56.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the relevant provisions preventing him from being paid tax credits in respect of maintenance payments had constitutional status and were therefore excluded from the review of the Constitutional Court. He made a further complaint under Article 6 that there had been no oral hearing before the domestic authorities and that the Austrian courts, despite there being fundamental questions concerning EU law, had not complied with their obligation to refer the case to the ECJ.


90.  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. They added that participants in criminal proceedings could also claim damages in civil proceedings and referred to a case where victims in criminal proceedings had been awarded damages from the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


134.  The Government argued that the applicants had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, but had been unwilling to make use of them. They submitted that the first and seventh applicants had been granted victim status and therefore had been afforded procedural rights in the criminal proceedings and, in particular, the right to give oral and other evidence, to submit requests, to receive copies of procedural decisions, and to access the case file and make copies of the materials of the file on completion of the investigation. The Government further argued that the applicants could have appealed in court against actions or omissions of the investigation authorities in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, but had failed to do so. Also, in the Government's view, if the applicants had considered that any action or omission on the part of public officials had caused them damage, they could have sought compensation for that damage in court by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Civil Code, but they had never attempted to avail themselves of that opportunity. In support of this argument, the Government referred to a letter of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 3 August 2007 which stated that the applicants had not complained to the courts in the Chechen Republic of the unlawful detention of their relatives, about the actions of any law-enforcement officials, or of any shortcomings in the investigation into the disappearance of Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. The Government did not submit the letter to which they referred.


31.  The applicant alleged that the prosecutors and police had forced her to register her residence in Zaporizhzhya contrary to Article 2 Protocol No. 4. Referring to Article 1 Protocol No. 1, she in substance complained of the assessment of evidence in the civil proceedings. Finally, she complained that since 1976 the State had continuously failed to respect O.’s rights for residence, health care, subsistence and education. Lastly, in her submissions of 9 November 2009, she additionally complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol No. 1 in respect of the length of the civil proceedings.


104.  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 pursuant to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had availed herself 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.


55.  The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had not been fair. He also contended that he had had no remedy at his disposal to complain effectively about the ill-treatment, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the fact that the police had handed his car and house keys to his girlfriend and that his property had fallen into disrepair while he had been in detention.


63.  The applicants further argued that the approach adopted by the Court in the Norkin decision specifically concerned a structural problem relating to the lack of effective remedies in respect of conditions of detention. No similar findings had ever been made by the Court in relation to issues arising under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Moreover, the Norkin decision had been based on the Court’s earlier findings (in particular under Article <mask> of the Convention). No similar findings had ever been reached in respect of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. On the contrary, the Court had generally taken a flexible approach to the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of this type of complaint and had accepted a variety of domestic decisions for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, regarding – inter alia – a civil action for damages Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 66, 19 July 2007; Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 1, 15-27 and 36, 11 December 2008; and Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 1, 15-20 and 31-35, 25 October 2005; see, in respect of court proceedings against the head of a remand centre Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, §§ 1, 32 and 39-40, 13 March 2014).


122.  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 had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court, which they had deliberately refused to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


94.  The applicant, invoking Articles 5, 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention, complained that he had been unlawfully arrested and detained, that he had not been brought to a court immediately after his arrest, that he had been unable to challenge effectively the detention orders, that the trial court had not been competent to examine his case, that the courts had incorrectly assessed the facts and had failed to draw correct conclusions, that he had only learned about the charges against him on 30 December 1998 and that the trial court had not heard certain witnesses on his behalf and a victim, Ms Lo.


20.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy against the excessive length of the proceedings. The relevant parts of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 read as follows:


38.  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:


64.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention the applicants further complained that no remedy had been available to them under the domestic law in force at relevant time, by which to challenge the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them.


19.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the damages which she had been awarded had been too low. She further complained under the same provision that following the amendment to the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure her case had ceased to be reviewable by the Supreme Court of Cassation. Finally, she complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that domestic law did not provide an effective mechanism for the vindication of her civil rights.


29.  The applicant complained that, if extradited, he would face a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment and an unfair trial by the Belarus authorities, which would constitute a violation of Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention. He further complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, about the absence of effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The invoked provisions, in so far as relevant, read as follows:


121.  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 that she could have claimed damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


24.  The applicant complained that his expulsion to Syria, if carried out, would be in breach of his right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment provided in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. He also complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had not had at his disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 2 and 3. The relevant provisions read as follows:


18.  The applicant complained that the length of his compensation proceedings, including their enforcement stage, had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that he had no effective remedies in respect of this complaint as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Additionally, he complained that the failure of the authorities to enforce the final judgment given in his favour breached his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The impugned provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:


103.  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 been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and had had an opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and had availed herself of it. The Government 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.


114.  The Government contested the applicant’s view essentially repeating their arguments concerning the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They observed that the Albanian legal system provided a specific remedy whereby the applicant could claim the restitution of and compensation for property which had been unlawfully nationalised or confiscated by the State. The legal framework on the restitution and compensation issue had been the subject of frequent legislative changes, owing to the significant financial and social consequences of the process. However, even without those legislative changes, which were aimed at making improvements to the system, the three remedies introduced by the Property Acts complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Government suggested without further explanation that the applicant could have filed motions for redress with the competent authority in accordance with the Property Act 2004.


227.  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.


112.  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.


143.  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 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 his rights. In addition, the applicant had failed to claim damages in civil proceedings.


45.  The Government also recalled that Article <mask> of the Convention requires an effective remedy that offers reasonable prospects of success. Although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see e.g. the X. v United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 26, § 60; the van Droogenbroeck v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 32, § 56; and the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, §§ 77 and 81-82).


