A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgment.
96. In the present case the procedure under Article 178 of the CCrP, of which the applicants were warned in the summonses served on them, provides that bringing a person by force with a view to conducting an investigative measure with his or her participation must be carried out in accordance with a reasoned decision of an investigating body or a court. However, it does not appear that there was a decision taken in this context ordering the applicants’ escort for questioning. The Government has not argued otherwise. In these circumstances, the applicants’ deprivation of liberty cannot be deemed as “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1.
141. (…) the Court notes that the evidence available in the case-file shows that that a male officer intruded into the toilet while the first applicant was using its facilities (see paragraph 133). The actions of the officer in question were justified by his superior by security considerations, specifically in order to allegedly prevent the first applicant from harming herself. However, it does not appear from the facts of the case that there was an emergency situation requiring the officer in question to take any imminent action in order to protect the applicant. Nor is there anything to suggest that the first applicant presented a risk of self-harm. The Government did not put forward any explanation in this context or provide evidence regarding the incident, such as testimony from the neighbour whose toilet the first applicant was using.
159. There has therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.