105.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they had not applied to the law-enforcement bodies. Furthermore, relatives of the deceased persons had objected to the exhumation, which considerably impeded the conduct of the investigation. Moreover, the applicants had not brought any complaints concerning the actions of officials of the law-enforcements bodies in connection with the investigations into their relatives’ deaths and injuries. The Government also pointed out that it was still open to the applicants to file a claim of damages.


15.  The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no domestic remedies available under Turkish law whereby they could challenge the unlawfulness of their pre-trial detention. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, being the lex specialis in the matter (see Elğay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18992/03, 11 September 2007).


80.  The applicant complained that he had not been provided with a lawyer immediately after his detention and that for fifteen days his lawyer’s access to him had been restricted. He also complained that the fact of being held in a “cage” with metal bars during the court hearings had violated his defence rights. He further complained that he had no effective remedies to his above complaints. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Article <mask> of the Convention.


97.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


45.  The applicants further complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of their property rights had disregarded their arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. They lastly complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their national origin – they submitted that the majority of individuals who had had their rights to forests restored and later annulled had been Polish.


98.  The applicants complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions they did not have any effective remedy at their disposal as regards their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


71.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her son and the unlawfulness of his detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:


138.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the principles of equality of arms, legal certainty and a “tribunal established by law” had been breached and that the requirement for decisions to contain proper reasons had not been complied with. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant alleged that there had been no effective remedy in his case.


102.  The applicant also complained that the remedy she had resorted to in order to complain about the length of the enforcement proceedings had proved ineffective as the Varaždin Municipal Court had not complied with the Varaždin County Court’s order of 22 February 2012 to complete the enforcement within six months (see paragraphs 37 and 39 above). She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


31.  The applicant made the following additional complaints. First, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he complained that the refusal of the Court of Session to grant leave for him to proceed without the necessary signatures on his summons violated his right of access to court. Secondly, under Article 6 § 1 he alleged that there was a lack of a fair hearing in three aspects: (i) that the Sheriff Court and Sheriff Principal refused to hold oral hearings on preliminary matters before them; (ii) that the Court of Session while it heard oral argument, essentially based its ruling on preliminary, written pleadings; and (iii) that the Court of Session failed in its duty to make a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties. Thirdly, under Article 6, the applicant complained that the courts hearing his case, while themselves independent and impartial, were not in fact independent and impartial by virtue of the corruption and contempt of court of the legal representatives before them. Fourthly, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant complained that there was no effective remedy in respect of these alleged violations of Article 6 § 1. Finally, he complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the council, by entering his property to carry out the repairs, failed to respect his right to respect for his home.


130.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and they could also claim damages through civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


49.  The Government further maintained that the applicants had not made use of any remedies regarding their complaint that their right under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated. They held that a distinction must be made between a remedy within the meaning of this provision, taken together with Article 3 of the Convention, that is, proceedings in which the applicants can raise their claim of the risk of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the one hand, and proceedings in which it is possible to remedy a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on the other hand. Given that the applicants only allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they should have exhausted the latter remedies.


59.  The applicants replied that the “complaint about delays” was not an effective remedy. They considered, firstly, that it was not effective in principle: the Government had not provided any example or statistical information in support of their contention that it could in practice serve to reduce delays. Secondly, even if it could be considered an effective remedy in principle, it had been introduced too late to serve any useful purpose since most of the delays in the case had occurred before July 1999. The applicants further referred to their arguments in support of their complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


195.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. The investigation into their relative’s disappearance was still pending. At the same time the applicants had not applied to the domestic courts with either civil claims or complaints concerning actions of the agents of the law-enforcement bodies. The Government referred to the domestic courts’ decisions over claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by offences committed by Russian servicemen in the North Caucasus Region.


116.  The Government contended that the applicant had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. The applicant had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


120.  The applicant also alleged that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy by which to complain about his treatment during and after arrest (see paragraph 57 above), his treatment in Jelgava prison (see paragraph 63 above), the conditions of detention in Daugavpils prison and the specific conditions of detention in the segregation unit and disciplinary cells nos. 22 and 14 in that prison (see paragraph 80 above). Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:


322.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


147.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In their submission, this was corroborated by the fact that the first and fourth applicants’ complaints concerning the alleged inaction of the investigating authorities were upheld by the Urus-Martan Town Court. The applicants had not filed any other complaints, but it remained open to them to file a civil claim for damages.


190.  The applicants also complained that they had neither had access to court nor an effective remedy to complain of a violation of their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention because of the refusal by the domestic authorities to allow them to pursue criminal proceedings against the first applicant’s father for the criminal offence of child abuse. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:


42.  The Government pointed out that in its judgment of 16 May 2012 the Constitutional Court quashed the decision of 28 April 2011 as unlawful. In their view, this should have provided the applicant with an action for damages under the State Liability Act. Moreover, should the applicant have any complaints in relation to the proceedings subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s judgment, he could have made them before the Constitutional Court by way of a fresh individual complaint of his own. These remedies were compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention and, consequently, the complaint under that provision was manifestly ill-founded. As the applicant had not used them, as regards the underlying alleged violations he had failed to meet the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.


15.  The applicant complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment of 8 April 2003 in due time. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He further complained that he had no effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The impugned provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:


35.  The applicant complained that as a result of the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings and the consequent non-examination of her civil‑party claim, she had been denied effective access to a court. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. She also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings she had joined as civil-party against the driver who had caused her physical injuries.


