THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF VASILEVSKIY AND BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA
\n(Applications nos. 52241\/14 and 74222\/14)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 July 2018<\/p>\n
FINAL
\n03\/12\/2018<\/p>\n
This judgment has become final under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Vasilevskiy and Bogdanovv. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Helena J\u00e4derblom, President, Having deliberated in private on 12 June 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in two applications (nos.\u00a052241\/14 and 74222\/14) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by twoRussian nationals, Mr AleksandrValeryevich Vasilevskiy and Mr Yan AleksandrovichBogdanov (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 13\u00a0July and 7 November 2014, respectively.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicantswere represented before the Court, respectively, by Mr\u00a0A. Bogdashkin and Mr A. Melkumov, lawyers practicing in the Amur and Novgorod Regions. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants alleged, in particular, a breach of their right to enforceable compensation for unlawful imprisonment because ofthe negligible amount of the award.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 April 2017 the above complaint was communicated to the Government and the remainder of theapplications was declared inadmissible,pursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The case of Mr Vasilevskiy<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Vasilevskiy was born in 1973 and lives in Blagoveshchensk.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Vasilevskiy stayed in detention for longer that he should have because the sentencing courts did not count the time he had spent in pre-trial detention towards the overall duration of his sentence, in breach of the applicable domestic provisions. In response to Mr Vasilevskiy\u2019s repeated complaints, on 7 May 2007 the Belogorskiy District Court in the Amur Region corrected the error and acknowledged that his sentence had expired on 26 February 2006. Mr Vasilevskiy was released on 13 June 2007. He sought compensation for 472 days during which he had been wrongfully detained.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 December 2013 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court in the Amur Region awarded him 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB \u2013 3,320 euros (EUR) at the then-applicable exchange rate) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Mr\u00a0Vasilevskiy lodged an appeal, submitting in particular that that sum was substantially lower than that which the Court would have awarded in a similar case.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 28\u00a0February 2014 the Amur Regional Court dismissed his appeal. As regards the level of compensation, it held that the Town Court had \u201chad regard to the case-law of the European Court but had correctly determined the amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the light of the requirements of Russian law\u201d.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0The case of Mr Bogdanov<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Bogdanov was born in 1981 and lives in the Novgorod Region.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 March 2007 Mr Bogdanov was convicted of supplying drugs on four separate occasions in 2006 and sentenced to twelve years\u2019 imprisonment. On 20 March 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation acknowledged, referring to the Court\u2019s case-law under Article 6 of the Convention, that the police had incited Mr Bogdanov to commit the last three of the four offences. It declared that part of evidence inadmissible, voided his conviction in that part, reduced his sentence to six years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered his immediate release.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0By that time, Mr Bogdanov had spent 119 days in custody over and above the adjusted six-year sentence. He sought to recover damages in respect of his wrongful imprisonment.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 March 2014 the Valdayskiy District Court in the Novgorod Region awarded him RUB 80,000 (EUR 1,576). However, on 9\u00a0July 2014 the Novgorod Regional Court reduced the award to RUB 15,000 (EUR\u00a0324), referring to the \u201ccircumstances in which the criminal proceedings had been instituted\u201d and the \u201ccategory of offence that Mr\u00a0Bogdanov had been charged with\u201d. On 30 September 2014 the Regional Court rejected a cassation appeal lodged by Mr\u00a0Bogdanov.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of the domestic law are summarised in Stadnik v. Russia (no. 41509\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 13-14, 13 June 2017) and Abashev v.\u00a0Russia (no. 9096\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 20-21, 27 June 2013).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similarity of the applicants\u2019 grievances, the Court is of the view thatthe applications should be joined, in accordance with Rule 42 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 5 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that they had been denied an enforceable right to compensation, as guaranteed under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It furthermore notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that it was not the Court\u2019s task to call into question the findings of the domestic courts. The amounts awarded had constituted equitable and sufficient redress for the non-pecuniary damage that the applicants had suffered on account of their unlawful imprisonment. The awards corresponded to the subsistence income in Russia and its purchasing power.