36.  The Government contended that the applicants had had effective channels of complaint on the same basis that they had argued that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies. Having rejected the latter argument above (at paragraph 27), the Court concludes that the applicants 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.


29.  The applicants further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic authorities had failed to uphold their ownership rights in the apartments and under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had no effective remedies for this complaint, in particular, since the Constitutional Court had refused to consider their application. Finally, the applicants invoked Article 14 of the Convention to the facts of the case.


64.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in so far as the constitutional courts could not be considered an effective remedy to obtain sufficient just satisfaction (covering fair rent over all the relevant years and the depreciation suffered as a result of the actions of the club) or to bring the consequences of the violation to an end. Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:


128.  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. He had had an opportunity to challenge any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities in court or to bring civil claims for damages. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


142.  The Government contended that the applicants had had access to effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that during the period when the events invoked by the applicants' had taken place the judicial system in the Chechen Republic was already operational and that applications of the residents of Sernovodsk concerning those events had been properly examined by the authorities and criminal proceedings had been instituted. The Government insisted that the applicants, as participants in criminal proceedings, had had the right to challenge any actions of the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities before a court. Accordingly, in the Government's opinion, effective domestic remedies in respect of the applicants' complaints existed.


92.  The applicant reiterated under Article <mask> of the Convention his complaint about the absence of an automatic review of the lawfulness of his detention on remand (see paragraph 53 above). The Court recalls that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is the lex specialis in matters of detention (Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 435, ECHR 2005‑III) and that the complaint about the absence of an automatic review of the lawfulness of detention has been already found to be manifestly ill-founded (see paragraph 58 above). The Court does not consider it necessary therefore to examine this complaint separately under Article 13 of the Convention.


74.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Said-Emin Sambiyev 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 court complaints about any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities. Besides, she could have applied for civil damages. They also added that the applicant, having officially complained to the prosecutor’s office only one month and nineteen days after the abduction, had undermined the efficiency of the investigation.


32.  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:


106.  The applicants complained about the dismissal of their claim against the State for damages. They argued that as the offence had been committed as a result of the State’s negligence, they should be provided with a remedy that would enable them to obtain redress for the damage suffered. The applicants relied on Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that substantively their complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


83.  The Government have accepted that the first applicant's complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, insofar as it relates to the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, is admissible. The Court agrees that it is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further agrees that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. The Court finds, however, that the first applicant's complaint under Article 13 read together with Article 3 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded, as it has already held that the first applicant's rights under Article 3 are not engaged.


112.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Ruslanbek Vakhayev 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 court complaints about any acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities and that she had availed herself of this remedy. Besides, she could have lodged a claim for civil damages. They also added that the applicant, having officially complained to the prosecutor’s office almost a year after the abduction, had undermined the efficiency of the investigation.


45.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 November 2004 given in her favour against the municipal unitary enterprise and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, all cited in paragraph 32 above.


36.  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.


78.  The Government argued 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. The applicant had been declared a victim in the criminal case opened in connection with the killing of his family members and had received reasoned replies to all his queries. Besides, he had had an opportunity to challenge the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court.


26.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right to stand as a candidate in free elections had been violated because their requests for registration as candidates had been refused arbitrarily. The applicants in applications nos. 17356/11 and 31996/11 also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of this complaint. 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:


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 delayed enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the length of civil proceedings. Lastly, the applicant complained about certain alleged shortcomings in the civil proceedings, their unfairness, and about trespassing into his flat and theft of his belongings.


80.  The applicant further complained of the fact that the Constitutional Court, by rejecting his first and second constitutional appeals of 19 January and 10 November 1998 in which he had complained of the delays in the proceedings, deprived him of the last domestic remedies available to him. This gave rise to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


131.  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 to bring civil claims for damages, which they failed to do. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


39.  The applicant maintained that the Constitutional Court had declared his constitutional complaint of 15 January 2008, lodged against the decision of the Osijek County Court of 27 December 2007, inadmissible solely on the ground that a fresh decision extending his 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.


109.  The Government contended that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented her from using those remedies. The investigation into her husband’s disappearance was still ongoing. At the same time the applicant 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 enclosed copies of the domestic courts’ decisions on claims for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by offences committed by Russian servicemen in the North Caucasus Region.


68.  The Government submitted that the applicant had had an effective remedy in respect of his allegations of ill-treatment, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Domestic law had provided an opportunity, both in theory and in practice, to have the fact of his ill-treatment by the police officers established and, consequently, to seek and obtain redress. The applicant, however, had failed to avail himself of this opportunity by not lodging a timely appeal against the investigator’s decision of 21 June 2005. Thus, the final domestic decision concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment had been the decision of 21 June 2005, according to which the actions of the police officers had been found to be lawful, and consequently his civil claims had had no prospects of success. Accordingly, in the absence of a finding by a relevant authority of a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention, he had no “arguable claim” under Article 13 in relation to his allegations of ill-treatment.


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


59.  The Government raised an 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 the complaint that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by being detained in inadequate conditions. 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.


23.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that because his regiment had not immediately referred him to a hospital, his access to appropriate medical treatment had been delayed, which had led to the loss of sight in his left eye. He argued that, as he had been under the control of the military authorities during his compulsory military service, the State should be held responsible for the damage he had sustained. Relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant also complained that he had not had an effective domestic remedy which could have provided him with redress for his complaints.


110.  The Government raised an objection in respect of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the question 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 his complaints concerning inhuman and degrading treatment on account of being detained in inadequate conditions. 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.


34.  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.


94.  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 Government also noted that the investigation of the abduction of the applicant’s relatives had not yet been completed. 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 her rights. The applicant 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.


