THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF LOZOVYYE v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 4587\/09)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n24 April 2018<\/p>\n
FINAL
\n24\/07\/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 Lozovyye v. 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 14 November 2017 and 3 April 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 4587\/09) 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 two Russian nationals, Mr Andrey Mikhaylovich Lozovoy and Ms Tamara Vasilyevna Lozovaya (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 10\u00a0November 2008.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 complained about the domestic authorities\u2019 failure to notify them of their son\u2019s death.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 June 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. The parties submitted written observations on the admissibility and merits.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are Russian nationals who were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and live in the town of Belomorsk in the Republic of Karelia.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 son\u2019s death and criminal proceedings on a murder charge<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 December 2005 the applicants\u2019 son, Mr M. Lozovoy, was killed in St Petersburg. Criminal proceedings were instituted against a Mr O. on a charge of murder.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 January 2006 Ms L., an investigator of the Primorskiy district prosecutor\u2019s office in St Petersburg, asked the head of the Primorskiy district police to identify relatives of the deceased; to establish their place of residence and to summon them to the prosecutor\u2019s office for the purpose of granting them victim status in the criminal case.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0A week later the applicants\u2019 son was buried under his full name in St\u00a0Petersburg. A record in a cemetery registration log indicated that the body had been unclaimed.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 January 2006 the investigator, having concluded that it was impossible to identify relatives of the deceased, assigned the status of victim in the criminal case to a representative of the municipal authorities. The following day police officials informed the investigator that operative measures undertaken by them to identify Mr M. Lozovoy\u2019s relatives had not produced any results.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 February 2006 the applicants contacted Ms\u00a0L. and informed her of their intention to come to St Petersburg to take part in the criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Despite that notification by the applicants, five days later Ms\u00a0L. sent the criminal case file to the Primorskiy District Court for trial.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Sometime later the applicants were invited to take part in the criminal proceedings in the capacity of victims.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 February 2006 the applicants were allowed to exhume their son\u2019s remains. Two days later they buried him in Belomorsk.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 June 2006 the Primorskiy District Court found Mr O. guilty of having murdered the applicants\u2019 son and sentenced him to six years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day, responding to the applicants\u2019 complaints about the authorities\u2019 failure to notify them of their son\u2019s death, the District Court issued an interim decision (\u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0435\u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435) in respect of the investigator, Ms L. The decision, sent to the Primorskiy District Prosecutor, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cMoreover, the [finding] that the investigator, Ms L., did not take sufficient steps to find relatives of the deceased and that measures undertaken [by her] were formalistic in character is not only confirmed by the fact that the decision assigning victim status to [a representative of the municipal authority] had been taken before the information was received from the police officials, but also by the fact that the criminal case-file material contained sufficient information about [the applicants\u2019 son] on the basis of which it was possible to establish the place of residence of his relatives ([there was] an explanation from Mr O. made on 1 December 2005, in which he had given information about the place of residence of [the applicants\u2019 son]; a statement made by Mr O. on 8\u00a0December 2005 in which he said that a criminal case against [the applicants\u2019 son] was pending before a court; statements by a witness, Ms A., who asserted that [the deceased\u2019s] mother had occasionally made telephone calls to [the deceased\u2019s] flat; a certificate on [the deceased\u2019s] criminal record from which it is apparent that the Primorskiy district prosecutor\u2019s office of St Petersburg applied a measure of restraint in the form of a written undertaking in respect of [the applicants\u2019 son] in criminal case no. 137755; the material in the above-mentioned criminal case file contains a copy of [the applicants\u2019 son\u2019s] passport; and so forth).<\/p>\n It follows that the victims\u2019 rights envisaged by the law in force were substantially violated in the course of the preliminary investigation.<\/p>\n Relying on Article 29 \u00a7 4 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, [the court] rules:<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 that the violations of criminal procedural law committed during the preliminary investigation in the criminal case should be brought to the attention of the Primorskiy district prosecutor in St Petersburg;<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 that the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg should be informed of the measures taken no later than a month after receipt of the present decision.\u201d<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings for compensation for damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0In 2007 the applicants lodged an action against the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Relying on the Primorskiy District Court\u2019s interim decision of 6 June 2006, the applicants argued that as a result of the investigator\u2019s failure to promptly notify them of their son\u2019s death, they had sustained pecuniary damage, having been forced to pay for the exhumation and transport of their son\u2019s remains from St Petersburg to Belomorsk. In addition, they had suffered non-pecuniary damage as they had been unaware of their son\u2019s whereabouts for a long time and had been forced to initiate a search for him; they had been unable to properly say \u201cgoodbye\u201d to their son and to provide him with a decent burial; they had been forced to go through a two-week bureaucratic procedure to obtain permission to exhume their son\u2019s remains; and subsequently, after the exhumation, they had been forced to identify his disfigured remains.