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants replied that the negligible amount of the award of damages in respect of their unlawful imprisonment had rendered their right under Article 5 \u00a7 5 theoretical and illusory rather than practical and effective, as required by the Convention. The subsistence wage was not an appropriate benchmark for assessing the amount of non-pecuniary damage. The amount of the award should have been determined in relation to the pain and suffering that the unlawful imprisonment had caused them.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the right to compensation under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a05 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v.\u00a0Bulgaria[GC], no. 36760\/06, \u00a7 182, ECHR 2012).In the instant case the domestic courts recognised that Mr Vasilevskiy had served a longer time than he should have because of an egregious sentencing error and that Mr\u00a0Bogdanov had been the victim of police entrapment and the use of inadmissible evidence in court. It follows that the domestic courts established in substance that Mr Vasilevskiy had been deprived of his liberty for one-and-a-half years as a result of a gross and obvious irregularity \u2013 that is to say in breach of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 5 (compareStadnik, cited above, \u00a7\u00a019) \u2013 and that Mr\u00a0Bogdanov\u2019s unlawful convictionwhich had cost him four months of liberty had been the consequence of a flagrant denial of justice undermining the lawfulness of his ensuing detention (see, for similar findings, Shulgin v. Ukraine, no.\u00a029912\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 49-58, 8\u00a0December2011). Accordingly,Article 5 \u00a7 5 is applicable in the instant case.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants sought and obtained damages in respect of the wrongful imprisonment. They complained, however, that the quantum of awarded damages was so small that the very essence of their right under Article 5 \u00a7 5 had beenimpaired.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article 5 \u00a7 5 does not set a particular level of compensation or refer to specific amounts (see Damian-Burueana and\u00a0Damian v. Romania, no. 6773\/02, \u00a7 89, 26 May 2009, andK.W.\u00a0v.\u00a0Switzerland, no.\u00a026382\/95, Commission decision of 3 December 1997). Itis primarily for the national authorities \u2013 above all the courts \u2013 to interpret and apply domestic law, the Court\u2019s role being confined to determining whether or not the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no.\u00a026083\/94, \u00a7 54, ECHR\u00a01999-I). Nevertheless, the principle of subsidiarity does not mean renouncing all supervision of the result obtained by using domestic remedies; otherwise, the rights guaranteed by the Convention would be devoid of any substance. It has been the Court\u2019s constant position that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory rights, but rights that are practical and effective (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527\/98, \u00a7\u00a045, ECHR 2001-VIII).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the specific requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention, the effective enjoyment of the right to compensation guaranteed by that provision must be ensured with a sufficient degree of certainty. Compensation for detention imposed in breach of the provisions of Article 5 must be not only theoretically available but also accessible in practice to the individual concerned (see Abashev, cited above, \u00a7\u00a039, with further references). It must comprise a right to compensation for pecuniary damage, but also afford a right to compensation for any distress, anxiety and frustration that a person may have suffered as a result of a violation of other provisions of Article 5 (see Khachatryan and Others v. Armenia, no.\u00a023978\/06, \u00a7 157, 27 November 2012). Moreover, a right to compensation for damage suffered which sets the levels of that so low as no longer to be \u201cenforceable\u201d in practical terms would not comply with the requirements of that provision (see Novoselov v. Russia (dec.), no.\u00a066460\/01, 16 October 2003, and Cumber v. the United Kingdom, no.\u00a028779\/95, Commission decision of 27\u00a0November 1996).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court is mindful that the task of assessing the amount of damages to be awarded is a difficult one, especially in a case where personal suffering, whether physical or mental, is the subject of the claim. There is no standard by which pain and suffering, physical discomfort and psychological distress and anguish can be measured in terms of money (see Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119\/04, \u00a7 35, 20 February 2014).Where, as in the present case, the existence of a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5 must be assessed in the light of the monetary redress afforded at the domestic level, the Court has had regard to its own practice under Article 41 of the Convention in similar cases (see Selami and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 78241\/13, \u00a7\u00a0102, 1 March 2018;Cristina Boicenco v.\u00a0Moldova, no. 25688\/09, \u00a7 43, 27 September 2011; Ganea v. Moldova, no.