84.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of her right to respect for her home. She also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in respect of her related civil claim, which she considered to have mainly undermined the effectiveness of that remedy.


141.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and they could also have claimed damages in civil proceedings.


149.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8, that the domestic courts had refused to examine his complaints concerning restrictions on family visits and correspondence. He pointed out that on 21 December 2001 the Constitutional Court had confirmed its established case-law that all decisions by an investigator should be amendable to judicial review. The crux of the problem had not been the theoretical availability of remedies in the domestic law but rather the arbitrary application of the law by lower courts. As a consequence, he had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint concerning restrictions on correspondence and family visits.


83.  The applicants also claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of the breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In their submission, the formal manner in which the courts had reviewed the decision to expel the first applicant had aroused in them feelings of injustice and had humiliated them. The first applicant further claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of the breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, on essentially the same basis.


63.  The applicants also complained that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that they were de facto denied access to a court, because (1) they could not challenge the continued seizure of their possessions before a court and (2) they lacked an effective domestic remedy for their claims against the authorities for compensation stemming from the prolonged inability to use those possessions. The Court recognises that the applicants complained of the lack of a substantive right of action under domestic law rather than of the existence of procedural bars preventing or limiting the possibilities of bringing potential claims to court. Thus, it considers that this complaint should be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies against the interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, rather than under Article 6 of the Convention as an access to court issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294 B, p. 49, § 65, and Karamitrovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 53321/99, 9 February 2006).


89.  The applicants complained that Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention had been violated as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. They also claimed that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


113.  The applicant further argued that, quite apart from the discriminatory practice of forced disappearances, members of the Kurdish population in south-east Turkey were discriminated against in respect of the investigation of such disappearances. In support of this argument the applicant referred to a number of judgments in which the Court had found violations of Article 2 and/or Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the authorities' failure to carry out effective investigations in cases exclusively involving members of the Kurdish population in Turkey.


112.  The applicant complained that the domestic authorities, both administrative and judicial, had failed to consider effectively his arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, and that the domestic courts had confirmed the validity of the expulsion order before the completion of the asylum proceedings. He further complained that he had not had effective domestic remedies at his disposal against the inhuman and degrading detention conditions. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


65.  The applicant also complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully arrested, that no record of his arrest had been drawn up, that there had been a delay in charging him, and that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) and Article <mask> of the Convention he further complained about the length of the proceedings and maintained that the investigator had not allowed him to study all the case-file material, that the courts had been biased, and that they had refused to admit the statements of certain defence witnesses as evidence. The applicant further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that his case had been examined by the courts at only two levels of jurisdiction, that the hearing before the Supreme Court had been brief, and that he and his lawyer had not been allowed to make oral pleadings. Lastly, he complained of violations of Articles 1, 5 § 1 (a), 6 § 3 (a), 8 and 17 of the Convention, without providing any further details.


130.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had not been able to join the criminal proceedings against the police officers Zharov and Volkov as a civil party, that their acquittal had not been justified and that the proceedings had been marred by procedural defects. The Court observes that the only element in which these complaints are distinct from the issues that have already been examined from the standpoint of the procedural limb of Article 3 above is the question of the availability of a civil-law remedy for the applicant’s claim for compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 66, 3 July 2008, and Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia, no. 37315/03, § 125, 29 May 2008), which reads as follows:


108.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Besides, the applicants had an opportunity to appeal against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13.


41.  The Government disputed this claim, observing that the “effective remedy” mentioned in Article <mask> of the Convention necessarily referred to a remedy in the domestic law of the “TRNC”. Turkey could neither interfere with the judicial system of the “TRNC” nor provide remedies to supplement those existing under domestic law. In the light of the above, the Government submitted that no issue under Article 13 could be raised by the present application.


100.  The applicant company complained, in its original application of 22 March 2005 which was subsequently amended on 21 June 2005, of a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that after the 2004 election the proceedings concerning the 2004 bidding competition before the courts of general jurisdiction and the commercial courts had been conducted in an unfair manner.


23.  The applicant argued that the domestic regulations referred to by the Government were of restricted use and therefore unavailable in any official sources of legal information. He had had no criminal record, had been charged with non-violent crimes and had demonstrated orderly behaviour throughout the proceedings. His placement in the cage could not therefore have been justified. Furthermore, the proceedings had been followed by several journalists and several television channels had released news reports on the trial. For example, the “KZN” television channel had released a news report entitled “Sentence to Drug Dealers” showing him in a metal cage. This report had been viewed by several thousands of people even before the conviction had become final. Showing him in a cage had created an image of an extremely dangerous criminal, which had caused him feelings of shame and helplessness. The applicant further submitted that, contrary to the Government’s assertions, he had not been free to choose a comfortable position or move around the cage: he could not stand up or have any exchange with other participants of the proceedings unless authorised by the presiding judge. Besides, as could be seen from the photographs provided by the Government, the cage had been very limited in size, which had made it impossible to get into a comfortable position. Lastly, the applicant submitted that his confinement behind a metal barrier in the remand prison for his participation via a video link in the examination of his case on appeal had not been warranted by any security risks or courtroom order issues. The applicant further maintained his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.