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 February 2008 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the claim, having found that the investigator had not committed any unlawful actions and there had been no final decision by any domestic court establishing otherwise.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 May 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment, endorsing the District Court\u2019s reasoning.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (\u201cthe CCrP\u201d)<\/strong><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The CCrP, as in force at the material time, did not impose an explicit obligation on the domestic authorities to notify relatives of the death of an individual who had died as a result of a criminal act. However, as was apparent from other provisions of the CCrP, the identification of relatives was necessary in most cases of violent death, as relatives fulfilled the procedural role of victim in the deceased\u2019s stead.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0Article 5 of the CCrP defined \u201cclose relatives\u201d as spouses, parents, children, adoptive parents, adopted children, brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0Article 42 \u00a7 1 of the CCrP defined a \u201cvictim\u201d as a physical person who had sustained physical, pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage as a result of a criminal offence. The decision to recognise an individual as a victim could be made by an examiner, an investigator, a prosecutor or a court.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Article 42 \u00a7 8 of the CCrP provided that in cases concerning crimes which resulted in the death of a person, the victim\u2019s rights should be transferred to one of his or her close relatives.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the procedural powers of a trial court in a criminal case, Article 29 \u00a7 4 of the CCrP provided that should the trial of a criminal case reveal circumstances facilitating the commission of an offence or a violation of citizens\u2019 rights and freedoms, a court could render an interim decision drawing the attention of appropriate organisations and officials to such circumstances or violations of the law which required adequate measures to be taken.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Burial and Funeral Affairs Act<\/strong><\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Burial and Funeral Affairs Act (Federal Law no. 8-FZ of 12\u00a0January 1996 \u2013 \u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439\u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u043e\u0442 12.01.1996 \u2116 8-\u0424\u0417 \u00ab\u041e\u043f\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0435\u0431\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0438\u0438\u043f\u043e\u0445\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043d\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u00bb) regulated the organisation of funeral rites in Russia at the time in question.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0Section 12(1) of the Act provided that where there was no spouse, relative or lawful representative or where he or she was unable to make the necessary funeral arrangements, the burial of a deceased was to be performed by a special funeral agency within three days of the determination of the cause of death.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the authorities\u2019 failure to duly notify them of their son\u2019s death, as a result of which they had been left in a state of ignorance of their son\u2019s whereabouts for a very long time and stripped of an opportunity to give their son a proper burial.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380\/09, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2015), the Court finds it appropriate to examine the applicants\u2019 allegations under Article\u00a08 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the authorities had acted diligently and had made reasonable efforts to locate Mr\u00a0M.\u00a0Lozovoy\u2019s relatives. Once the search had proven fruitless, they had organised his funeral. The applicants, for their part, had failed to maintain regular contact with their son and had only started searching for him two months after his death.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants maintained their initial complaint. With reference to the interim decision issued by the Primorskiy District Court (see paragraph\u00a015 above) they argued that the authorities had had sufficient information to establish that Mr M. Lozovoy was their son and that they could thus have informed them of his death.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/em><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Applicability of Article 8 of the Convention<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The Government did not contest the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the right of access to information relating to one\u2019s private and\/or family life raises an issue under Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555\/96, \u00a7\u00a7 155-56, ECHR 2005\u2011X; Guerra and Others v.\u00a0Italy, 19 February 1998, \u00a7\u00a7 57-60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I; and Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, \u00a7 37, Series A no. 160).<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that various aspects of funeral rites fall within the scope of both \u201cprivate life\u201d and \u201cfamily life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Maskhadova and Others v.\u00a0Russia, no. 18071\/05, \u00a7 212, 6 June 2013; Sabanchiyeva and Others v.\u00a0Russia, no. 38450\/05, \u00a7 123, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Hadri-Vionnet v.\u00a0Switzerland, no. 55525\/00, \u00a7 52, 14 February 2008).<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants in the present case argued that they had not been properly notified of their son\u2019s death and thus had been deprived of an opportunity to take part in his funeral. In the light of its case-law on an applicant\u2019s right to information concerning his or her private and family life, taken together with the case-law on the applicability of Article 8 to an individual\u2019s ability to attend the funeral of a deceased member of the family, the Court considers that the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private and family lives was affected by the failure of the State to inform them, or even to take steps to inform them, of the death before their son was buried.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court therefore concludes that Article 8 of the Convention is applicable in the present case.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Compliance with Article 8 of the Convention<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting an individual against an arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference. In addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private and family life (see B\u00e9dat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925\/08, \u00a7 73, ECHR 2016). In choosing how to comply with their positive obligations, States enjoy a broad margin of appreciation (see A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no.