\u00a02474\/06, \u00a7 22, 17 May 2011; and Damian-Burueana and Damian, cited above, \u00a7 89)and also to the factual elements of the case, such as the duration of the applicant\u2019s detention (see Borg v. Malta (dec.), no.\u00a039783\/15, \u00a7\u00a037, 5\u00a0September 2017; Ganea, cited above, \u00a7 30; Shilyayev v. Russia, no. 9647\/02, \u00a7\u00a021, 6 October 2005;and Attard v. Malta (dec.), no.\u00a046750\/99, 28\u00a0September 2000; seealso Novoselov and Cumber, both cited above).<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has no doubt that the domestic courts in the present case attempted, in good faith and to the best of their ability, to assess the level of suffering, distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicants by reason of their unlawful imprisonment. It reiterates that such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with the domestic legal requirements and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (seeCocchiarella v.\u00a0Italy [GC], no. 64886\/01, \u00a7 80, ECHR 2006\u2011V). Nevertheless, the fact remains that Mr Vasilevskiy was awarded EUR 3,320 for the 472 days during which he had been unlawfully detainedand Mr BogdanovEUR 324 for the 119 days during which he had been unlawfully detained. That amounted to the respective rates of EUR 7 and EUR\u00a02.70 per day of wrongful deprivation of liberty. That level of compensation was not merely substantially lowerthan the Court\u2019s awards in similar cases but also disproportionate to the duration of their detention and negligible in absolute terms (see, by contrast, Novoselov, cited above).<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, as regards the case of Mr Bogdanov, the appeal court decided on a five-fold reduction of the award by reason of the \u201ccircumstances in which the criminal proceedings [had been] instituted\u201d. It did not explain what circumstances had required such a drastic reduction or mention that hiswrongful imprisonment had been the consequence of illegal incitement by the police and of the use of inadmissible evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court reiterates that the domestic courts, as the custodians of individual rights and freedoms, should have considered it their duty to mark their disapproval of such wrongful conduct to the extent of awarding an adequate and sufficient quantum of damages to Mr Bogdanov, taking into account the fundamental importance of the right to liberty and to a fair trial, even if they considered that breach to have been an inadvertent rather than an intended consequence of the State agents\u2019 conduct. As a corollary, this would have conveyed the message that the State could not set individual rights and freedoms at nought or circumvent them with impunity (seeAnanyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7 117, 10\u00a0January 2012, and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075\/03, \u00a7\u00a078, 17 December 2009).<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Court finds that the sums awarded as damages to the applicants for their wrongful imprisonment were so low as to undermine the essence of their enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Vasilevskiy and Mr Bogdanovclaimed 730,000euros (EUR) and EUR\u00a060,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage they had sustained on account of their wrongful imprisonment and their being awarded a negligible amount of compensation. Mr\u00a0Bogdanov also claimed146,984\u00a0Russian roubles (RUB) for the loss of earningsarising from the time that he had been wrongfully deprived of his liberty.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that Article 41 should be applied in accordance with the established case-law.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0AsMr Bogdanov did not produce any documents in support of his claim for loss of earnings, the Court rejects it.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds in the instant case that the applicants\u2019right to be compensated for wrongful imprisonment in a practical and effective manner was frustrated on account of the negligible amount awarded them in the domestic proceedings. In these circumstances, the applicants\u2019 distress and frustration cannot be compensated for by the mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis and taking into account the nature of the right a violation of which it has found, the Court awards each applicant EUR\u00a05,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court furthermorereiterates that the award in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage does not extinguish the legal obligation of the domestic authorities to remedy the violation of the Convention that it has identified in the judgment.It considers, by analogy with its settled case-law in cases concerning a violation of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a027236\/05 and 10 others, \u00a7 59, 16 February 2016), that an applicant who has suffered an infringement of his right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 5 not been disregarded. The most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of compensation proceedings, if requested, and a new assessment of the applicants\u2019 claim, in compliance with the requirements of that provision and the Court\u2019s case-law. The Court notes that a reopening is a legal possibility since a finding by the Court of a violation of the Convention constitutes grounds for reopening civil proceedings under Article 392 \u00a7\u00a7 2(2) and 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and for reviewing the domestic judgments in the light of the Convention principles established by the Court (see Davydov v. Russia, no. 18967\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 10-15, 30 October 2014).