61.  The Government stated that remedies were available as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. Judith McGlinchey could have used the internal prison complaints system to complain about her treatment. Intolerable conditions of detention were also the proper basis for an application for judicial review. The applicants had available to them a range of causes of action, including negligence and misfeasance in public office. This was not a case where national law did not provide a viable cause of action at all. The fact that the applicants could not prove negligence on the facts did not mean that there was no remedy available.


187.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They further argued that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, they had no available domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in Mezhidovy v. Russia (no. 50606/08), Israilovy v. Russia (no. 58253/10), Shakhidova and Others v. Russia (no. 27066/09), Zaurbekovy v. Russia (no. 27987/12), Abdurzakova and Others v. Russia (no. 39694/12), and Askhabayeva v. Russia (no. 79940/12) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The invoked Articles read, in so far as relevant:


30.  The Government raised an objection, arguing that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. 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.


32.  The applicant company further complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 that the proceedings in its case were unfair, and about their outcome. It also alleged that the judges at the domestic courts lacked independence and impartiality. In its submissions lodged in 2008, the applicant company also complained that the Supreme Court, by examining the case in the absence of its representative, had violated its right to an effective remedy for the protection of its rights and deprived it of access to a court. The applicant company relied on Article <mask> of the Convention.


70.  The applicant also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that, as it relates to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, this complaint should be understood as referring to the applicant's inability to effectively challenge his detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and to the alleged lack of an enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention. In addition, the Court observes that Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention constitute lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see Nikolova, cited above, § 69, and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑III, p. 927, § 73).


55.  The applicant complained that the authorities’ refusal to institute criminal proceedings in respect of his complaints of ill-treatment in police custody and unlawful detention 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 and unlawful detention. He relied on Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 and 5 of the Convention. Article <mask> of the Convention reads as follows:


121.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that an arrest warrant issued against him during the criminal proceedings which ended on 4 February 2000 was unlawful. Furthermore, he complained under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings which ended on 4 February 2000 had been unfair, as had been the outcome of the proceedings which had ended with the final judgments of 12 November 2004, 13 July 2005 and 18 January 2006. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Vâlcea County Court had allegedly failed to consider his appeal during the course of the proceedings which ended with the final judgment of 12 November 2004.


103.  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. 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 challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. In sum, they submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


157.  The Government contended that the applicants 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. They had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and received reasoned replies to all their applications within the framework of the proceedings. At the same time, the applicants had not submitted their complaints concerning their allegedly unlawful detention, or any other complaints, to a court. The Government referred to a number of decisions of the courts in the Chechen Republic whereby complaints concerning the actions or inaction of prosecuting authorities had been allowed.


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 prisoners. He cited Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


131.  The applicants alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of all the above complaints. The Court observes that they did not explain in any detail why they considered that they were denied effective domestic remedies for their grievances. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the complaint is devoid of merit. It therefore rejects this complaint as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.


42.  The applicant also vaguely alleged that he had not had an effective domestic remedy for his complaints pertaining to the conditions of his detention, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is “arguable” (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003‑VIII, with further references, and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004). The Court has found that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. 16/1 are manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible. It accordingly finds that that claim cannot be said to be “arguable” within the meaning of the Convention case-law (see Novikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 11303/12, § 40, 10 December 2013).


80.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the murder of the applicant’s sisters 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 court complaints about any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities. She could also have applied for civil damages.


49.  The applicant complained that the courts had lacked impartiality and had wrongly assessed the evidence. He was dissatisfied that he had not been awarded compensation and with the outcome of the proceedings in general. He invoked Article 6 § 1. However, the Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


40.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 thereof, that the Makarska Municipal Court had not complied with the orders of the Split County Court and the Supreme Court to complete the enforcement proceedings within the specified time-limit. Therefore the remedies he had at his disposal were not effective. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


79.  The Government concluded that applicants were obliged to exhaust a remedy which did not lack any reasonable prospect of success, even if they had doubts as to its effectiveness. The applicants in the case at hand should have thus contested the prosecutor’s decision to suspend the investigation before the Constitutional Court, which could have ordered the prosecuting authorities to investigate the events in conformity with the Convention, had that court found that that had not been the case. Moreover, the Government recalled that if a single remedy did not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 75, ECHR 2002-I). Thus, the remedies available under civil law, the Police Act, and the State Liability made up for the lack of jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to award compensation for violations of rights guaranteed by the Convention.


18.  The applicant complained, relying on under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention, of the failure of the State to provide him with the flat allocated in compensation to his father. The Court is of the view that it suffices to examine the application under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:


114.  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 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. This was an effective remedy to ensure the applicants’ rights. 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.


39.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in relation to their complaint concerning the breach of their right to peaceful assembly. They also argued under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 11, that they had suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their freedom of assembly as they had been refused permission to organise a demonstration in Taksim Square for public order reasons, while other mass demonstrations could be celebrated at the same location.


10.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention. In applications nos. 54430/08, 69362/10, and 67231/11 they also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, read as follows:


75.  The applicants may be understood to complain under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the quashing by way of supervisory review of a judgment in their favour. The Court notes that Article <mask> of the Convention does not, as such, guarantee the right to appellate remedies in respect of a decision taken by way of supervisory review, and the mere fact that the judgment of the highest judicial body is not subject to further judicial review does not infringe in itself the said provision (see, in identical context, Murtazin, cited above, § 46).


117.  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 not brought any complaints in relation to Ayub Takhayev’s kidnapping to courts of the Chechen Republic, Kabardino-Balkaria and Ingushetia or to the courts of the Stavropol, Krasnodar and Rostov Regions. Furthermore, the applicants could have brought civil claims for damages pursuant to Article 1069 of the Civil Code. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


215.   The applicant complained that the failure of the Polish authorities to create a legal mechanism that would have allowed her to challenge the doctors’ decisions concerning the advisability of and access to prenatal examinations in a timely manner had amounted also to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Had such a framework existed, it would have made it possible for her to consider whether she wanted to have the pregnancy terminated in the conditions provided for in the 1993 Act.