70.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused her by the disappearance of her son and the unlawfulness of his detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available in respect of the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. The relevant parts of these Articles read as follows:


216.  The Government submitted that, in view of the well-established case-law of the Bulgarian courts in conditions-of-detention cases brought by prisoners, a claim under section 1 of the 1988 was an effective remedy with respect to the material conditions of the applicants’ detention. In any event, no issue arose under Article <mask> of the Convention as the applicants’ claims were not “arguable” for the purposes of that provision. The Government went on to say that the possibility to challenge omissions of the authorities under Articles 256 and 257 of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 was an effective remedy in respect of poor material conditions of detention. The Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act of 2009 and its implementing regulations clearly set out the minimum conditions that the prison authorities had to provide to inmates, and any failure to do so was therefore actionable under those Articles. The Government referred to two cases (see paragraphs 151‑152 above), one of which involved Mr Harakchiev, in which first-instance administrative courts had allowed such claims.


30.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of detainees. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


35.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the trial court cannot be considered as impartial, as the judges sitting on the bench of the court had been changed several times. She also complained under the same article that the trial court failed to collect all relevant evidence and erred in establishing the facts of the case. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there was no effective remedy for the alleged violations of her Convention rights, and under Article 14 that the State Security Courts had procedural rules different from ordinary criminal courts.


19.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy available to defend his right to freedom of expression. The Court notes that the applicant was found guilty of defamation as a result of court proceedings instituted against him by V.P. He had been able to appeal against the judgments of the Briceni District Court and the Bălţi Court of Appeal and he had his case examined twice by the Supreme Court of Justice. The applicant did not explain why, in his opinion, such a remedy cannot be considered effective within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. The fact that the applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of the proceedings does not automatically trigger a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court cannot accept the applicant's contention that he had not had an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention. The complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.


91.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at his disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented him from using them. They stated that the applicant had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and to lodge civil claims for damages.


153.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


25.  The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that they had been unable to participate in the proceedings before the Istanbul Assize Court and that the latter had decided to suspend the publication and distribution of their newspapers without obtaining their submissions in defence. They further contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had not had a domestic remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of the national court decisions, as their objections to the suspension orders had been dismissed without trial. The applicants also complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that these orders had violated their right to be presumed innocent, since the national courts had held that criminal offences had been committed through the publication of news reports and articles in the newspapers for which they had been responsible. The applicants further submitted under Article 7 of the Convention that the decisions to suspend the publication and distribution of the newspapers amounted to a “penalty” without any legal basis. Lastly, they complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decisions to suspend the publication of Yedinci Gün and Toplumsal Demokrasi had constituted an unjustified interference with their right to property.


52.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Mr Rizvan Aziyev had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. They could also have claimed civil damages.


89.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy against the alleged violation of his freedom of assembly. He alleged in particular that he had not had at his disposal any procedure which would have allowed him to obtain a final decision prior to the date of the planned demonstrations. Article 13 of the Convention reads:


104.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had no effective remedy against the interference (search) other than the possibility of seeking a review of the lawfulness of the seizure. Even if the District Court did order the seizure to be revoked in response to such a request, that decision was overturned on appeal before the copied hard disk could be restored. Even assuming that the applicants had been successful in having that copy restored, the police had had ample time to peruse the documents thereon.


50.  The applicants submitted that the German legal system had not provided them with an effective remedy to review the effectiveness of the investigation. At the outset they submitted that, given the hierarchical structure of the public prosecutor’s office, the general public prosecutor had not been sufficiently independent. Consequently, the complaint before the general public prosecutor under Article 172 § 1 of the CCP could not be considered an effective remedy in the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards judicial remedies at their disposal they referred to the Court’s judgment in Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, § 93, 15 May 2012) and argued that an effective remedy would have required that the domestic courts had had the power to examine all relevant evidence, to overturn the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue, and to initiate enquiries. This, however, had not been the case for them.


177.  The applicant submitted that he and his family had taken every reasonable step possible in order to ensure that the abduction, detention and murder of his brother was properly and thoroughly investigated by the national authorities. However, the response of the various authorities to their complaints and petitions had been utterly inadequate. The necessary remedies either did not exist or they were, in practice, useless. Article <mask> of the Convention provides as follows:


23.  The applicant complained that the length of two sets of her civil proceedings, including their enforcement stage, had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Additionally, she complained that the failure of the authorities to enforce the judgments given in her favour breached her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Finally, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had no effective remedies in respect of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings and the non-enforcement of the judgments. These provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:


88.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have any effective domestic remedy in respect of his allegedly infringed rights, as the Senate of the Supreme Court had ruled that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers was a political decision. He considered that an application for supervisory review by a public prosecutor was not an effective remedy since a decision by the latter in the instant case would not be subject to appeal.


83.  The applicant complained that conditions of his detention were contrary to Article 3, regard being had to the tolerance of smoking in the cells, shortage of medicaments and inaccessibility to him of quality medical assistance. He further complained under the same provision that in March 2004 he had been ill-treated by police officers and that the investigation of his respective complaint had been ineffective. In the latter respect he also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. The relevant provision reads as follows:


77.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that by refusing to examine the proportionality of the sanction imposed on her, the Supreme Administrative Court had deprived her of an effective remedy, and that Bulgarian law did not lay down any criteria governing the manner in which the Minister of Justice was to exercise his powers in relation to the striking of persons off the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators.


49.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the courts did not examine all factors relevant to the lawfulness of his detention. In addition, the applicant claimed that his appeals of 28 June 1999 and 11 October 1999 were decided in violation of the requirement for a speedy decision and that the courts did not hear his appeal of 8 September 1999. The applicant also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, stating that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violations of Article 5 of the Convention.