\u00a025579\/05, \u00a7\u00a0249, ECHR 2010).<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The substance of the applicants\u2019 complaint is not that the State acted in a certain way but that it failed to act (see Airey v. Ireland, 9\u00a0October 1979, \u00a7 32, Series\u00a0A\u00a0no.\u00a032). In particular, the applicants alleged that the authorities\u2019 failure to notify them of their son\u2019s death had violated their rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, including their right to give their son a proper burial. The Court finds it appropriate to approach the present case from the perspective of a positive obligation of the respondent State under Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The Court therefore takes the view that in situations such as the one in the present case, where the State authorities, but not other family members, are aware of a death, there is an obligation for the relevant authorities to at least undertake reasonable steps to ensure that surviving members of the family are informed.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0In order to establish whether the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention were met in the present case the Court will examine, firstly, whether there was an appropriate legal framework in Russia capable of properly addressing situations akin to the one at hand and, secondly, whether the authorities undertook reasonable steps to locate the applicants and notify them of their son\u2019s death.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the legal frameworkand practice, the Court observes that there was no explicit obligation on the domestic authorities under Russian law to notify relatives of an individual who had died as a result of a criminal act. It is true that Article 42 \u00a7 8 of the CCrP (see paragraph 22 above) imposed a certain obligation on the authorities to search for relatives of the deceased in a criminal case in that it assigned them the status of victim. Further,\u00a0section 12(1) of the Burial and Funeral Affairs Act stipulated that the burial of a deceased was only to be performed within three days of determination of the cause of death if there was no spouse, relative or lawful representative able to make the necessary funeral arrangements (see paragraph 25 above).<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0On the other hand, in finding in its interim decision of 6 June\u00a02006 that the investigator, Ms L., had breached procedural law, the Primorskiy District Court made no reference to any particular provision of the CCrP or any other piece of legislation (see paragraph 15 above). Nor did the Government refer in their observations to any particular provision of domestic law or practice.<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0Nonetheless, in the Court\u2019s view this lack of clarity with regard to the domestic legal framework and practiceis not sufficient in itself to find a violation of the respondent State\u2019s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention in the present case.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The Court will therefore next examine whether the Russian authorities undertook reasonable steps in the circumstances.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0It is apparent from the interim decision of 6\u00a0June\u00a02006 (see paragraph 15 above) that there were several avenues which the authorities could have used to establish that the applicants were Mr\u00a0M.\u00a0Lozovoy\u2019s parents. The District Court listed a number of documents and items of evidence which could have readily supplied the authorities with the necessary information to locate the applicants (call records; Mr\u00a0M. \u00a0Lozovoy\u2019s acquaintances; his official documents attached to the criminal case file, and so on). The Government submitted no explanations as to why those avenues had not been used by the investigator or the police.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the decisions to bury the applicants\u2019 son and to assign the status of victim in the criminal case to a representative of the municipal authorities was made before the search for his relatives had officially ended (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above).<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0In these circumstances and given the personal information about Mr\u00a0M. Lozovoy that was available to the domestic authorities after his death, the Court concludes that the authorities did not act with reasonable diligence and therefore did not comply with their positive obligation in the present case.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention of difficulties in having access to and about the outcome of the civil proceedings for compensation for the damage sustained. The Court finds it appropriate to examine these complaints under Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention alone.<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, they either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 51.\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 A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants each claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage. They also claimed 37,049 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage, referring to expenses linked to the exhumation and reinternment of their son\u2019s body.<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claim in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage as excessive and ill-founded. As regards the claim in respect of pecuniary damage, they submitted that the amount could be awarded for \u201chumanitarian considerations\u201d.<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the applicants must have suffered non\u2011pecuniary damage on account of the violation found, and awards them jointly, on an equitable basis, EUR 10,000 under this head. As concerns their claim in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court accepts the claim in full and awards the applicants EUR 539.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants also claimed RUB 25,687 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts in the tort proceedings.<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claim.<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to grant the applicants\u2019 claims in full and to award them the sum of EUR 374 for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 58.\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, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaint that the authorities failed to properly notify them of their son\u2019s death admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 539 (five hundred and thirty-nine euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 374 (three hundred and seventy-four euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 April 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips\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
\nBranko Lubarda,
\nHelen Keller,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nRegistrar\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n