remand prison SIZO-1 in Khabarovsk – where his family still lived – to take part in another investigation. 9. On the day after his arrival at the prison, he asked the prison governor to authorise a short meeting with four family members – his sister, two cousins and aunt – without a physical partition between him and the visitors or the presence of prison officers. By a letter of 21 May 2014, the governor rejected his request. He pointed out that, pursuant to section 18 of the Pre‑trial Detention Act, visits are subject to written authorisation from the official or authority in charge of the criminal case. Furthermore, the Rules of Internal Order in Remand Prisons required that visiting rooms be equipped with a physical partition and that visits be supervised by a prison officer. 10. On 3 June 2014 the applicant asked the governor to authorise a long meeting with his mother and sister. He relied on Article 89 of the Code of Execution of Sentences (CES) and emphasised that the remand prison was equipped with rooms for long-stay visits which could be used by convicted prisoners serving their sentence in that prison. Three days later the governor replied that the applicable law did not make a provision for long-stay visits in respect of remand prisoners. He referred the applicant to Article 77.1 of the CES. 11. The applicant subsequently asked the authorities in charge of the criminal case to authorise short visits from his family members. On 11 June and 1 August 2014 the investigator and the deputy head of the investigations department, respectively, rejected his request. They informed the applicant that "the authorities in charge of the investigation were not preventing [him] from having short visits from his family members as long as it did not contradict Russian law, including the Code of Execution of Sentences". 12. The applicant challenged the restrictions on family visits before a court of general jurisdiction. According to the information from the Government, all of his challenges were dismissed as unfounded. 13. According to a certificate issued by the governor on 27 April 2017, the applicant did not have any short or long-stay visits during his time in the Khabarovsk remand prison.

NOT ruled as violated by court

9. On the day after his arrival at the prison, he asked the prison governor to authorise a short meeting with four family members – his sister, two cousins and aunt – without a physical partition between him and the visitors or the presence of prison officers. By a letter of 21 May 2014, the governor rejected his request. He pointed out that, pursuant to section 18 of the Pre‑trial Detention Act, visits are subject to written authorisation from the official or authority in charge of the criminal case. Furthermore, the Rules of Internal Order in Remand Prisons required that visiting rooms be equipped with a physical partition and that visits be supervised by a prison officer. 10. On 3 June 2014 the applicant asked the governor to authorise a long meeting with his mother and sister. He relied on Article 89 of the Code of Execution of Sentences (CES) and emphasised that the remand prison was equipped with rooms for long-stay visits which could be used by convicted prisoners serving their sentence in that prison. Three days later the governor replied that the applicable law did not make a provision for long-stay visits in respect of remand prisoners. He referred the applicant to Article 77.1 of the CES. 11. The applicant subsequently asked the authorities in charge of the criminal case to authorise short visits from his family members. On 11 June and 1 August 2014 the investigator and the deputy head of the investigations department, respectively, rejected his request. They informed the applicant that "the authorities in charge of the investigation were not preventing [him] from having short visits from his family members as long as it did not contradict Russian law, including the Code of Execution of Sentences". 13. According to a certificate issued by the governor on 27 April 2017, the applicant did not have any short or long-stay visits during his time in the Khabarovsk remand prison.

There is no relevance between discrimination and prison visitation.

Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

5. The applicants were born in 1954, 1952, 1964, 1926, 1952, 1960 and 1956 respectively and live in Donetsk. 6. From the beginning of April 2014 armed groups started to seize official buildings in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and announced the creation of self-proclaimed entities known as the "Donetsk People's Republic" and "Luhansk People's Republic" (the "DPR" and "LPR"). 7. In response, on 14 April 2014 the Government, who consider the armed groups to be terrorist organisations, authorised the use of force against them in the legal form of an "anti-terrorist operation". 8. In June 2014 the armed groups started to seize offices of the National Bank of Ukraine and other regional financial institutions in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. 9. On 24 July 2014 the Ukrainian postal service Ukrposhta suspended its operations on the territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that were outside the control of the Government, because of frequent attacks on its vehicles and employees by armed groups. 10. On 6 August 2014 the National Bank of Ukraine suspended all financial transactions on the territories outside the control of the Government (see paragraph 20 below). 11. Government forces recaptured some territories in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, but certain parts of the regions have remained outside the Government's control since that time. One part of the Donetsk region not under the Government's control is the city of Donetsk. 12. On 2 September 2014, following changes in the law, jurisdiction of the courts in the non-controlled areas was transferred to the relevant courts in the neighbouring regions on the territory controlled by the Government (see paragraphs 34 to 36 below). 13. On 11 November 2014 all social benefit payments in the settlements of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that were outside the control of the Government were suspended (see paragraph 26 below) 14. In December 2014 the Donetsk Regional Administrative Court and the Donetsk Regional Administrative Court of Appeal were relocated to the cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, territory controlled by the Government (see paragraphs 37 and 38 below). 15. The applicants were registered as recipients of social benefits with different departments of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Donetsk. Some applicants had been receiving their social benefits until 30 June 2014, others until 31 August 2014. 16. On 16 June 2015 the first and second applicants registered themselves with the Labour and Social Security Department of the Krasnoarmiysk District of the Donetsk region (currently the city of Pokrovsk), controlled by the Government. On the same day their social benefits was reinstated, including social benefits due to them for the period 1 July 2014 to 16 June 2015. 17. The sixth applicant was registered with the Labour and Social Security Department of the Obolonskiy District in Kyiv on 9 September 2015. However, she did not apply for reinstatement of her social benefits. 18. The other applicants did not apply to the relevant social authorities on the territory controlled by the Government for reinstatement of their social benefits. 19. According to the Government, the sixth and seventh applicants travelled from Donetsk to the territory controlled by the Government after their social benefits had been suspended. The Government provided a certificate from the State Customs Office stating that the sixth and seventh applicants had entered the territory controlled by the Government on 31 October 2015, through an authorised checkpoint near the frontline between Ukrainian forces and "DPR" armed groups in the town of Zaitseve.

NOT ruled as violated by court

16. On 16 June 2015 the first and second applicants registered themselves with the Labour and Social Security Department of the Krasnoarmiysk District of the Donetsk region (currently the city of Pokrovsk), controlled by the Government. On the same day their social benefits was reinstated, including social benefits due to them for the period 1 July 2014 to 16 June 2015. 17. The sixth applicant was registered with the Labour and Social Security Department of the Obolonskiy District in Kyiv on 9 September 2015. However, she did not apply for reinstatement of her social benefits. 19. According to the Government, the sixth and seventh applicants travelled from Donetsk to the territory controlled by the Government after their social benefits had been suspended. The Government provided a certificate from the State Customs Office stating that the sixth and seventh applicants had entered the territory controlled by the Government on 31 October 2015, through an authorised checkpoint near the frontline between Ukrainian forces and "DPR" armed groups in the town of Zaitseve.

There is no relevance between discrimination and the timeline of social benefits.

Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

4. The applicants were born in 1997 and 1999 respectively and live in Bucharest. 5. On 20 July 2010 X, the applicants' sister, nine-year-old at the time, was grievously injured in a car accident. She was immediately admitted to hospital where, after four days of intense suffering, she died. 6. A criminal investigation for involuntary manslaughter was initiated against the driver of the car. It was established that while driving at about ninety‑two kilometres per hour (when the speed limit was fifty kilometres per hour) she lost control of her car and mounted the pavement where the applicants' sister was situated. 7. On 26 September 2010, during the pre-trial investigation stage, the applicants, their mother and their older brothers brought a claim for damages in the criminal proceedings. 8. On 24 October 2011 the Bucharest District Court severed the civil claims from the criminal proceedings. 9. On 6 December 2011 the Bucharest District court awarded each civil party (including the applicants) 100,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. It ordered the driver's insurance company to pay the damages. 10. The court held that between the civil parties and the nine‑year‑old girl there had been a strong emotional relationship and the girl's violent death had caused intense pain to her family. The wording of the court judgment read as follows: "...the brothers of the deceased suffered non-pecuniary damage, consisting of the pain caused by the loss of their nine-year-old sister in violent circumstances and by their sister's suffering in the hospital until her death; from the evidence adduced before the court (the statements of the civil parties were corroborated by the statements of three witnesses) it can be determined that between the civil parties and the nine-year-old girl there was a strong emotional relationship. Therefore, having regard to the negative consequences, the importance of the infringed moral values, the way in which they were perceived by the civil parties, and the impact of their loss on the stability of their family, the court will grant to each civil party the equivalent of 100,000 euros". 11. All the parties appealed against the judgment. 12. No new pieces of evidence were adduced before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 13. On 9 April 2012 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law lodged by the insurance company. It ordered the driver of the car to pay the damages, holding that the insurance company's liability was only contractual and therefore subsidiary. The court further dismissed the applicants' claim for non-pecuniary damages on the ground that at the time of their sister's accident they had been younger than fourteen and had therefore been unaware of the negative consequences of her death. In relation to the claims lodged by their older siblings, the court decreased the awards to EUR 25,000 each. The wording of the court judgment read as follows: "The court will dismiss the civil claims lodged by Cosmin Mihai Deaconu and Alexandru Bogdan Deaconu on grounds other than those invoked by the insurance company. In the present case, the applicants' situation should be assessed in a different way, having regard to the fact that at the time of their minor sister's accident they were younger than fourteen and therefore they were not aware of the negative consequences of her death. This aspect was apparent to persons who had a close relationship with the deceased's family; thus, witness N.G.G. contended in her statement before the court that the younger brothers were less aware than their older brothers, who suffered..." 14. The court also decreased the award for their mother in respect of non‑pecuniary damage to EUR 50,000.

Ruled as violated by court

10. The court held that between the civil parties and the nine‑year‑old girl there had been a strong emotional relationship and the girl's violent death had caused intense pain to her family. The wording of the court judgment read as follows: "...the brothers of the deceased suffered non-pecuniary damage, consisting of the pain caused by the loss of their nine-year-old sister in violent circumstances and by their sister's suffering in the hospital until her death; from the evidence adduced before the court (the statements of the civil parties were corroborated by the statements of three witnesses) it can be determined that between the civil parties and the nine-year-old girl there was a strong emotional relationship. Therefore, having regard to the negative consequences, the importance of the infringed moral values, the way in which they were perceived by the civil parties, and the impact of their loss on the stability of their family, the court will grant to each civil party the equivalent of 100,000 euros". 12. No new pieces of evidence were adduced before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. 13. On 9 April 2012 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law lodged by the insurance company. It ordered the driver of the car to pay the damages, holding that the insurance company's liability was only contractual and therefore subsidiary. The court further dismissed the applicants' claim for non-pecuniary damages on the ground that at the time of their sister's accident they had been younger than fourteen and had therefore been unaware of the negative consequences of her death. In relation to the claims lodged by their older siblings, the court decreased the awards to EUR 25,000 each. The wording of the court judgment read as follows: "The court will dismiss the civil claims lodged by Cosmin Mihai Deaconu and Alexandru Bogdan Deaconu on grounds other than those invoked by the insurance company. In the present case, the applicants' situation should be assessed in a different way, having regard to the fact that at the time of their minor sister's accident they were younger than fourteen and therefore they were not aware of the negative consequences of her death. This aspect was apparent to persons who had a close relationship with the deceased's family; thus, witness N.G.G. contended in her statement before the court that the younger brothers were less aware than their older brothers, who suffered..."

The applicants were discriminated on by basis of age.

Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

5. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Ostia Lido. 6. At birth, the applicant was entered in the civil-status registers as male and was given the forename L. However, the applicant stated that she had always identified as female and lived in society as a woman under the forename S. For instance, her work colleagues (the applicant has worked as a civil servant since 1999) had always called her S., and in the photograph on her identity card issued in August 2000 her appearance was that of a woman. 7. In 1999 S.V. began treatment with feminising hormones as part of the gender transition process. 8. On 9 November 2000 she applied to the Rome District Court on the basis of section 3 of Law no. 164 of 1982, stating that she wished to complete the transition process by permanently changing her primary sexual characteristics, and sought authorisation to undergo gender reassignment surgery. 9. In a judgment of 10 May 2001 the District Court found that the applicant had embarked on the gender transition process after careful consideration. Having taken note of her determination the court authorised her to undergo surgery in order to adapt her primary sexual characteristics to match her female gender identity. 10. On 30 May 2001 the applicant, while awaiting the surgery authorised by the District Court, applied to the prefect of Rome for a change of forename under Article 89 of Presidential Decree no. 396 of 2000. She argued that, given that she had been undergoing a gender transition process for several years, and in view of her physical appearance, the fact that her identity papers indicated a male forename was a constant source of humiliation and embarrassment. She also asserted that the waiting period for surgery was approximately four years. 11. In a decision of 4 July 2001 the prefect refused the applicant's request on the grounds that, under Presidential Decree no. 396 of 2000, a person's forename had to correspond to his or her gender. In the prefect's view, in the absence of a final court ruling ordering the change to her legal gender status for the purposes of Law no. 164 of 1982, the applicant's forename could not be changed. 12. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Lazio Regional Administrative Court and also requested a stay of execution of the prefect's decision. 13. On 23 July 2001 the applicant underwent mammoplasty. On 6 September 2001 she was placed on a waiting list at Trieste University Hospital for surgery to alter her primary sexual characteristics. 14. On 21 February 2002 the Regional Administrative Court refused to grant a stay of execution of the prefect's decision. 15. On 3 February 2003, while the proceedings before the Regional Administrative Court were still pending on the merits, the applicant underwent an operation to change her sexual characteristics from male to female. She subsequently applied to the Rome District Court, on an unspecified date, for legal recognition of her gender reassignment under section 3 of Law no. 164 of 1982. 16. In a judgment of 10 October 2003 the Rome District Court granted the applicant's request and ordered the Savona municipal authorities to alter the indication of the applicant's gender from male to female and to change the forename L. to S. 17. By a judgment of 6 March 2008, deposited with the registry on 17 May 2008, the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the prefect's decision of 4 July 2001. The court held that Article 89 of Presidential Decree no. 396 of 2000 concerning changes of forename was not applicable in the present case, which actually came within the scope of Law no. 164 of 1982 concerning changes to legal gender status. The court stressed in that regard that, under the terms of the latter, the amendment of the civil-status records of a transgender person had to be ordered by the court ruling on his or her gender reassignment. It therefore considered that the prefect had correctly refused the applicant's request. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment.

NOT ruled as violated by court

The applicant was discriminated on by basis of gender, but arguably not the by-birth gender. It depends on the interpretation of the grounds listed in the statute.

Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

6. The first, second and third applicants were born in 1981, 1973 and 1984 respectively. Since 2004 they have been serving life sentences in correctional colonies in Ukraine. 7. On 11 July 2003 the Ukrainian Parliament adopted the Code on the Execution of Sentences of Ukraine ("the Code"). Article 150 of the Code ("Place of serving life imprisonment") provided that life prisoners were to serve their sentences in maximum-security correctional colonies. Article 151 ("Procedure for, and conditions of, the execution and serving of life sentences") further provided, inter alia, that life prisoners were entitled to one short visit every six months. No reference to prisoners' gender was made in those Articles. At the same time, Article 18 ("Correctional colonies") provided that female life prisoners were to serve their sentences in medium-security colonies. In turn, Article 139 ("Medium-security correctional colonies") provided that prisoners serving their sentences in such colonies were entitled, inter alia, to have one short visit every month and one long visit every three months. Article 110 specified that a short visit from relatives or other persons could last for up to four hours and a long visit from close relatives could last for up to three days. 8. By a letter of 27 June 2007 the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences informed the second applicant, in reply to a letter sent by him on an earlier date, that female life prisoners were entitled to have one long visit every three months, as provided by Article 139 of the Code, given that they served their sentences in medium-security colonies, as provided by Article 18 of the Code. Referring, in particular, to Article 151 of the Code, the Department further stated that male life prisoners were entitled to have one short visit every six months and that they were not entitled to have long visits. 9. On 21 January 2010 the Code was amended ("the 2010 amendments"). Article 150, as amended, stated that persons sentenced to life imprisonment were to serve their sentences as follows: male prisoners ‑ either in maximum-security sectors of medium-security correctional colonies or in maximum-security correctional colonies; and female prisoners – either in medium-security sectors of minimum-security correctional colonies with general conditions of detention or in medium-security correctional colonies. Article 151, as amended, stated that life prisoners were entitled to one short visit every three months. A newly introduced Article 151² ("Specifics regarding the serving of sentences by female life prisoners") provided that female life prisoners were to be placed, as a rule, in medium-security sectors of minimum-security colonies with general conditions of detention. It also provided that female life prisoners were to be subject to the regime laid down for prisoners held in medium‑security colonies (that is, the regime provided for in Article 139 of the Code). 10. By the Law of 8 April 2014 on the introduction of amendments to the Code relating to the adaptation of status of convicted persons to European standards the Code was amended again ("the 2014 amendments"). Article 151 was amended to entitle all life prisoners to one short visit every month and one long visit every three months regardless of the type of correctional colony in which they were detained or the security regime to which they were subject. 11. Further amendments to Article 151 of the Code, which were passed by Parliament on 7 September 2016, entitled all life prisoners to one long visit every two months. 12. The first applicant stated that he and his family had wished to maintain their relationships, but as the result of the absence of the right to long visits until 2014 he had had to divorce his wife. His father, grandfather and grandmother had died in 2008, 2009 and 2014 respectively and he had not been able to see them while serving his sentence. The Government submitted that while serving his sentence the first applicant had received twenty-eight short visits on unspecified dates and fifteen long visits (between 17 March 2015 and 6 July 2018) from his new wife, mother and his other grandmother. 13. The second applicant stated that, because of the lack of the opportunity to have long visits until 2014, he had lost contact with his family. His relatives had died – in particular he referred to his father having died in 2012 – and when the 2014 amendments entitled him to long visits, there had no longer been anyone to visit him. The Government submitted that while serving his sentence the second applicant had had one short visit in 2005 (from his sister) and had not requested any long visits. 14. The third applicant stated that, in the absence of the right to long visits until 2014, his right to found a family had been more declaratory than effective as, in particular, he had not been able to have any physical contact in order to conceive children. The Government submitted that while serving his sentence the third applicant had had twelve short visits (between 25 July 2012 and 26 December 2017) and fourteen long visits (between 5 August 2014 and 6 February 2018) from his wife, mother, father and friends.

Ruled as violated by court

8. By a letter of 27 June 2007 the State Department of Ukraine for the Execution of Sentences informed the second applicant, in reply to a letter sent by him on an earlier date, that female life prisoners were entitled to have one long visit every three months, as provided by Article 139 of the Code, given that they served their sentences in medium-security colonies, as provided by Article 18 of the Code. Referring, in particular, to Article 151 of the Code, the Department further stated that male life prisoners were entitled to have one short visit every six months and that they were not entitled to have long visits.

The applicants were discriminated on by basis of gender.

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

4. The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011). 5. The applicants or their close relatives participated in demonstrations and were injured or killed by gunfire during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest, Slobozia, Târgoviște and Reșița, which led to the fall of the communist regime. 6. In 1990 the military prosecutor's offices from several cities opened on their own motion criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators, which was found excessive. The applicants' injury and their close relatives' deaths were investigated along with most of the cases in a main criminal investigation recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). 7. The most important procedural steps were mentioned in Association "21 December 1989" and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and in Sidea and Others v. Romania ([Committee] no. 889/15, §§ 8-11, 5 June 2018). Subsequent relevant developments of the criminal investigation are as follows. 8. On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the initiation in rem of a criminal investigation for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same circumstances of fact. Up to February 2017 further steps were taken in gathering information from domestic authorities, the prosecutor's office contacting 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of events, planning the taking of evidence from military officers and other participants in the events, verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio/video recordings broadcast by radio and television. 9. From March 2017 the military prosecutor examined military and civilian archives, including the vast archives of the Romanian Senate. They also viewed and transcribed more than 400 hours of audio/video recordings. They proceeded with the re-examination of several witnesses. They questioned military personnel involved in the December 1989 military operations and fifty-one members of the political party which ruled at the time and of other authorities. They verified the documents indicating the military units' actions from that period. 10. At the date of the latest information communicated by the parties to the Court (29 March 2018), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.

Ruled as violated by court

6. In 1990 the military prosecutor's offices from several cities opened on their own motion criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators. The applicants' injury and their close relatives' deaths were investigated along with most of the cases in a main criminal investigation recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). 10. At the date of the latest information communicated by the parties to the Court (29 March 2018), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.

The protestors were deprived of their lives as a result of more force than absolutely necessary.

edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, are similar to those in Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011). 6. Between 21 and 27 December 1989 many people including the applicants and/or their close relatives involved in this case took part in the anti-communist demonstrations in Bucharest, Timișoara, Brașov, Reșița and Craiova which led to the fall of the communist regime. They were injured or killed by gunfire during the demonstrations. 7. In 1990 following the overthrow of the communist regime, the military prosecutor's office opened investigations into the armed crackdown on the demonstrations. The main criminal investigation into the use of violence, particularly against civilian demonstrators, which was found excessive, during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities has been contained in file no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014). 8. In a number of cases concerning events in Bucharest and Craiova, the prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. Those decisions were taken between 1990 and 2007. It results from the documents submitted by the parties that, after the adoption of those decisions, the prosecutor continued to examine the circumstances of these cases in the main criminal investigation – object of file no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014). 9. To date, the main criminal investigation appears to be still ongoing. The most important procedural steps were summarised in Association "21 December 1989" and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and Alecu and Others v. Romania, nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, §§ 7-13, 27 January 2015. Subsequent developments are as follows. 10. Following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in February 2014, jurisdiction over the case was relinquished in favour of the military prosecutor's office. 11. On 14 October 2015 the prosecutor's office closed the investigation, finding that the applicants' complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences and that some of them were res judicata. The parties have not submitted any information on whether there was an appeal against that decision (see Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania, nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, § 15, 12 April 2016). However, from the information available on the prosecutor's office website, the investigation is still ongoing and must have therefore been reopened.