113.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


132.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


60.  The Government contended that either the applicant could not be considered to be a victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention or the complaint was manifestly ill-founded, because the applicant had access to an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention, but chose not to make use of it. The Government noted that the Bankruptcy Court had a supervisory duty and could set aside decisions made, or give the trustee directions, or do whatever else was necessary if the debtor’s rights were infringed, (see section 128 of the Bankruptcy Act then applicable). Thus, the Bankruptcy Court could have given the trustee directions about the administration of the estate, ordered the trustee to complete the accounts, or removed the trustee pursuant to section 113(3) of the Bankruptcy Act then applicable, inter alia, due to slow or otherwise incompetent administration of the estate. It could also have fixed an ultimate date for the final meeting of creditors in the estate or decided to apply section 144 of the Bankruptcy Act at an earlier stage of the proceedings, even if all the parties to the case, including the applicant, objected. Accordingly, regardless of whether the courts could have provided the applicant with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred, the remedies which could have expedited the decisions taken during the proceedings had to be considered “effective”.


114.  The applicant company complained that it had been deprived of a fair hearing and had not had an effective remedy because the domestic courts refused to accept its complaint in 2012, stating that it was under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 28 and 29 above) while it was impossible under domestic law to address the Constitutional Court with an individual constitutional complaint. The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in the present case should be viewed as lex specialis in relation to Article 13. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 reads as follows:


68.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their brother and the unlawfulness of his detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:


106.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented the applicants from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants should have made more use of that possibility which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13.


42.  The Government raised an objection, arguing that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to her. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.


39.  The applicant, who submitted that he would run a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if he were removed to Eritrea, complained of the absence in domestic law of a remedy with suspensive effect in respect of decisions refusing aliens leave to enter the country and ordering their removal, whether or not they were asylum-seekers and whatever the risks, alleged or real. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3, which provide:


90.  The applicant also complained that there had been no grounds for his arrest on 13 October 2010. Furthermore, his arrest had been conducted in violation of the domestic law and he had been taken to the police station under a false pretext. He also complained that the domestic courts had not taken into account the time of his actual arrest and therefore he had spent an additional twenty-six hours in detention. The applicant maintained that the domestic legislation did not provide for compensation for unlawful detention in cases like his. He complained that he had had no effective domestic remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest and detention after the three-day period of administrative arrest had expired. He referred to Article 5 §§ 1 (a) and (c) and 5 and Article <mask> of the Convention.


42.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that (1) the domestic courts, in determining the dispute concerning the annulment of the sales contract and of the certificate of joint ownership, incorrectly evaluated the facts and evidence, and made unlawful conclusions; (2) they did not have a fair hearing in the proceedings of 4 October 2002 and (3) they did not have a fair hearing in the proceedings which terminated with the decision of 29 November 2002. They also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in connection with all three sets of proceedings, which, in so far as relevant, provide:


81.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the national courts' ruling that his contact with I.K. had to be supervised because he suffered from a mental illness; under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of the violation of his Convention rights; and that the fact that custody of I.K. was given to his former wife violated Article 5 of Protocol No. 7. He also invoked Article 17 of the Convention.


67.  The applicant complained that the proceedings in his case had been unfair, stating in particular that his conviction had been based on false evidence and self-incriminating statements obtained under torture, that the courts had refused to call defence witnesses or allow him to put questions to the prosecution witnesses, including the father of one of the victims, and to the experts, and that his appeal in cassation had been heard in his absence. He relied upon Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and Article <mask> of the Convention.


87.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and the Russian authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. They submitted that the relatives of the missing person had been declared victims and had received reasoned replies to all the requests they made in the context of the investigation.


30.  The Government disputed this claim, observing that the “effective remedy” mentioned in Article <mask> of the Convention necessarily referred to a remedy in the domestic law of the “TRNC”. Turkey could neither interfere with the judicial system of the “TRNC” nor provide remedies to supplement those existing under domestic law. In the light of the above, the Government submitted that no issue under Article 13 could be raised by the present application.


55.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he had not been duly summoned for the hearing before the Court of Appeal and that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted an unreasonably long time. Lastly, he relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 without further specification.


40.  The applicant also complained, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 23 March 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which is a lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Nikolova, cited above, § 69 and M.A. and M.M. v. France (dec.), no. 39671/98, ECHR 1999-VIII).


65.  The applicant complained under Articles 5, 6 §§ 2 and 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been unlawfully detained, that he had not been assisted by counsel on 7 August 2001 and that counsel had not been invited to an interview with the assistant prosecutor on 19 October 2001, that the domestic courts had refused to observe certain items of evidence, that his request for various expert examinations had not been successful, and that the investigating authorities and domestic courts had committed various procedural violations.


41.  The applicant also complained that, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the domestic courts had not been independent and impartial. She noted that, in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the events in question, the selection of candidates to judicial positions in Azerbaijan was performed by the Judicial Legal Council under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, presided over by the Minister of Justice. The applicant alleged that, in such circumstances, the judges of the domestic courts could not be independent and impartial in the proceedings against the Ministry of Justice, because their subsequent re-appointment to the courts would depend on the discretion of the Minister of Justice as the Chairman of the Judicial Legal Council. Furthermore, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts could not be considered as an effective remedy because they had never ruled against the Ministry of Justice in cases concerning the delays in registration of non-governmental organisations.