169.  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 actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court pursuant article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, she could have lodged a civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


98.  The applicants complained that the judicial review proceedings in their case had been limited in scope because the domestic courts had no competence to verify the Federal Security Service’s sources of information. Moreover, the applicants had been informed in general terms only about the accusations levelled at the first applicant and had had no opportunity to refute those accusations. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


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 actions 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.


110.  The applicants further complained that because of their hasty expulsion they had been denied the possibility of claiming damages from the authorities for the latter's unlawful actions. In this connection, they complained under Article 6 and, with the exception of the third applicant, Ms Stankova, Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, this being the lex specialis in the case of proceedings for compensation for unlawful detention. It reiterates in this connection that once a case has been duly referred to it, it is entitled to examine every question of law arising in the course of the proceedings and concerning facts submitted to its examination in the light of the Convention and the Protocols as a whole (see, inter alia, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports 1998-I, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24). Article 5 § 5 of the Convention reads as follows:


31.  The applicant complained that the length of the first set of proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court considers that the complaint must be examined solely under Article 6 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:


134.  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.


166.  The applicants complained that, contrary to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in none of the cases described in the application had they been afforded an effective remedy before a national court. In no case had a prosecution been brought or any attempt made by the authorities to redress the rights of the applicants. They invoked in this connection Article 13 of the Convention, which states the following:


135.  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 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 have been able to avail themselves 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. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


16.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the absence of a remedy in the Turkish administrative law to enable claimants to increase the initial amount of their claim during the course of administrative proceedings. In that respect, they claimed that they had no available course of action to claim the remaining amount as established in the expert report of 14 June 2006.


100.  The applicant complained that she had not been afforded a fair hearing in respect of her application for reopening of her guardianship proceedings and had not been able to have her legal guardian changed. In support of her complaints, the applicant cited Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. In addition, relying upon Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant argued that she had not been afforded an effective remedy to complain of the alleged violations.


86.  The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of a violation of his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time and under Article 6 § 2 of a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence. Lastly, the applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, maintaining that his right to an effective remedy had been violated.


101.  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 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, including the prosecutor's office. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


91.  The applicant contended that he could not have effectively complained in court of the inadequate conditions of his detention and his ill-treatment. He could not have claimed compensation for the harm caused to him during the pre-trial investigation and trial, that being a matter outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The applicant submitted that he had availed himself of all judicial and non-judicial remedies that were at his disposal. However, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation or to adequately pursue his complaints. He concluded that he had had no effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


55.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov 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 appeal against alleged acts or omissions by the investigating authorities to domestic courts or to claim civil damages there.


100.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand was excessive. He further contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that there were no remedies in domestic law to challenge the length of his detention on remand. The Court considers that the complaint formulated under Article 13 of the Convention should be examined solely from the standpoint of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Article 5 § 3 and 4 provide as follows:


32.  The applicants complained, relying on Articles 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention, that they had been discriminated against and restricted in their procedural rights on the ground of their Russian nationality. The second applicant further complained, with reference to Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the allegedly unfavourable decision of the first-instance court.


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. 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 a court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13.


88.  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 those remedies. The applicants 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. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


83.  The Government submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov 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 challenge the alleged acts or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities before the domestic courts or to claim civil damages.


161.  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 were also able to claim damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


120.  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.


26.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them had been unreasonable.  They further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that there were no domestic remedies available under Turkish law whereby they could challenge the excessive length of the criminal proceedings in question. The Government disputed these allegations.


41.  The applicant was able to obtain partial redress before the Constitutional Court which found a violation of Article 6 § 1, granted the applicant a certain sum as just satisfaction and ordered the ordinary court concerned to proceed with the case without further delay. In these circumstances, and having regard to its above finding under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


119.  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.


67.  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 avenue for a complaint of inhuman and degrading treatment to which he was subjected by being deprived of effective medical care. 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.


16.  The applicants complained about the infringement of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 caused by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour against the Bailiffs. They also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had no effective remedies for enforcing these judgments. The above provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:


57.  The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) and Article <mask> of the Convention of the outcome and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, stating that the courts had not provided his mother with sufficient time to study the case materials and had not called an expert that he proposed; and under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the outcome, unfairness and length of the proceedings against the tax authorities, of the commercial proceedings instituted by the tax authorities against him, and about the authorities’ refusal to institute criminal proceedings against several tax officers. Lastly, the applicant complained, without relying upon any provision of the Convention or providing any further details, that he had not been granted parole.


157.  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 the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They added that she could have claimed damages in civil proceedings. In sum, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13.


28.  The applicant complained that he had not had an effective remedy for the undue length of the restitution proceedings because it had taken too long for the Supreme Court to decide on his length complaint. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, § 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), considers that the applicant’s submissions should be analysed under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


154.  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 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:


58.  The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with in the present case. Firstly, they submitted that it had been open to the applicant to lodge a complaint with a prosecutor’s office. To demonstrate the effectiveness of that remedy, they referred to an example in the Kaluga region, where the local prosecutor’s office had in 2006 declared 13.1% of complaints about inadequate conditions of detention well‑founded, a proportion which had risen to 18% in the first half of 2007. They also submitted, without providing any further details, that in two detention facilities in the Vladimir and Khabarovsk regions, material conditions of detention had been improved following complaints to prosecutor’s offices. Secondly, the Government argued that it had been open to the applicant to institute civil proceedings before the domestic courts in relation to the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the conditions of detention, as, in their submission, that avenue of recourse constituted an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. To illustrate their point, the Government stated that an unspecified number of individuals had successfully sought damages in the courts of the Perm region and Kazan. They further referred to the case of Mr S., who had been awarded RUB 250,000 by a domestic court for non‑pecuniary damage, and to that of Mr D. – already cited in connection with their plea of non‑exhaustion. Lastly, the Government stated that the applicant had failed to properly bring his civil claims in connection with the conditions of detention in the IVS. Referring to the Court’s case-law (see Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision of 7 March 1994, application no. 20357/92, Decisions and Reports 76, p. 80), they pointed out that a mere doubt on the applicant’s part as to the prospects of success was not sufficient to exempt him from submitting his claim to any of the aforementioned national authorities with jurisdiction in such matters.