Ruled as violated by court

7. In 1990 following the overthrow of the communist regime, the military prosecutor's office opened investigations into the armed crackdown on the demonstrations. The main criminal investigation into the use of violence, particularly against civilian demonstrators, during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities has been contained in file no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014). 8. In a number of cases concerning events in Bucharest and Craiova, the prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. Those decisions were taken between 1990 and 2007. It results from the documents submitted by the parties that, after the adoption of those decisions, the prosecutor continued to examine the circumstances of these cases in the main criminal investigation – object of file no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014). 11. On 14 October 2015 the prosecutor's office closed the investigation, finding that the applicants' complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the facts which had been investigated could not be classified as criminal offences and that some of them were res judicata. The parties have not submitted any information on whether there was an appeal against that decision (see Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania, nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, § 15, 12 April 2016). However, from the information available on the prosecutor's office website, the investigation is still ongoing and must have therefore been reopened.

The protestors were deprived of their lives as a result of more force than absolutely necessary.

edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

4. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bucharest. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, refer to the same context and domestic criminal proceedings as those described in the case Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011). 6. During the events which led to the fall of the communist regime, on the night of 21/22 December 1989 the applicant's son was killed by gunfire in Bucharest. 7. In 1990 the military prosecutor's office opened several investigations into the December 1989 armed crackdown on the anti-communism demonstrations. A main criminal investigation concerning the use of violence against civilians in Bucharest and other cities was registered with the highest prosecutor's office – the military prosecutors section − under no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014). In the main criminal investigation the applicant raised civil claims and asked that the perpetrators of the offence of homicide committed against her son be identified and punished. 8. At the same time, another investigation concerning the offences of complicity in seriously aggravated homicide and complicity in attempted seriously aggravated homicide, committed against a large number of persons, including the applicant's son, culminated in the committal for trial of public officials, members of the ruling political party, and their subsequent conviction by a final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20 April 1992. 9. The relevant procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation were described in the cases Association "21 December 1989" and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and Sidea and Others v. Romania ([Committee] no. 889/15, §§ 8-11, 5 June 2018). 10. On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor's office closed the main criminal investigation, finding that the applicant's complaint regarding the offence of homicide committed against her son was statute-barred and that a complaint concerning instigation of homicide was a matter of res judicata following the Supreme Court of Justice's decision of 20 April 1992 (see paragraph 8 above). 11. The decision of 14 October 2015 was subsequently annulled by a Prosecutor General's decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the opening of a criminal investigation in rem for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same factual circumstances. 12. According to the information submitted by the parties, the main criminal investigation is still ongoing (see Bănuțoiu and Ștefoglu v. Romania [Committee], nos. 64752/13 and 54607/14, § 12, 3 July 2018).

Ruled as violated by court

12. According to the information submitted by the parties, the main criminal investigation is still ongoing (see Bănuțoiu and Ștefoglu v. Romania [Committee], nos. 64752/13 and 54607/14, § 12, 3 July 2018).

The applicant's son was deprived of his life as a result of more force than absolutely necessary, according to the aggravated homicide case.

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

5. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. 6. On 24 January 2011 a bomb attack at the Domodedovo airport killed 37 people and injured more than 160. It was later established that the explosion was caused by a suicide bomber and organised by a militant group operating in the North Caucasus. The applicant, who was present at the airport at the time of explosion, sustained multiple injuries to her body (wounds, contusions and fractures) which provoked further complications (cerebral oedema, coma, respiratory and cardiac insufficiency and a traumatic shock). The applicant's injuries were life-threatening and caused serious harm to her health. 7. Within the framework of the criminal investigation into the bombing, the investigative authorities arrested four persons. On 11 November 2013 the Moscow Regional Court found them guilty of multiple charges, including commission of an act of terror, organisation of a criminal gang and illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Three defendants received life sentence and the fourth one was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. 8. On 25 November 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 11 November 2013 in substance on appeal. 9. According to the Government, the applicant was granted a victim status. She did not bring a civil action for damages against the convicted persons. 10. On 25 January 2011 the Russian authorities opened criminal investigation on the charges of negligence against the airport managers and employees and the policemen deployed at the airport. On 22 March 2011 the applicant was granted a victim status in the proceedings. On 5 March 2012 the investigator decided to recall it. On 26 March 2012 the investigator discontinued the proceedings. 11. On 22 May 2012 the Deputy President of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of 26 March 2012 and re-opened the case. The proceedings are pending to date. 12. On 3 June 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's complaint against the decision of 5 March 2012. 13. On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil claim against the airport seeking damages resulting from the failure of the airport security to prevent the bombing. 14. On 27 August 2013 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's claims for damages. On 16 December 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 27 August 2013 on appeal. The City Court dismissed, inter alia, as unsubstantiated the applicant's allegation that the suicide bomber had been able to enter the airport owing to the lack of a metal detector at one of the airport entrances noting that such fact should have been established in the course of the relevant criminal investigation.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant did not die. However, one could argue the applicant's right to life was not protected, as the suicide bomber was able to inflict life-threatening injuries upon her.

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

4. The facts, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those in Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, § 12-41, 24 May 2011). 5. The applicants or their close relatives participated in demonstrations and were injured or killed by gunfire during the events of December 1989 in Bucharest, Brașov and Vișina which led to the fall of the communist regime. 6. In 1990 the military prosecutor's offices from several cities opened criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators, which was found excessive, including the applicants' injury or their close relatives' death during these events. The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). In a number of cases the prosecutor decided between 1991 and 1996 not to open an investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. These cases were further examined in the main criminal investigation file irrespective of a formal decision ordering re-opening, applicants being questioned by the prosecutor and raising civil claims, according to the circumstances of each case. 7. The most important procedural steps were described in Association "21 December 1989" and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41), and also in Ecaterina Mirea and Others v. Romania (nos. 43626/13 and 69 others, §§ 6-15, 12 April 2016). Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are shown below. 8. On 14 October 2015 the military prosecutor's office closed the main investigation, finding that the complaints were partly statute-barred, partly subject to an amnesty, and partly ill-founded. It also found that some of the occurrences could not be classified as offences and some were res judicatae (see Anamaria-Loredana Orășanu and Others v. Romania [Committee], no. 43629/13, § 11, 7 November 2017). 9. The decision of 14 October 2015 was annulled by a Prosecutor General's decision of 5 April 2016, confirmed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 13 June 2016. It was noted that the investigation in file no. 11/P/2014 was incomplete and that the facts could not be established based on the evidence gathered up to that date. 10. On 1 November 2016 the military prosecutor ordered the initiation in rem of a criminal investigation for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same circumstances of fact. Up to February 2017 further steps were taken in gathering information from domestic authorities, the prosecutor's office contacting 211 civil parties, questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of events, planning the hearing of military officers and other participants in the events, verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio/video recordings broadcast by radio and television. 11. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (submitted by the parties on 13 April 2017 and 19 May 2017), the criminal investigation was still ongoing.