283.  The applicants submitted that had there been a court order banning their assembly, an appeal to a higher court against such an order would have been an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of their right to freedom of assembly. As far as prosecutions were concerned, appeals to higher courts constituted an effective remedy which the applicants had exhausted. However, they had not been prosecuted under Article 185-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, thus depriving them of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint. For them, this constituted a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


106.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


153.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


134.  The applicant complained that he had not had an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Finally, relying on Article 14 of the Convention the applicant alleged that he had been discriminated against because he had been tried by a State Security Court instead of a juvenile court.


85.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government’s objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


245.  The applicant maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the failure of the public authorities for which Turkey was responsible to conduct a prompt, impartial and thorough investigation into the circumstances of her husband's murder, and their failure to carry out a proper post-mortem examination, indicated that those responsible for investigation and public prosecution had a similarly blinkered approach to the allegations of a politically-motivated killing by agents of the “TRNC” regime or of the respondent Government. She claimed that the same considerations applied to her allegations of a campaign of monitoring, harassment, intimidation and discrimination against her. In further breach of Article 13, the applicant had been denied any effective remedy because of the failure to secure the independence of the legal profession in the territory controlled by the “TRNC” regime, with the result that qualified lawyers had repeatedly refused to give legal assistance to the applicant to obtain effective legal redress.


164.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. The applicants had never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13.


148.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court and in fact made use of it when challenging lawfulness of the decision of 20 September 2003. They could also claim damages through civil proceedings.


141.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3, that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment in police custody, and that their refusal to open a criminal case had made it impossible for him to be granted the status of “victim”, which could have entitled him to compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. Article 13 reads as follows:


46.  The applicants further complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts in the proceedings concerning the annulment of their property rights had disregarded their arguments and had adopted unfair and unfounded decisions. Lastly, they complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their national origin – they submitted that the majority of individuals who had had their rights to forests restored and later annulled had been Polish.


473.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


73.  The applicant complained that on 23 October 2001 and 21 January 2002 he had been beaten and humiliated by officers of the special-purpose unit of UIN. He also complained, referring to Article <mask> of the Convention, that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate the events of 23 October 2001 and 21 January 2002. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s substantive and procedural obligations flowing from Article 3, cited above.


104.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court, which they had failed to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


45.  The Government raised an objection in respect of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant, claiming also that he did not have victim status in respect of his complaint of lack of effective remedies. The Court considers that these two issues are closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaints concerning inhuman and degrading treatment on account of being detained in inadequate conditions, including in solitary confinement, and being deprived of effective medical care. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government’s objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


29.  The applicant association complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention, that it had not had an effective remedy against the alleged violation of its freedom of assembly. In particular, it alleged that it had not had at its disposal any procedure which would have allowed it to obtain a final decision prior to the date of the planned demonstrations. These provisions read as follows:


110.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had availed themselves of it. The Government further added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


135.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that she had received reasoned replies to all her requests and queries made in the context of the investigation and had been able to lodge a court complaint against actions of the investigating authorities, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the Government, the fact that this complaint was disallowed by the domestic courts did not indicate that the remedy invoked by them had been ineffective. The Government further argued that if the applicant had considered that any action or omission of public officials had caused her damage, she could have sought compensation for that damage in court by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code. In support of this argument, the Government referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karachayevo-Cherkessia dated 19 October 2004 by which a plaintiff had been awarded a certain amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the unlawful actions of a prosecutor’s office. The Government did not enclose a copy of that decision.


69.  The applicant complained of the discontinuation of the judicial proceedings in respect of his application for a residence order and an order depriving A.’s mother of parental authority. He also complained of the failure to inform him of the appeal hearing of 27 February 2013. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, which read as follows:


49.  The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the lack of access to a court and lack of an effective remedy in this respect. The Court notes that, although the applicant invoked both Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, her complaint is more properly examined under the latter Article alone. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:


63.  The applicants submitted that the refusal by the domestic courts to examine the merits of the application for judicial review of the NRTC's decision had deprived them of an effective remedy. They referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (cited above), and argued that the Supreme Administrative Court's holding that the competent bodies enjoyed unreviewable discretion when examining applications for licences had been contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, which required a remedy allowing full examination of the necessity of the interference with their Article 9 and Article 10 rights.


89.  The applicant complained that he had not had an effective legal remedy at his disposal in respect of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been unable to get the sale of the house revoked on the grounds that the debt to company J. had been repaid. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


32.  The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies with regard to her complaint about the length of the proceedings. They submitted that administrative hierarchical complaints about the length of proceedings may be lodged with the president of the competent court, with the president of the superior court or with the Ministry of Justice, and that this system, governed by Act no. 335/1991 (which was replaced on 1 April 2002 by Act no. 2/2002), is complemented by the possibility of filing constitutional appeals and complaints under State Liability Act no. 82/1998 (which amended Act no. 58/1969). Moreover, the system of domestic remedies against delays in the proceedings was completed by the appointment of the Ombudsman (Act no. 349/1999). The Government concluded that this system fully satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


57.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, as a result of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her brother and the unlawfulness of his detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the violations alleged, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


63.  The applicants stressed that their applications concerned their summary expulsion on 13 August 2014 and not the subsequent proceedings referred to by the Government, which related to different facts. In any event, only domestic remedies which had suspensive effect, and were therefore deemed effective, had to be exhausted. In the applicants’ submission, Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention were closely linked (they referred to Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 212, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). As far as their summary expulsion on 13 August 2014 was concerned, they had not access to any effective remedy which they could have exercised before applying to the Court.