48.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had had preventive and compensatory effective domestic remedies at his disposal. In support of their argument, they provided copies of judicial decisions taken in response to the complaints and claims lodged by inmates against the remand prisons where they were detained. In particular, they presented a copy of the final judgment of 26 April 1999 whereby Mr P. was awarded RUB 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages for having been detained in overcrowded cells at remand prison no. IZ-35/1 in the Kaliningrad Region. They also submitted a copy of the final judgment of 16 April 2003, whereby Mr Z. was awarded RUB 7,000 in non-pecuniary damages for lack of adequate medical assistance in detention. In the Government's opinion, it had been open to the applicant, during the period of his detention, to bring his grievances to the attention of the administration of the remand prison or a prosecutor. Alternatively, he could have challenged the lawfulness of the alleged failure of the remand prison administration to ensure adequate conditions of his detention. The applicant, however, did not make use of those remedies. Instead, he chose to pursue a different avenue by bringing an action for damages against State authorities after his detention in the remand prison had ended. Domestic courts had thoroughly examined his complaints and had taken lawful and reasoned decisions. Accordingly, there was no violation of the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention.


242.  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.


43.  The Government argued that the applicant could have applied to a court for the lifting of the charging order in respect of his bus and sought compensation in respect of the loss allegedly sustained because of the impounding of the vehicle. The Government submitted that the seizure of the applicant’s bus had been lawful and that its aim had been to constitute security for the eventual penalty of confiscation of his property in relation to charges under Article 160 of the Criminal Code, if he were subsequently convicted by a court. The Government acknowledged that the investigator’s failure to order the release of the bus after the decision of 20 January 2006 had been unlawful. However, it had been remedied by the decision of 18 July 2006 taken by the deputy prosecutor of the Buryatiya Republic. In any event, the applicant had not made any effort between January and July 2006 in order to obtain release of his bus. As regards Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that the applicant had had an effective remedy, namely the possibility of challenging the investigator’s decision to seize the bus. The applicant had used that remedy, albeit without success.


130.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints. In the admissibility decision of 15 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).


25.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah’s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 9.


37.  The applicant claimed that the reduction in her pension under the General Old Age Pensions Act constituted discrimination on the ground of sex prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that at the relevant time a married woman was only insured under the Act for periods when her husband was insured, whereas there was no equivalent rule for married men.


26.  The applicant complained of discrimination contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the refusal to give him translations into Russian of the decision of 8 December 2003 and of other documents. The Court notes, however, that this complaint was lodged on 21 December 2004, that is, more than a year after he was allegedly not given translations of the relevant documents. This complaint was thus introduced outside the time-limit set by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.


100.  The Government said that the applicant company had brought proceedings in the tribunal with a view to challenging the public authorities' actions and that the applicant company's treatment by the domestic courts and tribunals had not been discriminatory. They further argued that the applicant company had provided insufficient information to substantiate its complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


25.  The applicant complained under Article 3 § 2 of Protocol No. 4, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article <mask> of the Convention that, following the termination of his employment in 2004, he could not return to Russia from the Baikonur launch site in Kazakhstan or visit his ailing father or his mother's grave in Ukraine or go to any other visa-free CIS country, owing to the absence of a travel document. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined from the standpoint of Article 2 §§ 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 which provides as follows:


50.  The applicant alleged in the present case that, in the exercise of her right under the domestic law, she had been discriminated against on the ground of her sexual orientation. The latter is a concept covered by Article <mask> of the Convention (see Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-IX). The Court also points out that in Fretté v. France (cited above), to which the parties expressly referred, the applicant complained that the rejection of his application for authorisation to adopt had implicitly been based on his sexual orientation alone. The Chamber found that Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, was applicable (§ 33).


25.  The applicant, who owns land included in the hunting grounds of an approved municipal hunters’ association, complained of the fact that, as he was not opposed to hunting for ethical reasons and the surface area of his land fell below a certain threshold, he was unable to have the land removed from the association’s hunting grounds in order to derive benefit from it by leasing it for hunting. He alleged discrimination on the ground of property, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These two provisions read as follows:


51.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been discriminated against on the ground of his gender and under Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 about lack of equality between spouses because his former wife had been granted full custody over the child while he had been deprived of access to his daughter. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had had no effective remedies in relation to his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. Relying on Article 17 he asserted that the deprivation of access rights to his child had not pursued any legitimate aims.


61.  The Government have relied in particular upon the Court's conclusion in Gerger, cited above, that the distinction in that case was made not between different groups of people but between different types of offence, according to the legislature's view of their gravity, to support their argument that the applicant is unable to demonstrate that he enjoyed “other status”. The Court observes that the approach adopted in Gerger has been followed in a number of cases, but all concerned special court procedures or provisions on early release for those accused or convicted of terrorism offences in Turkey (see, for example, Budak and Others, cited above; Yılmaz and Barım, cited above; Akbaba v. Turkey, no. 52656/99, § 28, 17 January 2006; and Tanrıkulu and Deniz v. Turkey, no. 60011/00, § 37, 18 April 2006). Thus while Gerger made it clear that there may be circumstances in which it is not appropriate to categorise an impugned difference of treatment as one made between groups of people, any exception to the protection offered by Article <mask> of the Convention should be narrowly construed. In the present case the applicant does not allege a difference of treatment based on the gravity of the offence he committed, but one based on his position as a prisoner serving a determinate sentence of more than fifteen years. While sentence length bears some relationship to the perceived gravity of the offence, a number of other factors may also be relevant, including the sentencing judge's assessment of the risk posed by the applicant to the public.


41.  The applicants complained that as children born outside marriage they had been unable to assert their inheritance rights and had thus been discriminated against when compared to children born within marriage. The Court considers that their complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read respectively as follows:


41.  The applicant churches complained that they had been discriminated against because, unlike other religious communities with which the Government of Croatia had concluded agreements on issues of common interest, as referred to in section 9(1) of the Religious Communities Act, they were not: (a) allowed to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries, (b) allowed to provide pastoral care to their members in medical and social-welfare institutions, prisons and penitentiaries, or (c) entitled to have religious marriages they performed recognised by the State as equal, in terms of their legal effects, to civil marriages. In particular, they argued that certain religious communities such as the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Croatian Old Catholic Church and the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which did not satisfy the criteria set forth in the Government’s Instruction of 23 December 2004, had nevertheless concluded agreements with the State and were thus allowed to provide the above religious services and were entitled to the official recognition of religious marriages performed by them. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, taken together with Article 9. Those Articles read as follows:


124.  The applicants alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in that prejudice and hostile attitudes towards persons of Roma origin had played a role in the events leading up to the deaths of Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov. They also argued that the authorities had failed in their duty to investigate possible racist motives in their killing. The Government disputed the applicants' allegations.


27.  The applicants complained that, in determining inheritance rights, the High Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court had breached the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life by unjustifiably discriminating against the first applicant on the ground of his filiation. They submitted that this had resulted in a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8.


49.  The applicant complained that the police raid at her house constituted an unjustified interference with her right to respect for her private life and her home. She submitted that the police had entered her house, stolen her money and thrown her daughter's picture on the floor. In addition, the applicant complained that she had been discriminated against on account of her ethnic origin, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Finally, the applicant complained that her constant harassment by police officers and the criminal proceedings instigated against her constituted pressure on her to withdraw her application and an interference with the exercise of the right of individual petition.


23.  The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention that both the length of his detention in police custody and the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. He further complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated because he had been detained on remand for an excessive length of time. The applicant maintained that the postponement by Law no. 5320 of the date of enforcement of Article 102 of the new CCP, which regulates the maximum authorised length of pre-trial detention, to 31 December 2010 for certain types of offences including his own, violated Article <mask> of the Convention. He claimed under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no effective remedy for his grievance under Article 14. The Court deems it appropriate to examine all these complaints from the standpoint of Article 5 § 3 alone as they mainly concern the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention (Ayhan Işık v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33102/04, 16 December 2008, and Can v. Turkey (dec.), no.6644/08, 14 April 2009).


73.  The applicant also sought support for his claim of discrimination from the military service record of four soldiers of his unit – R.L., V.S., J.Š. and M.I. He considered that those four soldiers had been in a similar situation to that of himself, but had been treated differently. On this point the Court reiterates that Article <mask> of the Convention affords protection against different treatment, without an objective and reasonable justification, of persons in similar situations (see Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, § 31, Series A no. 255‑C, and Vojnity v. Hungary, no. 29617/07, § 29, 12 February 2013). However, having given due consideration to the facts (paragraphs 36-40 above), it is the Court’s opinion that such an assertion is not substantiated. The professional military service histories of those four servicemen show that each of them was entitled to serve until the expiry of their contracts, despite the fact that they had reached retirement age, because, unlike the applicant, they had military specialist codes. Conversely, as the applicant himself acknowledged during the court proceedings, at the time of his discharge from the army he had no such status (see paragraphs 19 and 26 above).


50.  The applicant party also complained of a violation of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention. As these complaints relate to the same set of facts examined from the standpoint of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine them separately.


185.  The applicant Ms Kostyleva alleges a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the inapplicability of the Compensation Act to domestic judgments imposing obligations in kind. The Court notes that it has already examined this complaint under Article 13 of the Convention and found a violation of that provision (see paragraphs 157-166 above). It considers it unnecessary to examine the same issue under Article 14 of the Convention and decides to reject this complaint pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.


143.  The applicants in the present case made complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that the fact that they had been allocated to Roma-only classes during their primary education violated their right to receive an education and their right not to be discriminated against. However, the Grand Chamber sees this case as raising primarily a discrimination issue.


65.  The applicant further complained that the amendments to the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions violated his right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, since they constituted an unfair interference by the State in the pending proceedings to which the State was a party. In substance, he also invoked Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that the challenged amendments discriminated against those claimants for the restitution of forfeited property whose restitution proceedings were still pending before the courts when the challenged legislation introducing a less favourable restitution regime entered into force. The applicant also complained that the challenged amendments breached his right to property as guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, arguing that from the moment the criminal judgment was quashed, he had a right to obtain the full restitution of the property forfeited by the quashed judgment, as guaranteed by the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions at the material time, that is, before the challenged amendments entered into force. In addition, he claimed that the challenged amendments violated his right to full compensation for the wrongful conviction as guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7. Finally, the applicant invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, alleging that the challenged amendments deprived him of his property on a discriminatory basis, as before the challenged legislation entered into force the successful claimants were entitled to full restitution.