<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides, unanimously, to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares, unanimously, the case admissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, unanimously,that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, by six votes to one,<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final, in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention,EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros),plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement, simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismisses, by six votes to one,the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Helena J\u00e4derblom _____________<\/p>\n In accordance with Article\u00a045 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention and Rule\u00a074 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge Serghides is annexed to this judgment.<\/p>\n H.J. PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGHIDES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0I have joined my learned colleagues in finding that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention because the sums awarded in damages to the applicants for their wrongful imprisonment were so low as to undermine the essence of their enforceable right to compensation under this Article and make it theoretical and illusory rather than practical and effective, as required by the Convention.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0With all due respect, whilst the principle of effectiveness, an underlying principle in the Convention, was properly enunciated and employed in the judgment (see paragraphs 18, 21-22, 25-26 and 31) regarding finding a violation of the above provision and making it clear that the applicant\u2019s distress and frustration cannot be compensated for by the mere finding of violation (see paragraph 31), it was not, however, applied by the majority properly, or at all, when awarding only EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each of the applicants, taking into account that the first applicant (Mr Vasilevskiy) was awarded only EUR 3,320 for 472 days\u2019 unlawful detention and the second applicant (Mr Bogdanov) only EUR 324for 119 days\u2019 unlawful detention.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0In my humble view, the amount of EUR 5,000 awarded to the first applicant was extremely low and the same amount awarded to the second applicant was also low. Taking into account all the relevant facts of the case as presented in the judgment, the amount awarded to the applicants cannot, in my view, be considered as \u201cjust\u201d within the meaning of Article 41 of the Convention, which deals with just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, the award of EUR 5,000 cannot be \u201cjust\u201d in terms of Article 41 because, in awarding this sum, the two applicants were disproportionately equated regarding their suffering, although the period of unlawful detention of the first applicant was three times longer than the second. Taking into account the extremely different lengths of the applicants\u2019 unlawful detention, they could not, in my view, be regarded as being in the same \u201cboat\u201d and thus treated equally, as the majority have decided.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The principle of effectiveness cannot, in my view, be satisfied regarding the right under Article 41 of the Convention, when the amount of pecuniary damage awarded to two persons is in total disregard of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality.In James and\u00a0Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no.\u00a098), the Court pertinently held that \u201c[a]s far as Article 1 (P1-1) is concerned, the protection of the right of property it affords would be largely illusory and ineffective in the absence of any equivalent principle\u201d (ibid., \u00a7\u00a054). This judicial pronouncement illustrates the close link between the principle of effectiveness and the principle of proportionality in that the former cannot be satisfied in the absence of any equivalent principle. Aristotle said the following regarding the relationship between \u201cjust\u201d, \u201cproportionate\u201d and \u201cequality\u201d: The just … is a species of the proportionate … For proportion is equality of ratios …\u201d (see Aristotle, The Nikomachean Ethics (translated and introduced by Sir David Ross), London, 1925, v. 3, 1131.3, at p. 113).<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0In sum, my view is that the amount of EUR 5,000 awarded to each applicant is not \u201cjust\u201d in terms of Article 41, both looking at it absolutely, thus looking at the amount awarded to each applicant in isolation, and looking at it relatively, thus looking at the amount awarded to the one applicant in conjunction or comparison with the amount awarded to the other applicant.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0My above remarks would have led me to increase the amount awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage for both applicants, bearing in mind that the first applicant was unlawfully detained for a much longer period than the second applicant. However, being in the minority, it is unnecessary to determine these amounts.<\/p>\n
\nBrankoLubarda,
\nHelen Keller,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, DeputySection Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nF.A.<\/p>\n