160.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the authorities had opened a criminal investigation on the date on which the applicants’ relatives had been killed and during that investigation the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal, both to senior prosecutors and to a court, against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities, or against the decision of 24 April 2003 to discontinue the criminal proceedings. In addition, throughout the investigation and after its termination it had been open to the applicants to file a claim for compensation in civil proceedings. In this latter respect the Government relied on the Khashiyev case in which the applicant had sought and obtained compensation for the death of his relatives (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, §§ 39-42).


11.  The applicants complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgments of the Krasnyy Luch Court given in their favour in due time. They invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The third applicant additionally invoked Article <mask> of the Convention on the same grounds as Article 6 § 1. These provisions, insofar as relevant, provide as follows:


130.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed themselves of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


179.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities did not prevent them from using them. The applicants had an opportunity to lodge a civil claim for compensation and challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


138.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


115.  The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, whereby he had been deprived of his Lithuanian citizenship, had been unfair. He further argued that he had had no remedy, in accordance with Article <mask> of the Convention, to challenge the loss of Lithuanian citizenship following the decision of the Constitutional Court of 30 December 2003. In the same connection, the applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against as a person of Russian ethnicity, to the extent that he had automatically lost Lithuanian citizenship following the acquisition of a Russian passport.


146.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings, and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


133.  The Government argued that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants had received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Besides, the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court.


162.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using those remedies. In particular, the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal to a court against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an effective remedy to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants had not made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13.


120.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as premature, as the investigation of the disappearance of Abdul-Yazit Askhabov had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicant to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. She could also have claimed civil damages.


39.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the investigation of the disappearance of Mr Kamil Mutayev had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. They could also have claimed civil damages.


113.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. She had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


53.  The applicant submitted a bill of costs in the amount of GBP 6139.38 (inclusive of value-added tax – “VAT”). The Government considered this to be excessive and suggested that a reasonable figure would be GBP 3000 (inclusive of VAT). They referred, inter alia, to the number of hours of legal work billed as regards the applicant’s response to the Government’s first observations, to the similarity between this case and the above-cited Hood case for which latter applicant the present representative also acted and to the fact that certain complaints were declared inadmissible (under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5, Article 6 § 3(a) and (b) and Article <mask> of the Convention).


113.  The applicants contended that the investigation into the murder of Ali and Umar Musayev had been pending with no tangible results for several years, and that their attempt to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the unlawful detention of their relatives had proved unsuccessful, and that they therefore had no effective remedies against the aforementioned violations, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


58.  The applicant also complained about a violation of his rights in respect of the Warsaw Regional Court’s decision of 13 January 2005 which rejected his complaint about the excessive length of proceedings. He did not invoke any provision of the Convention in this respect. The Court considers that the applicant raised in substance a complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the protracted length of proceedings in his case. Article 13 reads:


93.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They further added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and in one instance from the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


23.  The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in respect of his reinstatement and compensation claims, including their enforcement stage, was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that he had no effective domestic remedies for this complaint as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The Convention provisions in question provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:


88.  The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


42.  The applicant further complained that she had no effective remedy to complain about the length of administrative proceedings. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed her length complaint in the first set of the administrative proceedings, but it found the second set of judicial proceedings too long, despite the fact that the circumstances and the time-frame in both cases were almost identical. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention.  The Government contested that argument.


100.  The Government submitted that the first applicant had a possibility to introduce different procedural petitions with the courts hearing her case seeking to expedite its processing. For instance, in case of a failure of the respondent party to appear for hearings it was open for the applicant to ask for examination of the case without its participation or require that the respondent party's representatives be obliged to appear before the court. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in respect of the lack of effective remedies for the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as to the length of the proceedings.


29.  The applicant complained that his complaint was not examined by the court because of his absence and that his right to defend himself though counsel was breached. He invoked Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) as well as Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that the case falls to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention, which in relevant part reads as follows:


145.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and they could also claim damages through civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


105.  The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as the investigation into the death of the applicants’ son had not yet been completed. They further argued, in relation to the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities.


61.  The Government maintained that no separate issue arose under Article <mask> of the Convention and that the applicant had effective domestic remedies which she had failed to exhaust. In particular, the applicant could challenge before the Regional Court any procedural step taken by the first-instance court which in her opinion contributed to the delay in the proceedings. They also referred to the remedies invoked in their preliminary objection.


60.  The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court has examined a similar objection in several previous cases. Having assessed a number of legal avenues put forward by the Russian Government, as well as remedies employed by applicants, including a civil claim, the Court found that applicants who were detainees did not have effective domestic remedies at their disposal to complain about continuous and ongoing violations of their right to receive adequate medical assistance in detention. That conclusion also led to the Court’s finding of a breach by the Russian Government of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 75-91, 27 November 2012, and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 62-80, 8 January 2013).


91.  The applicant also complained that the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation capable of providing redress for the ill‑treatment suffered by the applicant constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, he complained that he could not effectively challenge, before a court, the decision not to prosecute taken by the military prosecutor in favour of the police officer who had allegedly injured him.


139.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court or before higher prosecutors and to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


132.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


324.  The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants could have made use of their procedural status as victims in the criminal cases. In particular, they had an opportunity to appeal against the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. The Government referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to two cases in 2003 and 2004 in which victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from state bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor’s office.