43.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 thereof, that he had suffered discrimination because in the case of his colleague the domestic courts had resolved the conflict of jurisdiction and determined the competent court, after which they had proceeded with examining the merits of the case. Article 14 of the Convention reads as follows:


116.  The applicant also alleged that he had been a victim of discrimination contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He referred to repeated prolongations of the validity of the old local development plan which had prevented him from making use of the measures provided under section 36 of the 1994 Act.


28.  The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to pay him the social-security benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely a widowed mother's allowance and a widow's payment, constituted discrimination against him and his wife on grounds of sex contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He made an identical complaint as regards his future non-entitlement to a widow's pension.


54.  The Government considered that the finding of a violation in itself would constitute sufficient and appropriate redress in the present case. They submitted that in the case of Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others the Court had granted the applicants compensation in the amount of EUR 10,000 for damage resulting from the violation of their rights to the free exercise of their religion under Article 9 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention (cited above, § 129). In any event, they submitted that the amount of non-pecuniary damage claimed was excessive and the sum claimed as pecuniary damage would in any event be refunded to the applicant community following a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2 July 2009 (B 1397/08), in which it had found, in a subsequent case brought by the applicant community, that the levying of inheritance and gift tax on the applicant community was unconstitutional.


93.  The applicant complained that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his political opinion in that the domestic courts had placed an unreasonable burden of proof on him, that they had distorted the definition of the term “fascist”, and that he had had to endure the publication of a text declaring his statement defamatory. He alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention which provides:


36.  The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah’s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention taken together with Article 4.


127.  The applicants submitted that they had been subjected to discriminatory treatment as compared to others in an analogous situation, namely other unconvicted persons whose samples had still to be destroyed under the legislation. This treatment related to their status and fell within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention, which had always been liberally interpreted. For the reasons set out in their submissions under Article 8, there was no reasonable or objective justification for the treatment, nor any legitimate aim or reasonable relationship of proportionality to the purported aim of crime prevention, in particular as regards the samples which played no role in crime detection or prevention. It was an entirely improper and prejudicial differentiation to retain materials of persons who should be presumed to be innocent.


17.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, of discrimination based on their sex and sexual orientation on account of their exclusion from the registered partnership, claiming that marriage was not a suitable alternative for them. They did not rely on Article 8 taken alone, so the Court considers that there is no need for it to examine this issue of its own motion.


95.  The applicant further complained under Article 13 that the prosecutor’s inadequate response to her complaint regarding the events surrounding her arrest and detention hindered her right to bring compensation proceedings against the persons responsible for them. In addition, she claimed that the treatment which she suffered at the hands of the authorities was motivated by her sex and political opinions, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


123.  The applicants submitted that, on account of their ethnicity, they had been victims of discrimination by judicial bodies and officials. Moreover, the first applicant argued that the failure of the domestic courts to provide reasons for the difference in non-pecuniary damage awarded to the three widows had amounted to discrimination contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:


47.  The applicants went on to argue that the Court should examine the complaint separately. The right not to be discriminated against was not a secondary one, and their complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention raised additional issues which were not less important than those under Article 11 and called for a separate ruling. Properly seen, the facts which underpinned their complaint under Article 14 were not identical to those underlying their complaint under Article 11 but were much broader.


128.  The Government submitted that as Article 8 was not engaged, Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable. Even if it were, there was no difference of treatment as all those in an analogous situation to the applicants were treated the same and the applicants could not compare themselves with those who had not had samples taken by the police or those who consented to give samples voluntarily. In any event, any difference in treatment complained of was not based on “status” or a personal characteristic but on historical fact. If there was any difference in treatment, it was objectively justified and within the State’s margin of appreciation.


132.  The Government maintained that Y’s pregnancy had not constituted a ground for discrimination under Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that her pregnancy was not a main determinative factor for her medical treatment. She had been treated in the same matter as other patients diagnosed with UC. She had had fibro-sigmoidoscopy, histopathology and a bacteriological test. She had been hospitalised in clinics which specialised in combating this particular disease.


131.  The applicants contended, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, that they had been removed from Latvia as members of the Russian-speaking ethnic minority and of the family of a former Russian military officer. They complained that they had thus been subjected to treatment different from that of other Latvian residents having the status of “ex-USSR citizens”. In particular, they submitted that the difference in their treatment from that of persons who had been able to obtain the status of “ex-USSR citizens” could not be justified, in view of the fact that the level of their integration into Latvian society had been the same as that of other Russian speakers.


124.  The applicants maintained that they had been discriminated against in that because of their race or ethnic origin they had been treated less favourably than other children in a comparable situation without any objective and reasonable justification. They relied in that connection on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, which provide as follows:


46.  The applicant further complained that the domestic proceedings were discriminatory in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.


89.  The Government submitted that there had been no violation of the applicants’ rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of expression, as the relevant domestic authorities had not impeded their public gathering in any manner. On the contrary, the applicants and other participants of the demonstration were able to assemble freely near the Tbilisi Concert Hall and then proceeded with their march. As the organiser of the event had given a prior warning, the Ministry of the Interior deployed police units to the scene of the event. Police patrol vehicles escorted the LGBT marchers. As to the manner in which the police reacted to the clash between the marchers and counter-demonstrators, the Government admitted that that reaction had been somewhat delayed. However, they claimed that that had been done on purpose and in the marchers’ best interests. Thus, the Government asserted that where a serious threat of a violent counter-demonstration exists, the domestic authorities have wide discretion in the choice of means to employ to protect assemblies. They referred to the Court’s case-law in Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” (cited above, § 34). Considering the large number of counter-demonstrators and their aggressive attitude towards the demonstrators, immediate preventive measures by the police could have provoked an even greater outburst of violence. Nevertheless, the law-enforcement officers remained at the scene and instantly intervened when the verbal attacks degenerated into actual physical violence by evacuating the attacked applicants from the scene. The police officers also separated the opposing parties by standing between them, verbally warning both sides to behave in an appropriate manner. As regards the applicants’ complaints of discriminatory intent under Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government limited their response to noting that that provision was complementary and could not be invoked autonomously in the absence of a violation under Articles 10 and 11.


97.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about discrimination against her on account of her foreign nationality. The Court reiterates that Article 14 has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, § 36). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.


269.  The applicants also complained that the above-described restrictions and limitations on lawful abortion in Ireland were discriminatory and in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 in that they placed an excessive burden on them as women and, in particular, on the first applicant as an impoverished woman. The Government argued that there was no basis for considering that the impugned legal framework discriminated against women on grounds of sex. Even if it did constitute a difference of treatment on that ground, it was justifiable and proportionate for the reasons referred to under Article 8 of the Convention. That the first applicant would have been adversely affected by virtue of her financial status was insufficient to ground a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention.


98.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that by refusing to give her a female identity number which corresponded to her actual gender, the State was discriminating against her. The fact that she had been denied a female identity number revealed the confidential information that she was a transsexual because, unlike any other person, she had to explain this difference whenever the identity number was required.


39.  The applicant further complained that in denying her the right to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections for the sole reason that she did not have a command of Latvian at the highest level defined by the domestic regulations the Latvian authorities had caused her to suffer discrimination prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention in the exercise of her right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of Article 14 provide:


72.  The applicant complained that the failure in Spain to recognise Roma marriage as having civil effects – it being the only form of marriage to produce effects erga omnes within her own community – even though the minority had been present in Spain for at least five hundred years, entailed a breach of her right to marry. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 12. Those provisions read as follows:


44.  The applicant claimed that he was the victim of discriminatory treatment because he was prevented from doing his military service although he was willing to serve and, instead, he was obliged to pay the exemption tax because his disability was considered a minor one by the competent authorities. This complaint must accordingly be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


23.  The applicant submitted that it was in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention that he was required to pay NICs from his earnings while a 60 year old woman who was working would not have to pay such contributions. These contributions now included an extra 1% added under the National Insurance Act 2002, the proceeds of which were included within the National Health Service allocation. He disputed that there was any direct or necessary link between the age of entitlement to the basic state pension (60 for women, 65 for men) and liability to pay NICs. Employers had to pay for female employees regardless of their ages and it was open to women to defer their state pension after the age of 60 and to continue to make contributions to enhance their contribution record.


28.  The applicant complained that his rights under Articles 6, 9, 10, 17, and 18 of the Convention had been violated as a result of the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings. Under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol no. 12 to the Convention the applicant argued that he had been discriminated against on account of his political views. The applicant further contended that his appointment, which had compelled him to move to another city, had violated his right to private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant claimed that his administrative punishment and his appointment to a new post had constituted punishment without law in breach of Article 7 of the Convention.


41.  The applicant complained about difference in treatment between men and women convicted of the same crimes in relation to the respective applicable prison regimes, in particular, with regard to the right to prison leave, which had led to a refusal to attend his father’s funeral. He argued that this was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 5, 8 and 10 of the Convention.


156.  The Government acknowledged that the applicant had been treated differently to the nine life prisoners who had been released in 1993 by way of commutation of their sentences by the President of the Republic under Article 53 § 4 of the Constitution. However, they submitted that this difference in treatment was not contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant had not been treated differently from the nine life prisoners because of any “personal characteristic” but because of the nature of the Assize Court’s judgment in sentencing him. The Assize Court had expressly addressed the proper interpretation of a life sentence and the question of whether the Regulations had been unconstitutional. The other nine prisoners had all been sentenced prior to the judgment in the case of Yiouroukkis, in which these matters of interpretation of the life sentence and validity of the Regulations had first been raised. It was clear from the letters sent by the Attorney-General to the President that the nine prisoners had been released on the basis that it had been announced to them that their sentences would be twenty years’ imprisonment. Contrary to the position in the applicant’s case, this announcement had not previously been qualified by the remarks of the sentencing courts.


57.  The applicant complained that he had been discriminated against on political grounds, in that in particular: (1) in another case with identical circumstances but involving a different candidate the domestic court had granted the relevant application; and (2) District Election Commission no. 12 had not annulled the registration of another candidate in constituency no. 12 despite the fact that this other candidate had submitted an allegedly false document. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:


112.  The applicant submitted that her husband's death was caused by an agent of the State and the investigation which followed was plagued by severe deficiencies and discrepancies and, as a result, it failed to establish the cause of his death. She submitted that the fact that her husband was a Romani man, coupled with the legacy of widespread and systematic abuse of Roma in police custody, created an obligation on the State to investigate a possible racist motive behind his death. The State failed to do so in violation of their procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention.


72.  The applicant company alleged a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It argued that the domestic VAT legislation was discriminatory because it had deprived the applicant company of its possession with the sole aim of securing payment of the VAT due by another company. It also considered this to be discriminatory because it provided for different degrees of protection for State and private property. The applicant company further alleged that its supplier had been treated differently, since the tax authorities had recognised its right to deduct the VAT it had paid in respect of the supply, while denying that right to the applicant company.


95.  The Government maintained, at the outset, that in his complaints of alleged torture and punishment without conviction before the domestic courts, the applicant had invoked only relevant domestic-law provisions. However, he had not relied on Article <mask> of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8, and had thus failed to complain of alleged discrimination and interference with respect for his family life.