Ruled as violated by court

6. In 1990 the military prosecutor's offices from several cities opened criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators, including the applicants' injury or their close relatives' death during these events. The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no. 97/P/1990 (current no. 11/P/2014). In a number of cases the prosecutor decided between 1991 and 1996 not to open an investigation or to discontinue the proceedings. These cases were further examined in the main criminal investigation file irrespective of a formal decision ordering re-opening, applicants being questioned by the prosecutor and raising civil claims, according to the circumstances of each case.

The protestors were deprived of their lives as a result of more force than absolutely necessary.

edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

5. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in St Petersburg. She is the mother of the late Mr Denis Aleksandrovich Vyrzhikovskiy. 6. On 1 October 2010 police officers apprehended the applicant's son and his friend, Ms Z. and took them to the Moskovskiy District Department of the Interior of St Petersburg (УВД по Московскому району г. Санкт‑Петербурга). No record of their arrest was drawn up. 7. For approximately six hours the applicant's son was ill-treated by police officers He was repeatedly punched in the stomach and hit to the head, right palm and both calves. He was also subjected to the so-called "swallow" method of torture ("ласточка"), with his head, hands and legs being pulled together towards the spine. 8. Two police officers then took the applicant's son and Ms Z. to another police station. Ms Z. later testified to having seen a bruise on Mr Vyrzhikovskiy's forehead and to his having been in pain and having had difficulties getting into a police car. 9. Early in the morning on 2 October 2010 Mr Vyrzhikovskiy was taken from the station to a hospital. He died there eight days later. An autopsy report stated that the cause of death was "a severe fat pulmonary embolism aggravated by bronchopneumonia with cerebral edema resulted from a comminuted humeral head fracture with a tear of joint capsules and massive bruises, suffusion and strain of soft tissue and the subcutaneous fat layer." A pathologist also found the following ante mortem injuries on Mr Vyrzhikovskiy's body, all directly linked to his death: massive bruises covering hands, chest, upper back, neck, armpits and most of his face and ears; bruises on the left hip, right palm, right part of the stomach, right thigh, left knee, both calves; abrasions and bruises on the buttocks. All injuries had been inflicted by hard blunt objects. 10. On 12 October 2010 criminal investigation was initiated. The applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. Several police officers were charged with manslaughter and abuse of powers entailing a substantial violation of individual rights, committed using violence. 11. On 26 March 2014 the Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg found the officers guilty as charged and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. On 1 October 2014 the St Petersburg City Court partially quashed the judgment and acquitted officers of manslaughter for lack of evidence. While having found it established that the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant's son intentionally in the police custody, the City Court remitted the case for an additional investigation in order to identify those responsible for his death. 12. On 2 March 2015 the investigation was suspended because the time‑limit for the investigation had expired and it was impossible to identify the perpetrators and to carry out any investigative measures in the absence of an accused. On 12 November 2015 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg upheld that decision as lawful. The decision became final on 27 January 2016.

Ruled as violated by court

11. On 26 March 2014 the Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg found the officers guilty as charged and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. On 1 October 2014 the St Petersburg City Court partially quashed the judgment and acquitted officers of manslaughter for lack of evidence. While having found it established that the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant's son intentionally in the police custody, the City Court remitted the case for an additional investigation in order to identify those responsible for his death.

The applicant's son was deprived of his life as a result of more force than absolutely necessary, such as the torture interrogation method.

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

4. The applicants were born in 1939 and 1944 respectively and live in Dumbrăvița, Timiș County. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, refer to the same context and domestic criminal proceedings as those described in Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011) and Şandru and Others v. Romania (no. 22465/03, §§ 7-47, 8 December 2009). 6. Between 17 and 28 December 1989 many people, including the applicants' son, participated in anti-communism demonstrations in Timișoara, Bucharest and other cities in Romania. 7. The applicants' son was killed by gunfire on 23 December 1989 in Timișoara. 8. In 1990 the military prosecutor's office opened several investigations into the December 1989 armed crackdown on the anti-communism demonstrations. A main criminal investigation concerning the use of violence against civilians in Bucharest and other cities, which was found excessive, was also registered with the highest prosecutor's office – the military prosecutors section − under no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014). 9. In cases concerning the events in Timișoara, a separate investigation was carried out under file no. 11/P/1996, culminating in the referral to court and subsequent conviction of senior military officers by a decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 3 April 2007, which became final on 15 October 2008. As is apparent from the documents submitted by the parties, the death of the applicants' son did not form part of this investigation, but in the court proceedings the first applicant nonetheless lodged a civil claim regarding his son's death during the December 1989 events. The court dismissed it on the grounds that he had failed to submit documents substantiating this claim. 10. As acknowledged by the Government, both applicants are parties in the main criminal investigation file. On 26 June 2013 they brought civil claims before the prosecutor requesting the right to participate, being civil parties in this file. The applicants had first made statements and raised civil claims in criminal investigation files other than file no. 97/P/1990 (current number 11/P/2014) on 11 January 1990 and 1 March 2000. The parties did not inform the Court whether these files had been joined to the main criminal investigation (see paragraph 8 above). 11. The most important steps taken by the prosecutors in the main criminal investigation are summarised in Association "21 December 1989" and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and Anamaria‑Loredana Orășanu and Others v. Romania ([Committee] nos. 43629/13 and 74 others, §§ 10‑11, 7 November 2017). Further developments are as follows. 12. On 14 October 2015 the prosecutor's office closed the main investigation, finding that the offences of homicide and instigation to homicide of which the applicants' son had been a victim had become statute‑barred. 13. Although the parties have not communicated any information regarding the lodging of an appeal against this decision, it is apparent from the prosecutor's office website that it was subsequently quashed and to date the main criminal investigation is still ongoing (see Anamaria‑Loredana Orășanu and Others, cited above, § 11).

Ruled as violated by court

11. The most important steps taken by the prosecutors in the main criminal investigation are summarised in Association "21 December 1989" and Others (cited above, §§ 12-41) and Anamaria‑Loredana Orășanu and Others v. Romania ([Committee] nos. 43629/13 and 74 others, §§ 10‑11, 7 November 2017). Further developments are as follows.

The protestors were deprived of their lives as a result of more force than absolutely necessary.

edited by me to remove ambiguity in fact pattern

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod. 5. On 25 July 2002 the applicant's 51-year-old brother Aleksandr Alekseyvich Anoshin was murdered by a policeman in the alcohol recovery centre of the Sovietsky District Police Department of Nizhniy Novgorod (медицинский вытрезвитель при Советском РУВД г. Нижнего Новгорода). 6. Earlier that day, at about 7 p.m., he was stopped in the street by a police patrol as he was staggering home after having drinks with workmates. He was driven to the centre and left alone on a bed in a recovery room, as centre staff sat down to a game of cards nearby. One hour later Mr Anoshin started banging on the door and asking to be let out. Officer M., who together with his partner K. had just returned from patrol duty, got annoyed at the disruption, pushed Mr Anoshin away from the door and demanded that he calm down. Mr Anoshin fell on the bed and his head slammed against the wall. He then got to his feet and stepped towards the officer. Officer M. punched the applicant's brother in the head and chest five times, and strangled him until he was unconscious using a squared piece of a broken wooden chair. M. laid Mr Anoshin down on the bed, and walked out. Officer An. watched this scene from the doorway. 7. At 10 p.m. the applicant's brother died of asphyxia. 8. On 3 August 2002 the Prosecutor's Office of the Sovietsky District opened a criminal investigation into the death. The investigation lasted four years and was handled in turn by at least six different investigators. They inspected the scene, conducted witness interviews, commissioned forensic reports, and staged reconstructions. 9. The centre staff initially testified that they had found the applicant's brother unwell in his bed, but then changed their story, saying that they had seen him hang himself using a bed sheet tied to the bars of his cell window. The forensic reports (on the cause of death, the nature of the injuries, the origin of blood on the wall and the presence of metallic traces on the sheet) refuted the hanging hypothesis, pointed to a violent death and incriminated the centre staff. However, the investigation was put on hold thirteen times because no credible suspect had been identified. 10. In March 2006 M. was interviewed for the first time. 11. By August 2006 the case against him had gone to trial. 12. On 1 August 2008 the Sovietsky District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod convicted M. of murder and violent abuse of official power and sentenced him to fourteen years' imprisonment and a three-year ban from police service. Neglect-of-duty charges brought against his two co‑defendants (Officers An. and Ag.) were dropped as time-barred. 13. At the trial, M. was directly incriminated by An., Ag., and K. Officers An. and Ag. confessed that the suicide story had been a cover-up condoned by commanders of Sovietsky Police Department. 14. On 14 November 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the sentence. 15. The applicant and three of her brother's four children each claimed from the State 3,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB – approximately 69,000 euros (EUR)) for emotional distress caused by the crime. On 25 May 2009 the Sovietsky District Court awarded RUB 150,000 (approximately EUR 3,400) to each claimant. 16. On 14 August 2009 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld that decision.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant's brother was deprived of his life as a result of more force than absolutely necessary.

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

7. The applicant was born in 1987 and lived in Syria before he came to Russia in 2015. 8. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 9. On 23 March 2016 the applicant was arrested for violation of migration rules. On the same day the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk ("the district court") imposed an administrative fine on the applicant and ordered his administrative removal and detention until his removal. 10. On 5 April 2016 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya excluded the removal order from the administrative penalty imposed on him by the district court. 11. On 2 June 2016 the applicant was released. 12. On 3 June 2016 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya re‑opened the applicant's case at the request of the migration official and sent it for re-examination to the district court. 13. On 16 June 2016 the district court reviewed the administrative removal order of 23 March 2016 and confirmed its validity. The applicant was detained on the same day. On 12 September 2016 the judgment of 16 June 2016 was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya. On 7 February 2017 the applicant filed a cassation appeal against these three decisions at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 14. On 15 July, 7 November and 19 December 2016 and 27 January, 2 March and 10 April 2017 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk allowed an application lodged by the bailiff for the postponement of the enforcement of the order of administrative removal by one month owing to the application of an interim measure by the Court on 17 June 2016. The district court granted the bailiff's request having relied on Article 31.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (("the CAO"), see paragraph 21 below). In these proceedings the applicant's lawyer also argued that there was a lack of grounds for the applicant's detention and requested that the enforcement proceedings be terminated and that the applicant be released. However, the district court dismissed her arguments, having concluded that, "the grounds for the applicant's detention had already been established by the court in the removal proceedings and the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings in the circumstances of [the applicant's] case is not provided for by Article 31.7 of the CAO" (see paragraph 22 below). All these decisions, except the one of 15 July 2016 (no appeal was brought), were upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya. 15. On 17 May 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ("the Supreme Court") examined the cassation appeal complaint of the applicant and reviewed the judgments issued in respect of his removal (see paragraph 13 above). The Supreme Court confirmed the judgments but discontinued the enforcement of administrative penalty in the form of the removal imposed on the applicant on 23 March 2016. The Supreme Court found that the applicant might be exposed to a risk of torture or ill-treatment in Syria in the event of his return there. On 2 June 2017 the applicant was released (after the decision entered into force). 16. On 11 May 2016 the applicant's request for refugee status was dismissed. According to the applicant, he did not appeal against this decision because the migration authorities had convinced the applicant that "his application for temporary asylum would be granted". 17. On 4 July 2016 the applicant's request for temporary asylum was dismissed. 18. On 25 November 2016 a second request lodged by the applicant for temporary asylum was denied by the migration authorities and the applicant did not lodge a complaint against this refusal. 19. According to the information provided by the applicant's lawyer on 9 November 2017, while the proceedings before the Court were ongoing, the applicant left Russia of his own volition on 2 August 2017 and had settled in Sweden.

NOT ruled as violated by court

11. On 2 June 2016 the applicant was released. 13. On 16 June 2016 the district court reviewed the administrative removal order of 23 March 2016 and confirmed its validity. The applicant was detained on the same day. On 12 September 2016 the judgment of 16 June 2016 was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya. On 7 February 2017 the applicant filed a cassation appeal against these three decisions at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 14. On 15 July, 7 November and 19 December 2016 and 27 January, 2 March and 10 April 2017 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk allowed an application lodged by the bailiff for the postponement of the enforcement of the order of administrative removal by one month owing to the application of an interim measure by the Court on 17 June 2016. The district court granted the bailiff's request having relied on Article 31.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (("the CAO"), see paragraph 21 below). In these proceedings the applicant's lawyer also argued that there was a lack of grounds for the applicant's detention and requested that the enforcement proceedings be terminated and that the applicant be released. However, the district court dismissed her arguments, having concluded that, "the grounds for the applicant's detention had already been established by the court in the removal proceedings and the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings in the circumstances of [the applicant's] case is not provided for by Article 31.7 of the CAO" (see paragraph 22 below). All these decisions, except the one of 15 July 2016 (no appeal was brought), were upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya. 19. According to the information provided by the applicant's lawyer on 9 November 2017, while the proceedings before the Court were ongoing, the applicant left Russia of his own volition on 2 August 2017 and had settled in Sweden.

There is no relevance between being deprived of life and detention.

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

4. The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in the town of Snizhne, Donetsk region. 5. On 14 January 2004 the applicant's son, born in 1967, was found dead in the applicant's barn. On the same day police officers inspected the scene and reported that the man had committed suicide by hanging. 6. On 24 January 2004 the investigator of the Snizhne Prosecutor's Office, following the pre-investigation inquiries, refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the grounds that no elements of a crime had been established in relation to the death of the applicant's son. 7. On 11 February 2004, following a forensic medical examination, an expert concluded that the applicant's son's death had been caused by strangulation by a loop of rope, possibly as a result of the applicant's son's body weight pulling against the rope. The body displayed no other injuries. 8. On 5 April 2005 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor's Office quashed the decision of 24 January 2004 (see paragraph 6 above) as premature and unfounded, finding that further pre-investigation inquiries were necessary given that the possible reasons for suicide had not been examined, and other relatives as well as acquaintances of the deceased had not been questioned either. Numerous investigating instructions were given. 9. In the course of further pre-investigation inquiries, between 2005 and 2012, the investigators took measures to establish the circumstances of the applicant's son's death. They questioned various persons, and ordered numerous additional medical examinations of the corpse of the deceased. At a certain point medical experts noted that the applicant's son's body had numerous fractures. The experts opined that all those fractures had been inflicted after the applicant's son's death, possibly during the exhumation of the body. The applicant's husband informed the authorities that when he had seen his dead son in the barn, the corpse of his son had been in a sitting position and the rope loop had not been tightened. The applicant argued that it had not been suicide but a violent murder. She advanced different theories, suspecting notably: police security guards who had allegedly taken the applicant's son from a local bar, following which he had been found dead; a local police officer who had engaged in a dispute with the applicant's son; a woman who had been employed by the applicant's son in his textile business and her husband; the applicant's son's brothers-in-law; a business partner of the applicant's son; and people from a local gambling club (the applicant's son had been engaged in transporting money from the club to another town). 10. On 25 April 2005, 26 March 2006, 20 August 2008, 17 February and 12 December 2011, 15 February 2012 and 17 September 2012, following the pre-investigation inquiries, the investigators refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the grounds that no elements of a crime had been established. Those decisions were quashed as unsubstantiated by the supervising authorities, which found that further investigative measures were necessary. Numerous investigating instructions were given. 11. On 7 December 2012 the applicant, relying on the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012, requested that an investigation be opened in respect of the alleged murder of her son. On the same day criminal proceedings were instituted. 12. On 24 December 2012, 22 July and 30 September 2013 the criminal proceedings were terminated because no elements of a crime could be established. Those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unsubstantiated and further investigations were ordered. In particular, on 5 December 2013 the Snizhne Town Court quashed the decision of 30 September 2013 after finding that the investigation had not been thorough and comprehensive. The court noted the theory of the possible involvement of the local police had not been properly examined, the role of the applicant's son's brother-in-law had not been clarified even though he might have been the first to find the dead body, the applicant had not been questioned on all the issues which were relevant to the case, and the evidence relating to the applicant's son's suicidal tendencies had not been assessed. 13. On 1 April 2014 the criminal proceedings were closed one more time on the ground that no elements of a crime could be established.

Ruled as violated by court

5. On 14 January 2004 the applicant's son, born in 1967, was found dead in the applicant's barn. On the same day police officers inspected the scene and reported that the man had committed suicide by hanging. 6. On 24 January 2004 the investigator of the Snizhne Prosecutor's Office, following the pre-investigation inquiries, refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the grounds that no elements of a crime had been established in relation to the death of the applicant's son. 7. On 11 February 2004, following a forensic medical examination, an expert concluded that the applicant's son's death had been caused by strangulation by a loop of rope, possibly as a result of the applicant's son's body weight pulling against the rope. The body displayed no other injuries. 8. On 5 April 2005 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor's Office quashed the decision of 24 January 2004 (see paragraph 6 above) as premature and unfounded, finding that further pre-investigation inquiries were necessary given that the possible reasons for suicide had not been examined, and other relatives as well as acquaintances of the deceased had not been questioned either. Numerous investigating instructions were given. 9. In the course of further pre-investigation inquiries, between 2005 and 2012, the investigators took measures to establish the circumstances of the applicant's son's death. They questioned various persons, and ordered numerous additional medical examinations of the corpse of the deceased. At a certain point medical experts noted that the applicant's son's body had numerous fractures. The experts opined that all those fractures had been inflicted after the applicant's son's death, possibly during the exhumation of the body. The applicant's husband informed the authorities that when he had seen his dead son in the barn, the corpse of his son had been in a sitting position and the rope loop had not been tightened. The applicant argued that it had not been suicide but a violent murder. She advanced different theories, suspecting notably: police security guards who had allegedly taken the applicant's son from a local bar, following which he had been found dead; a local police officer who had engaged in a dispute with the applicant's son; a woman who had been employed by the applicant's son in his textile business and her husband; the applicant's son's brothers-in-law; a business partner of the applicant's son; and people from a local gambling club (the applicant's son had been engaged in transporting money from the club to another town). 10. On 25 April 2005, 26 March 2006, 20 August 2008, 17 February and 12 December 2011, 15 February 2012 and 17 September 2012, following the pre-investigation inquiries, the investigators refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the grounds that no elements of a crime had been established. Those decisions were quashed as unsubstantiated by the supervising authorities, which found that further investigative measures were necessary. Numerous investigating instructions were given. 11. On 7 December 2012 the applicant, relying on the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012, requested that an investigation be opened in respect of the alleged murder of her son. On the same day criminal proceedings were instituted. 12. On 24 December 2012, 22 July and 30 September 2013 the criminal proceedings were terminated because no elements of a crime could be established. Those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unsubstantiated and further investigations were ordered. In particular, on 5 December 2013 the Snizhne Town Court quashed the decision of 30 September 2013 after finding that the investigation had not been thorough and comprehensive. The court noted the theory of the possible involvement of the local police had not been properly examined, the role of the applicant's son's brother-in-law had not been clarified even though he might have been the first to find the dead body, the applicant had not been questioned on all the issues which were relevant to the case, and the evidence relating to the applicant's son's suicidal tendencies had not been assessed.

The applicant's son was deprived of his life, but ostensibly through his own doing. It depends on the intent of the statute as to whether it covers suicide.

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Istanbul. 6. On 2 October 2004 the Büyükçekmece Magistrates' Court issued a search warrant allowing the gendarmerie to conduct searches of public places and suspected persons in a designated area. 7. Late at night on the same day, the gendarmerie carried out a search at the Sancak Hotel, which is owned by the applicant. The records drawn up afterwards noted that during the course of the search, a certain M.Ş. had approached the plain-clothes officers outside the hotel and told them that he had a girl inside. It was then established that M.Ş. trafficked women. He and a woman in the hotel were both taken to the gendarmerie headquarters. 8. The search records, which were prepared a few hours after the search and signed by the hotel's manager, showed that five women of foreign nationalities had been staying at the hotel with some men and that they had all been taken to the gendarmerie headquarters. 9. On 3 October 2004 the gendarmerie questioned several men as suspects and five women as victims. They all confirmed that they had been staying at the hotel for prostitution purposes. Some of the women were asked whether they knew of any complicity between the traffickers and the management of Sancak Hotel, to which they responded in the negative. 10. On the same day the applicant was arrested and taken into the custody of the gendarmerie on suspicion of facilitating prostitution. 11. On 4 October 2004 the applicant gave statements to the gendarmerie. He denied having provided premises for prostitution. He argued that he did not allow procurers into his hotel and had never seen M.Ş. before. 12. On the same day, the gendarmerie also questioned the hotel's manager, who stated that both he and the applicant were very strict about keeping procurers out of their hotel. 13. On 30 May 2005 the Büyükçekmece Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant and three other persons. He accused them of failure to obey an order from an official authority under Article 526 § 1 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 765) in force at the time, on the ground that they had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels. 14. On 1 June 2005 the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326) and the new Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271) entered into force. 15. On 10 June 2005 the Büyükçekmece Magistrates' Court assessed the case without holding a hearing. Establishing that the accused had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels, it held that the applicant had failed to obey the orders of an official authority as charged and should be punished accordingly. It then sentenced him to an administrative fine of 100 Turkish liras (TRY)[1] pursuant to Section 32 of the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326). 16. The applicant objected to that decision, arguing that his defence rights had been restricted in that the court had sentenced him to the fine solely on the basis of the statements taken previously by the police, and without hearing him in person. He maintained that he accepted clients into his hotel in compliance with the relevant regulation and that he could not be expected to refuse to offer accommodation to foreign nationals or to question their motives for staying there. 17. On 3 February 2006 after examining the case on the basis of the case file, the Bakırköy Assize Court upheld the decision of the Magistrates' Court. That decision was final. 18. On 24 May 2006 an official letter was sent to the applicant. It was indicated on the envelope that the applicant was invited to a hearing concerning his case, which would be held on 10 July 2006. The envelope did not show any confirmation that the letter had been served on him. 19. The applicant's lawyer stated that he had received a copy of the final decision at the registry of the Büyükçekmece Magistrates' Court on 11 July 2006. In support of his claim, he submitted a copy of the Assize Court's decision, on which a lawyer working at his office had noted that he had been served with the copy in person on that date. That document was later stamped and certified as an authentic copy by the registry of the domestic court. 20. Following communication of the present application, on 21 December 2009 a public prosecutor prepared an assessment report, summarising the events in the case. He concluded that the final decision had been served on the applicant on 26 May 2006. 21. On 2 January 2014 both the applicant and the Government were asked under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court to provide the Court with a document indicating the notification date of the final decision by 16 January 2014 at the latest. The parties did not respond to that request. 22. On 3 November 2017 the Government were once again asked to provide documents regarding the commencement of the six-month time‑limit, in particular the content of the envelope from the Büyükçekmece Magistrates' Court dated 24 May 2006 and the document in support of the public prosecutor's claim that the final decision had been served on the applicant on 26 May 2006. On 30 November 2017 the Government informed the Court that they could not find the requested documents.

NOT ruled as violated by court

11. On 4 October 2004 the applicant gave statements to the gendarmerie. He denied having provided premises for prostitution. He argued that he did not allow procurers into his hotel and had never seen M.Ş. before. 12. On the same day, the gendarmerie also questioned the hotel's manager, who stated that both he and the applicant were very strict about keeping procurers out of their hotel. 13. On 30 May 2005 the Büyükçekmece Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant and three other persons. He accused them of failure to obey an order from an official authority under Article 526 § 1 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 765) in force at the time, on the ground that they had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels. 14. On 1 June 2005 the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326) and the new Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271) entered into force. 15. On 10 June 2005 the Büyükçekmece Magistrates' Court assessed the case without holding a hearing. Establishing that the accused had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels, it held that the applicant had failed to obey the orders of an official authority as charged and should be punished accordingly. It then sentenced him to an administrative fine of 100 Turkish liras (TRY)[1] pursuant to Section 32 of the Misdemeanours Act (Law no. 5326). 16. The applicant objected to that decision, arguing that his defence rights had been restricted in that the court had sentenced him to the fine solely on the basis of the statements taken previously by the police, and without hearing him in person. He maintained that he accepted clients into his hotel in compliance with the relevant regulation and that he could not be expected to refuse to offer accommodation to foreign nationals or to question their motives for staying there. 17. On 3 February 2006 after examining the case on the basis of the case file, the Bakırköy Assize Court upheld the decision of the Magistrates' Court. That decision was final. 20. Following communication of the present application, on 21 December 2009 a public prosecutor prepared an assessment report, summarising the events in the case. He concluded that the final decision had been served on the applicant on 26 May 2006. 21. On 2 January 2014 both the applicant and the Government were asked under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court to provide the Court with a document indicating the notification date of the final decision by 16 January 2014 at the latest. The parties did not respond to that request. 22. On 3 November 2017 the Government were once again asked to provide documents regarding the commencement of the six-month time‑limit, in particular the content of the envelope from the Büyükçekmece Magistrates' Court dated 24 May 2006 and the document in support of the public prosecutor's claim that the final decision had been served on the applicant on 26 May 2006. On 30 November 2017 the Government informed the Court that they could not find the requested documents.

The fact pattern makes no mention of being deprived of life.

Article 2 Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

4. The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Galashki, Ingushetia Republic. 5. On 11 December 2009 the applicant was abducted by S. with intent to marry her. The applicant's mother opposed the marriage and on the same day S.'s relatives took the applicant back to her mother's house. 6. On 12 December 2009 the relatives of the applicant's deceased father made the applicant go back to S.'s, because of the presumed consummation of the marriage. They also threatened to kill S., should the applicant decide to leave him. 7. The applicant had to live with S.'s family as his wife. The marriage was not officially registered. She was kept locked in a room without being able to communicate with people outside S.'s family. S. moved to a different town. On rare occasions S.'s sister let the applicant use her mobile phone so that she could call her mother. She complained that S.'s family, especially her mother-in-law, treated her poorly. She did not feel well and complained about dizziness, numbing of the lower jaw and difficulty to breathe. According to the applicant's mother, the applicant told her once that her mother-in-law did not let her see S. and claimed that the applicant would not last living with them longer than two months. On several occasions the applicant lost consciousness and foamed at the mouth. 8. On 28 December 2009 the applicant was taken to a municipal hospital. The doctor diagnosed her with renal colic. 9. On 29 December 2009 during another visit to hospital the applicant was diagnosed with poisoning by unknown substance. 10. On 1 February 2010 the applicant foamed at the mouth again and was taken to hospital. She was released on the same day. 11. On 2 February 2010 the applicant lost consciousness and was taken to hospital. A general practitioner and a neuropathologist examined her. She was diagnosed with stress and overdose of sedatives and placed in an intensive care unit. Subsequently she was diagnosed with post-hypoxic encephalopathy and vegetative state. She has not regained consciousness since then. 12. In April 2010 the applicant was released to her mother's care. 13. On 23 September 2010 the applicant's mother complained to the local police department and prosecutor's office that the applicant had been forcefully held by S.'s family in inhuman conditions which led to deterioration of her health and coma. 14. On 10 October 2010 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S.'s family on the charges of incitement of suicide and causing damage to health. 15. On 24 October 2011 the applicant's mother lodged another complaint with the local police department alleging that the applicant had been poisoned while staying at S.'s house. She also stated that the applicant had been repeatedly beaten up and deprived of her liberty. 16. According to the forensic medical report completed on 8 November 2011, a vegetative state, similar to the applicant's, could be caused primarily by intoxication. The expert, however, was unable to determine the cause of the applicant's condition. 17. On 24 November 2011 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S.'s family. The applicant appealed. 18. On 29 July 2012 the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of 24 November 2011 and ordered further inquiry into the matter. 19. On 3 August 2012 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of attempted murder. 20. On 1 October 2012 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of causing serious damage to health. The applicant appealed. 21. On 26 July 2013 the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Ingushetiya Republic quashed the decision of 1 October 2012. The court noted that the inquiry had been incomplete. The investigator had failed (1) to question a number of important witnesses and (2) to determine the cause of the applicant's condition. 22. On 26 September 2013 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings reiterating verbatim his reasoning set out in the decision of 1 October 2013. 23. On 15 January, 14 March and 21 May 2014 the deputy head of the district police department ordered a new inquiry noting that the previous inquiry had been incomplete. 24. On 18 January and 18 March 2014 the investigator refused to open a criminal investigation reproducing verbatim the earlier decisions of 1 October 2012 and 26 September 2013. 25. On 21 May 2014 the investigator again refused to open a criminal investigation. In addition to his earlier findings, he studied the applicant's medical case-file and concluded that it did not contain information accounting for the cause of her medical condition. 26. On 28 February 2015 the district deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of 21 May 2014 and ordered a further inquiry. 27. The case-file materials submitted by the Government contain two decisions dated 6 March 2015. The first decision was taken by the investigator who refused to institute a criminal investigation in the applicant's case. The second decision was taken by the district deputy prosecutor who ordered a new inquiry. The Government did not inform of the outcome of the proceedings.

Ruled as violated by court

The applicant did not die. However, one could argue the applicant's right to life was not protected, as S.'s family was able to poison her, resulting in a coma.