223.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to cases where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from State bodies and, in one instance, the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


35.  The Government further submitted that, following the delivery of the Court's judgment in the case of Kudła v. Poland (application no. 30210/96, judgment of 26 October 2000), the applicant could have requested, with reference to Article 144 of the Constitution, that the domestic courts should apply the State Liability Act of 1969 in accordance with the requirement of an effective domestic remedy under Article <mask> of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court. In the Government's view, in such case the domestic courts would be obliged to compensate the applicant for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the protracted length of the proceedings.


12.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 30 July 1999 given in his favour in due time. He further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had no effective remedies for his complaint under Article 6 § 1. The impugned provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:


19.  The applicant company alleged that the fine imposed on it pursuant to section 134 of Law no. 2004 had constituted a breach of its right of access to a court, since it should be construed as a penalty for having exercised its right to bring a case before the domestic courts. It relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention.


17.  The applicants complained that their handcuffing during the court hearing of 26 January 2007 had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and that they had had no effective means at their disposal to remedy the situation. Both of them relied on Article 3, Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. Mr Sabev relied additionally on Article 14.


45.  The applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings opened after the events of December 1989 in Bucharest and other cities. They also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the determination of their claims. They relied in that connection on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. Those provisions read as follows:


29.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that the invalidation of the election results for their constituencies due to the alleged incompatibility of the ConEC records of results with the requirements of the Electoral Code had been arbitrary and unlawful. The Constitutional Court’s decision to invalidate the election results lacked any factual basis, was contrary to the domestic law and breached the principles of a fair trial. In particular, the Constitutional Court’s decision contained no indication as to which specific documents had been examined, what specific requirements of the Electoral Code had not been met and what the specific nature of the shortcomings found in the ConEC records had been. As the Constitutional Court’s decision was final, there was no remedy available in respect of the alleged violation.


115.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and could also claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


127.  The Government argued that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using them. In particular, the applicant had received reasoned replies to all her complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, under Article 125 of the new CCP she could complain to a court about actions or omissions of the investigating authorities. Moreover, it was open to the applicant to file a claim for compensation in civil proceedings. In this respect the Government relied on the case of Khashiyev v. Russia in which the applicant had sought and obtained compensation for the death of his relatives (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2002).


58.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there had been no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of the non‑enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the length of civil proceedings. Lastly, relying on Articles 6, 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that in 1997 he lost his apartment; that the amount awarded to him by the judgment of 23 September 2008 was insufficient and the civil proceedings were unfair.


21.  The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings, instituted first in 1989 and a second time in 1990, had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1. In this connection they also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. It is not clear what matters this allegation concerned other than the length aspect as such. In the view of the Court this matter can most appropriately be considered under Article 6 § 1 which, in so far as is relevant, reads:


100.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at her disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. The applicant had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


57.  The Government contended that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as he had failed to raise his complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court. According to the Government, the constitutional complaint had to be regarded as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the means by which the Federal Constitutional Court was able to influence the length of pending proceedings, the Government maintained that the mere fact that notice of a constitutional complaint satisfying the admissibility criteria was given to the Federal Government or the government of the Land in which the court in question was situated had the effect of speeding up the proceedings. The same applied for a decision establishing a violation of the Basic Law. Furthermore, the fact that the Federal Constitutional Court's decisions were often published and discussed in the legal press exerted a preventive effect.


152.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. The applicants had challenged the actions of the investigators in court, but had not appealed against the first-instance decision. They could also have complained to higher prosecutors or claimed damages, but failed to do so. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


105.  The applicants complained of violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. They also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the violations claimed, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


66.  The applicants submitted, relying on the Court’s findings in Soldatenko (cited above, §§ 82-83), that the domestic legal system did not provide for an effective remedy to prevent or challenge a decision on extradition on the ground of a risk of ill-treatment. They also argued that the Instruction on the procedure of consideration of extradition requests by the prosecution bodies, to which the Government referred in their submissions, had not been published in accordance with the domestic rules and was not accessible to the public for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention.


74.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not had at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 22 May 2006 the Court considered that this complaint fell to be examined only under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, which are lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Nikolova, cited above, § 69 and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports 1997‑III, p. 927, § 73).


65.  The applicant complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her two sons and the unlawfulness of their detention. She also argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, she had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3. These Articles read, in so far as relevant:


31.  The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


19.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 11), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 46-48, 29 June 2004). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision.


14.  The applicant submitted that he had been tried and convicted by the Diyarbakır State Security Court which was neither independent nor impartial. He further complained that he had been deprived of his right to the assistance of a lawyer in police custody, before the public prosecutor and the judge. In this respect he invoked Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Article <mask> of the Convention.


119.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. For instance, they could have complained about the investigators’ actions both to higher prosecutors and to the courts. Their access to such remedies had not been restricted. The first applicant had been granted victim status and thus had had all relevant procedural rights. Moreover, he could have lodged civil claims for non-pecuniary damage. The Government referred to several cases concerning the events in the Chechen Republic in which awards for non-pecuniary damage had been made by Russian courts.


43.  The applicant began his argument with a submission relating to domestic remedies. In particular, he drew the Court’s attention to a number of cases against Russia where it had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in view of a lack of domestic remedies in respect of complaints about the poor conditions of detention. He referred to his complaints to various authorities, including prosecutors, which had not brought about any improvements to his situation. He further maintained his description of the conditions of his detention both in the temporary detention centre and the correctional facility. He argued that the lack of personal space in facility IZ-47/1, his lengthy solitary confinement, and the degrading sanitary conditions in the correctional facility had been in contravention of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. With regard to the issue of his solitary confinement, he stressed that it had only been authorised in view of his life sentence. There had been no other considerations which could have required his detention alone in a cell for almost two years. It had never been argued that he was a danger to himself or other inmates or guards. He had never attempted self-mutilation or escape, or attacked those around him. The authorities had never reconsidered his solitary confinement and whether it could be cancelled. They had never assessed his physical and mental health to determine whether he was fit for solitary confinement.


36.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court only in connection with the proceedings on his action of 16 November 1999 (no. 7 Cb 73/99). On the basis of his complaint, the Constitutional Court found a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The fact that the redress obtained at the domestic level was not sufficient for the Convention purposes does not render the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution in the circumstances of the present case incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention (see Šidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 77, 26 September 2006).


149.  The applicant complained that the response of the authorities to the complaints and petitions about the detention, torture and killing of Kadri Ateş was utterly inadequate. According to the applicant, the necessary remedies either did not exist or they were, in practice, useless. The applicant submitted that there had been a very clear violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


106.  The Government did not consider that any issue arose, in particular as no arguable claim of a violation was disclosed for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the applicant could challenge the reasonableness of the Council’s actions in judicial review proceedings and require the Council to show in the County Court that they had lawfully determined the licence. The applicant could also have taken action against any individual officer who had acted unlawfully and the law of tort was available to remedy any unlawful interference with his property.


22.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 13), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Voytenko, cited above, §§ 46-48). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision.


24.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 16), the Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, to redress the damage created by the delay in the present proceedings (see Vasylyev cited above, § 41). Accordingly, there has been a breach of this provision.


46.  The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that they were not able to participate in the proceedings before the Istanbul Assize Court and that the latter had decided to suspend publication and distribution of the aforementioned newspapers without obtaining their submissions in defence. They further contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had not had a domestic remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of the national court decisions, as their objections to the suspension orders had been dismissed without trial. The applicants also complained under Article 6 § 2 that these orders had violated their right to be presumed innocent, since the national courts had held, that criminal offences had been committed through the publication of news reports and articles in the aforementioned newspapers, for which they had been responsible.


102.  The Government also argued, albeit in the context of Article <mask> of the Convention, that an effective remedy did not necessarily mean one in which the State was a defendant. They underlined that the Court did not find a breach of Article 13 in Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1993, § 27, Series A no. 247‑C) as the applicant was able to sue the private school or its authorities for assault. They also relied on the sufficiency of the negligence action in Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy (cited above). They considered Z and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001‑V) to be distinguishable: that respondent Government had conceded that a negligence action was the only effective remedy but that that action did not lie against local authorities.


98.  The applicant maintained that the Constitutional Court had declared her constitutional complaint of 25 March 2008, lodged against the decisions of the Supreme Court of 22 February 2008 and the Zagreb County Court of 12 February 2008, inadmissible solely on the ground that a fresh decision extending her detention had been adopted in the meantime. In the applicant's view, such a practice ran counter to the requirements of Article 5 § 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention.


253.  The Government conceded that prior to Mr H.K.’s statement the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy as required under Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5. They further admitted that in the absence of any conclusions of the criminal investigation, the civil avenue of redress, as such, could not be regarded as effective in relation to the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.


56.  The applicant also considered that Article 5 § 4 had been violated in that he could not have his detention reviewed after he had been committed for trial in May 2000. He also complained about the fact that he could not appeal against the detention orders issued by the Senate of the Supreme Court. Finally, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, he considered to have had no effective remedy to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed.


41.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article <mask> of the Convention that his right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because his request for registration as a candidate had been refused arbitrarily. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that no separate examination is necessary under Article 13 (compare Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 57, 8 April 2010). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:


66.  The applicants complained that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court finds that the applicants’ complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, as this provision is the lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 which the applicants invoke (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96 § 69, ECHR 1999‑II). Article 5 § 4 provides as follows:


143.  The applicant maintained that neither of the investigations had met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. He contended, in particular, that the disappearance and ill-treatment of Cemal Uçar between 5 October and 2 November 1999 had never been investigated although his son had told the authorities that he had been subjected to torture between 5 October and 2 November 1999. In this connection, the applicant contended that the prosecution authorities and the police had failed to take a detailed statement concerning his allegations of torture from Cemal Uçar. Nor did they make any efforts to obtain other evidence, such as forensic evidence and witness statements.


43.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that in addition to complaining to a higher court the applicant could have complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman or the Chancellor of Justice in the course of the proceedings, who may, as necessary, draw the court’s attention to the delay in the proceedings. They also referred to the amended Penal Code, which in its Article 7 (3) provides that the lapse of a considerably long period since the commission of the offence may be considered as a ground mitigating the punishment.


52.  The applicant submitted that he maintained his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention after having made use of the new domestic remedy in that regard. He alleged, in particular, that the new domestic remedy was not effective and that the proceedings before the complaints panel of the Federal Constitutional Court had not been fair within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.


68.  The applicants further complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the civil proceedings could not be considered an effective remedy in their attempt to obtain damages from the State. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that the complaint concerns the applicants’ right of access to a court, as guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows: