CASE OF NISKASAARI AND OTAVAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Mikko Puumalainen;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant company has its seat in GPE .

The first applicant is a journalist for a DATE magazine , ORG , which is published by the applicant company .

On DATE and DATE respectively the NORP national public service broadcasting company broadcast CARDINAL TV documentaries in its ORG series which concerned mould - infested houses and the protection of forests . They were made by several reporters , including PERSON who was the complainant at the origin of criminal proceedings that were subsequently brought against the first applicant ( “ the complainant ” ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the first applicant criticised on CARDINAL separate internet discussion sites , namely on the “ LOC site maintained by ORG ( ORG liitto , Gröna förbundet ) and the “ Journalism ” site maintained by ORG , the manner in which these CARDINAL documentaries had been made . He wrote , inter alia , that :

“ [ The complainant ] is a fanatic warrior of the faith for whom facts are just in the way . He has indisputably been caught at cold , intentional lying . ”

“ [ The complainant ] in fact claimed that the house was healthy but that CARDINAL cheating company doing mould inspections had managed to find some insignificant mould spots because of which a completely unnecessary court case was initiated . ... Contrary to [ the complainant ’s ] assurances , ORG ’s former house was rotten . ... [ The complainant ] must have known that . He is thus lying cold - bloodedly and intentionally . ... He thus knew that [ the expert ] lied but he let it happen . ”

On DATE the first applicant published a CARDINAL - page article in ORG magazine , which is CARDINAL of the biggest nationwide family magazines in GPE , on similar lines . The article had been approved by a lawyer before publication . The article included passages such as :

“ [ The complainant ] claimed that PERCENT of the NORP forest area was already protected and that conservationists demanded that CARDINAL of the forest area in LOC should be preserved . These figures are fabricated ....

ORG thus said in [ the documentary ] the complete opposite of what her research showed and what was stated in her grant application . When I interviewed [ the complainant ] , he admitted that he had known about the grant and the DATE research . Still he accepted ORG clearly groundless testimony in the documentary . ”

On DATE ORG magazine published a CARDINAL - page reply in which the reporters who had made the documentaries in question replied to the first applicant ’s criticism . In response to this reply , the magazine published a page - long counter - reply by the first applicant .

On DATE the complainant reported the matter to the police , asking them to investigate whether the first applicant was guilty of defamation when he called him a liar in his writings . By letter dated DATE the complainant presented his claim for damages against the applicants .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant company and the first applicant submitted their replies to the police . On DATE the first applicant was questioned by the police for the first time .

On DATE the public prosecutor pressed charges in ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) against the first applicant for defamation . The complainant concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor . The compensation claim presented by him previously on DATE was joined to the criminal charges . The applicants claimed that ORG was not the appropriate court because the forum norms had changed in DATE .

On DATE the ORG found in an interlocutory decision that it was a competent court to decide the case . Even though the article in question had been written and the decision on its publication had been taken in GPE , the magazine had been printed and the consequences of the article had arisen in GPE . As the internet articles concerned the same matter , the court was competent to examine them too .

On DATE ORG dismissed all charges against the first applicant and the compensation claim directed against the applicants . It found first of all that all the articles should be considered as CARDINAL matter because they concerned the same topic , irrespective of whether they had been published on internet or in the magazine . Both the first applicant and the complainant had had grounds for their views and they had not said anything that was clearly untrue . The documentaries made by the complainant had provoked public discussion , but they had also provoked harsh criticism on account of the manner in which they were presented . Therefore the threshold for acceptable criticism of the complainant and of his documentaries was higher than usual . As there had been insinuations in the documentaries that some of the expert opinions had been false , the first applicant was allowed to use similar wording vis - à - vis the complainant .

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the complainant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) . ORG held oral hearings on CARDINAL and DATE and on DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the first applicant of defamation and sentenced him to DATE - fines , totalling CARDINAL ( ORG ) . He was ordered to pay LAW interest in damages to the complainant . The applicant company was ordered , together with the first applicant , to pay ORG CARDINAL plus interest in damages to the complainant as well as his costs and expenses of ORG CARDINAL , plus interest , in total . The court found first of all that ORG had been the competent court in the matter . As to the merits , ORG mentioned LAW and the principles expressed therein as well as adverting to the ORG ’s case - law and legal literature on LAW . With reference to the ORG ’s case - law , it recalled that even if everyone was guaranteed freedom of expression , it was not permitted to defame others or to disseminate false information on anybody . In this respect a journalist had the same responsibility as others . ORG then found that it had not been proved that the complainant had disseminated wrong information in the documentaries in the manner recounted by the first applicant , except for the misleading information given in the context of the reportage on mould - infested houses which the complainant had failed to rectify . It appeared also from the witness statements that different statistical information existed as far as the conserved forest area in GPE was concerned , such that it could not be said that the figures given by the complainant had been fabricated . The first applicant had thus imparted false information on the complainant and these accusations had been serious . The first applicant had not therefore had strong reasons or probable cause to hold his own accusations to be true . The fact that freedom of expression was guaranteed under LAW as well as under LAW together with the fact that the complainant was also a journalist and that the first applicant had been able to give grounds for his own opinion in the media , did not entitle the first applicant to impart the above - mentioned false information . Nor did the first applicant have the right to call the complainant a liar . On these grounds the first applicant was found guilty of defamation .

By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , claiming that all facts had been correct in the article published in ORG magazine . Moreover , during the oral hearing in ORG , the applicants had not been allowed to put questions to the opposing party ’s witnesses , whereas the opposing party had been able to question their witnesses . Also the evidence provided by the applicants had not been adequately taken into account by ORG and the proceedings had taken place in the wrong forum .

On DATE ORG refused the applicants leave to appeal .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicants . The respondent , DATE Retex , a privately owned company as of DATE , was ordered to : ( a ) reinstate them to their former jobs ; ( b ) pay their salary arrears ; ( c ) pay the relevant social insurance contributions due for the same period ; and ( d ) pay the their legal costs .

By DATE this judgment , as amended on appeal in respect of the legal costs , became final .

On DATE the applicants filed a request for the enforcement of the said judgment .

On DATE ORG accepted the ORG request and issued an enforcement order .

On DATE ORG upheld this decision on appeal .

NORP In DATE ORG carried out an assessment of the debtor ’s movable assets .

On DATE , in response to a third party ’s request , ORG excluded certain movable assets from the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG obtained an additional report regarding the value of the debtor ’s movable assets .

On DATE ORG ordered the re - examination of the third party ’s exclusion request lodged in respect of the debtor ’s assets .

On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings ( stečajni postupak ) in respect of DATE Retex and on DATE the ORG claims were confirmed in their entirety . The applicants themselves were classified as third - class creditors .

On DATE the debtor ’s assets were sold as part of the insolvency proceedings .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed .

The insolvency proceedings before ORG are still pending , and the applicants have yet to be paid apparently as a consequence of CARDINAL related civil suits brought by other creditors .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG , maintaining that they had suffered a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and a violation of their property rights . In terms of redress , the applicants sought recognition of these violations , an order from ORG for the expedition of the impugned enforcement proceedings , and the “ removal of all adverse consequences ” suffered in this connection ( including through the payment of their outstanding pecuniary claims ) .

On DATE the applicants noted the adoption of the amendments to LAW , and specified their compensation claims accordingly . Specifically , on account of the pecuniary damage suffered , the applicants requested the respective amounts awarded to them by the final judgment in question , whilst as regards the nonpecuniary damage sustained they claimed CARDINAL each ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG found , in the operative part of its ruling ( u izreci ) , that the applicants had indeed suffered a violation of their right to a fair trial within a reasonable time , as well as a violation of their property rights , but rejected the compensation claims regarding the non - pecuniary damages sought by the applicants . ORG , lastly , ordered that the impugned enforcement proceedings be terminated in accordance with the applicable legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In its reasoning the Constitutional Court established that the courts in question had not acted promptly DATE and DATE . Concerning the compensation issue , ORG stated that the applicants’ pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage claims had been filed out of time . In so doing , it merely referred to Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , as amended in DATE , and LAW of the amendments themselves ( see paragraphs QUANTITY ) .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Charged with a criminal offence);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant and her former husband Mr U.A. , a NORP national who was born in DATE , were indicted ( I ) under LAW alternative , cf . LAW ( straffeloven ) , of having caused under particularly aggravating circumstances injury to the body and health of their daughter A entailing serious damage , or of having aided and abetted in this , by having exposed her at least on two occasions to violence causing the following damage :

“ - CARDINAL instances of fraction to her cranium ;

- bleeding under the hard membrane of the brain ;

- bleeding between the hard membrane of the brain and scull ;

- oedema changes in the brain ;

- bleedings in the retina in both eyes ;

- blue marks and miscolouring on the body ;

- elbow out of joint .

The last - mentioned injury had been discovered in DATE and the remainder in DATE . The injuries to her head had been life - threatening and had led to permanent brain injury . The violence had been caused by the child ’s parents , Mr GPE and Mrs N.A. , directly by , amongst other things , blows and/or pushes against a hard surface and forceful shaking and/or by aiding and abetting the perpetration of the violence by not intervening and seeking to prevent the actions carried out against the child , in respect of whom both parents assumed the care . ”

They were also indicted ( II ) under LAW ) , cf . ( CARDINAL ) , of having seriously and repeatedly exerted violence or otherwise infringed or illtreated someone in their household – in an aggravated manner because the abuse had been carried out over a long period , had been committed against a defenseless person and had been unprovoked . During the period from CARDINAL DATE until DATE , their son B had a number of times been exposed to violence resulting , inter alia , in the following injuries :

“ - A fracture in the upper arm caused by twisting ;

- blue nails on both of his big toes ;

- several wounds , scars and miscolouring to the body , including scars after scratching on the throat .

The violence had been caused by the child ’s parents , Mr U.A. and Mrs N.A. , either directly and/or by aiding and abetting the perpetration of the violence by not intervening and seeking to prevent the actions carried out against the child , in respect of whom both parents assumed the care . ”

On DATE ORG ( tingrett ) convicted the applicant and her former husband of the charges and sentenced them to terms of imprisonment of DATE , respectively . It was not in doubt that the CARDINAL children had been subjected to gross ill - treatment by adults but concluded that it was not possible from the evidence taken from the defendants and witnesses in the case to identify CARDINAL or more perpetrators . The statements given had been contradictory to such a degree that this could not be explained as being due to misunderstandings . Several of the statements ought to be considered as untrue leaving no possibility to distinguish between lies and truth on different points . On the other hand ORG found it established that the damage to the children had mainly occurred while the children had been in the flat . It was further proven that the accused Mr U.A. had been present in the tiny flat occupied by the family while the ill - treatment occurred , as had also been the case of the applicant . ORG also found it proven that each of the parents had aided and abetted in the commission of the violence by not having interfered or sought to prevent the acts of violence carried out against the children in regard to whom they had a duty of care . The parents were ordered to pay the children MONEY ( ORG ) ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

The applicant and her former husband appealed to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) , which , sitting with a jury , held a hearing for DATE between CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) . It took evidence from the defendants and CARDINAL witnesses and QUANTITY court appointed experts . After the jury had answered all the questions put to it in the negative , the professional judges decided to accept the jury ’s verdict of acquittal .

In the same judgment of DATE , ORG ( without the participation of any members of the jury ) examined the children ’s claims for compensation of non - pecuniary damage under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of LAW DATE . It held :

“ According to this provision a person who with intent or gross negligence has caused personal injury may be required to pay compensation to the victim . ORG observes that such infringements as described in LAW can constitute a ground for awarding compensation for non - pecuniary damage under section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) , cf . section CARDINAL , even if no damage has occurred in the sense of the LAW . The assistance lawyer representing the children [ ‘ bistandsadvokaten’ ] has argued on their behalf that Mr [ U.A. ] and PERSON ] , with intent or gross negligence , have caused or aided and abetted [ ‘ ORG ] in causing serious injury to [ A ] ’s head , her elbow getting out of joint and in seriously and repeatedly exposing [ B ] to violence .

The ORG claims for non - pecuniary damage has its basis in the same acts as those in respect of which Mr [ U.A. ] and ORG ] has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings . The acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not hinder making an award of compensation for nonpecuniary damage to the victims , since less stringent evidentiary requirements applies to the latter than to criminal punishment . When a judgment of acquittal has been given in the criminal case , the presumption of innocence in LAW will set limits to what could constitute the basis for a decision on the civil claims . According to ORG case - law , the national courts can not justify their decision in a manner calling into doubt the acquitted person ’s innocence for criminal law purposes ( see ORG case - law reports PERSON . DATE p. DATE ) .

A condition for establishing liability to pay compensation is that it was clearly probable that the damage had been caused by intent or by gross negligence ( ORG . DATE p. DATE ) .

Considering the evidence in the case as a whole , the High Court finds it clearly probable that Mr [ U.A. ] and PERSON ] have ill - treated their children or have aided and abetted in doing so by consent or by incitement to the acts , over a long period until DATE . ORG further finds it clearly probable that the parents had inflicted or have aided and abetted in inflicting great injuries to A ’s head and have inflicted or aided and abetted in inflicting injuries to B through repeated violence , including a fracture to his arm by twisting it .

In its assessment of the evidence , ORG emphasises that several of the injuries ascertained are not compatible with accidental occurrences but on the contrary show that they have been inflicted by strong violence . ORG also points to the children ’s later reactions , including that [ B ] was in DATE diagnosed as suffering from post - traumatic stress syndrome . It further refers to witness statements from neighbours about noise in the form of screams of anxiety and painful cries from children in the apartment over a longer period .

ORG is of the view that the physical and psychological injuries sustained by the children are a direct consequence of the illtreatment to which they have been exposed . In the High Court ’s view it was further foreseeable for Mr [ U.A. ] and PERSON ] that serious injuries , including serious brain damage , could occur in the case of such small children .

Accordingly , the conditions for making an award of non - pecuniary damage have been fulfilled .

The lawyer representing the children had filed a claim for compensation of non - pecuniary damage in an amount of up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of [ A ] and up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of [ B ] .

An award of compensation for non - pecuniary damage is to be evaluated on the basis of a wide discretionary assessment of what would constitute a reasonable amount . Factors which are central in the assessment are the objective seriousness of the act , the extent to which the wrongdoer ( ‘ skadevolder’ ) is to be blamed and the damaging effects .

This case concerns injury on very small children , from they were babies until [ A ] was DATE and [ B ] was DATE . The ill - treatment has occurred during a considerable part of the children ’s lives until it was revealed . At present [ B ] apparently manage well physically and has no physical ailments . However , in DATE he was diagnosed as suffering from post - traumatic stress syndrome . [ A ] was in part paralysed on one side and her development is far behind compared to that of other children of her age . Her injuries can be said to be permanent .

Compensation for non - pecuniary damage in respect of [ A ] is to be awarded in an amount of ORG CARDINAL [ MONEY ( ORG ) ] and in respect of [ B ] in an amount of ORG CARDINAL [ approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ] .

The decision on the civil claims is based on the less stringent evidentiary requirements than those applicable to criminal punishment . Thus , the decision on the civil claim does not contradict [ ‘ rokke PERSON ] the correctness of the acquittal . ”

The applicant and her former husband appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) , complaining inter alia of ORG assessment of the evidence and that the reasoning for the award on compensation in this regard had failed to satisfy requirements of national law and entailed a violation of LAW .

On DATE ORG ( Høyesteretts kjæremålsutvalg ) refused them leave to appeal , finding that such leave was warranted neither by the general importance of the case nor by other considerations .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE . He is detained in the ORG social - protection institution ( “ the ORG EDS ” ) .

In DATE the applicant was convicted of theft and of sexual assault , by ORG and ORG respectively . The prison sentences were due to end on DATE .

While imprisoned , the applicant committed offences in respect of which fresh proceedings were brought . On DATE ORG ( chambre du conseil ) of ORG decided , pursuant to section CARDINAL of the LAW DATE on ORG in respect of ORG , Habitual Offenders and Persons Convicted of certain PERSON ( the “ LAW ” ) , and on the basis , inter alia , of a neuropsychiatric report by PERSON , dated DATE , and a report by psychologist PERSON , dated DATE , to order the applicant ’s preventive detention .

On DATE ORG of ORG upheld that decision . The applicant did not appeal on points of law .

On DATE , based among other elements on a psychiatric report by PERSON dated DATE , the Minister of ORG also decided that the applicant was to be detained in a psychiatric institution , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , as a continuation of the sentences imposed in DATE .

On DATE the applicant entered the Paifve EDS , located in the LANGUAGE - speaking region , further to a decision of QUANTITY DATE by ORG for the ORG psychiatric wing ( the “ CDS ” ) .

On an unspecified date the applicant made an initial application for release on a trial basis .

On DATE the ORG postponed its examination of the request for release on a trial basis until DATE , and recommended finding an institution that could admit the applicant and provide him with therapy in NORP , the only language he could understand and speak .

The application was examined by the ORG on DATE . At the hearing , the head of ORG acknowledged that the institution was unable to provide the therapeutic care recommended by the experts who had already been consulted , given that no NORP - speaking doctor , therapist , psychologist , social worker or warden was employed in the institution .

In consequence , the ORG held :

“ It is undisputed that the detainee speaks only NORP , and that the medical , welfare and prison staff in the institution in which he is detained are unable to provide him with any therapeutic or welfare assistance ; he has been abandoned to his fate without any treatment since his arrival in PERSON ( on DATE ) , even if some individuals have , on a voluntary basis , made considerable efforts to explain to him his situation , which he experiences as an injustice ;

In the present case , the CARDINAL - fold legal aim of the preventive detention , namely protection of society and of the patient ’s health , can only be achieved if the deprivation of liberty is accompanied by the treatment necessitated by the detainee ’s mental health ; since this double condition is not fulfilled , [ Mr ] ORG ’s detention is unlawful ; ... ”

The ORG postponed its examination of the application for release on a trial basis until a hearing in DATE , pending the appointment of NORP - speaking employees to the ORG .

In accordance with an order by the chairperson of the ORG of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was transferred to Verviers Prison so that its NORP - language psychosocial team could assess his mental health and ascertain whether he posed a danger to the public . On DATE the ORG confirmed this order and postponed the case to DATE .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the application for release on parole . It had been indicated in a report of DATE , drawn up by the LANGUAGE - language psychosocial team in Verviers Prison , that the applicant had a psychotic personality and paranoid character traits ( high self - opinion , feeling of omnipotence , lack of self - criticism and threatening remarks ) and that he was refusing any treatment . Furthermore , the ORG noted that there was no institution in GPE which could meet the security and language requirements in the applicant ’s specific case ; the only LANGUAGE - language hospital which could be considered was an open hospital , and it had thus to be ruled out in view of the applicant ’s mental health .

On DATE the applicant applied for day release . On DATE the ORG noted that it had proved impossible to provide any treatment and that the search for a LANGUAGE - language institution had proved unsuccessful . Accordingly , it ordered the PERSON remand prison to prepare a plan for release on a trial basis , and ordered a new expert report in order to assess the level of danger posed by the applicant . It adjourned examination of the request sine die .

Having received a new application from the applicant for release on a trial basis , the ORG held , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE :

“ There has been no progress in PERSON situation ; progress can not occur until he is in a setting where he can be understood in his own language , like any citizen of this country . A single member of the prison staff , a nurse [ ORG ] , is temporarily providing him with social contact , whereas a psychiatrist and/or a psychologist should be available to him .

The prison authorities have not put forward any kind of solution to this problem , of which its various services are fully aware . Worse , as those authorities are unable to provide him with the necessary treatment , they seem to have resigned themselves to a role that extends no further than an unfair repressive detention .

The medical reports and [ PERSON ’s ] expert report indicate that ORG , who continues to present a danger to society , can not be released without support and preparation in an institutional setting , something that can not currently be provided in GPE , but is available abroad . ”

In consequence , the ORG invited the PERSON remand prison to prepare , together with applicant , a plan for release on a trial basis , and encouraged the authorities to take , rapidly , the measures necessary to improve the applicant ’s situation . It adjourned the case to DATE . CARDINAL . On DATE the ORG found :

“ In DATE since this file was opened ( DATE ) , the persons involved in this case have been thwarted by the fact that the detainee speaks and understands only one language , and that the authorities have no LANGUAGE - speaking staff available for him , with the exception of CARDINAL nurse [ ORG ] ( who is apparently due to retire in the near future ) ;

In DATE Doctor [ Ri . ] , expert , wrote that relaxation of the detainee ’s regime ‘ is possible only in parallel with successful treatment , assessed by predefined steps . The treatment must begin in a secure establishment , then in a closed institution ... ’ Given that treatment in GPE is impossible , it was to begin in GPE with NORP - speaking psychiatrists and therapists ;

Since that time the detainee ’s situation has not changed : he converses with and leaves the building only in the company of the sole NORP - speaking member of staff , and a treatment programme has not even been put in place . No satisfactory follow - up has been given to the requests by the [ ORG Board for an end to be put to this unlawful situation for PERSON , who is deprived of his freedom in order , on the one hand , to protect society from possible dangerous conduct by him , and on the other , to provide him with the treatment necessary for his reinsertion ; ...

In the light of the authorities’ failure , the question now before ORG is whether there exists , outside the social - protection facility , a unit or persons who could provide home - based therapy for PERSON ; ... ”

On those grounds , and pointing out that NORP was one of the national languages and that the applicant was thus entitled to speak , be understood and receive treatment in that language , the ORG asked the PERSON remand prison to search in and around Verviers and PERSON for either a mental health unit , or a doctor or clinic , which could provide home - based therapy for the applicant in his mother tongue . It reserved its decision on the application for release on parole .

On DATE the applicant submitted pleadings in support of his application for release . He criticised the failure to provide him with therapeutic care and the effect on his health of any prospect of seeing his situation improve . As his main submission , he requested his immediate release on the grounds of the illegality of his detention . Alternatively , he asked that the ORG impose an obligation on the relevant authorities to take all necessary measures so that he would receive the treatment required by his mental - health condition in his mother tongue .

By an interlocutory decision of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG noted that the applicant ’s situation had not changed and that the reply from the PERSON judicial assistance unit left no hope of ensuring that the applicant would receive appropriate treatment , in a secure establishment or elsewhere . The ORG considered that it was necessary to attempt CARDINAL last plea to the Minister of ORG , whose intervention had previously led to some changes , even if they were insufficient to resolve the problem . The ORG accordingly ordered that an “ official denunciation ” of the applicant ’s situation be sent to the Minister of ORG .

On DATE the ORG noted that the Minister of ORG had not replied to its submission and that the applicant ’s situation had worsened , in that he could no longer count on help from the NORP - speaking nurse PERSON , who had left the ORG . The ORG continued :

“ It follows from the report [ from the psychosocial department ] of DATE that , except for occasional meetings with a social worker “ who speaks NORP ” , the detainee has no social contact in his language and that he has had no opportunity for DATE to converse and to gain a fresh perspective in the outside world ; the doctor and psychologist who signed this report do not seem particularly convinced by the completion of the ‘ ongoing measures ( taken ) by the department to enable a NORP - language psychologist to intervene occasionally to provide care for the NORP - speaking patients in the EDS’ ;

PERSON situation is frozen : an ill individual , he is detained in a prison medical institution where no one is able to provide the treatment to which he is entitled ; the Minister and his departments are turning a deaf ear , with no concern for the despair to which this manifestly unjust attitude may give rise ;

In spite of the unlawfulness of PERSON detention , his health condition means that release can not be envisaged unless it is accompanied by therapy and practical support ;

The [ ORG has no powers , firstly , to restore the detainee ’s basic rights , namely , the rights to liberty , to health care and to respect for his humanity , and secondly , to compel the Minister to put an end to this situation , which his administration has been fully aware of for DATE . ”

The ORG decided , while “ remaining open to any proposals ” , to leave the applicant ’s situation unchanged ; in other words , it rejected his application for release .

The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( “ the CSDS ” ) .

In parallel , the applicant made an urgent application to the President of ORG , in order to have his detention declared unlawful and obtain his immediate release , or , alternatively , to obtain a decision ordering ORG to provide him with the medical care required by his situation .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE , the president of the court held that he did not have jurisdiction , on the grounds that the ORG was the lawful body with power to release the applicant or decide on his continued detention .

On DATE the CSDS upheld the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE to maintain the applicant in detention . Unlike the ORG , the ORG held that the applicant ’s detention was perfectly legal , given that he had been lawfully detained and that he did not fulfil the conditions for definitive or conditional release . Under section CARDINAL of LAW , release could only be ordered if the detainee ’s mental condition had improved sufficiently and if the conditions for his social reinsertion had been satisfied . However , this was not the situation here . The CSDS also considered that the mere fact that the applicant spoke only NORP did not mean that the authorities had not taken all the necessary steps to provide him with the treatment required by his condition .

The applicant appealed on points of law , alleging a violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law . In response to the argument alleging a violation of LAW , it held that legal reasons had been given for the CSDS ’s decision and that it had been justified in law . It found :

“ As preventive detention is primarily a security measure , the therapeutic action necessitated by such detention is not legally required in order for the detention to be lawful , even if its aim , secondary to that of protecting society , is to provide the detained person with the necessary treatment .

The social protection boards derive from section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW the power , rather than the obligation , to order , in a decision giving specific reasons , placement in an institution that is appropriate in terms of the security measures and the treatment to be given . It follows that execution of the preventive detention measure does not become unlawful solely because it is implemented in one of the institutions created by the government for that purpose , rather than in another institution specifically designated for the possible treatment it might provide . ”

The argument alleging a violation of LAW was declared inadmissible , since its examination would require a factual verification of the conditions in which the preventive detention was being conducted and such an examination fell outside the scope of ORG jurisdiction . For the remainder , ORG considered that the CSDS had replied to the applicant ’s complaint in finding that the fact that he spoke only NORP did not mean that the relevant authorities had not taken all the necessary steps to provide him with the care he required .

On DATE the applicant again applied for release .

A report by the psychosocial department of ORG , dated CARDINAL DATE , reiterated that the applicant had a poor command of the NORP language , and spoke only a few words of LANGUAGE , which did not enable him to conduct a conversation ; in consequence , he had very little contact with the other patients and members of staff . The report also referred to a single meeting between the applicant and a LANGUAGE - speaking psychologist in DATE . The report noted an improvement in the applicant ’s behaviour ; he was apparently less aggressive and intolerant than before . Further , the applicant had never expressed a wish to meet members of the psychosocial team on a regular basis . The report concluded that he should remain in detention in PERSON , citing among other reasons his “ untreated mental health problems ” .

On DATE the ORG noted , firstly , the content of the reports by Dr ORG . , of CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON . , of DATE , which stressed the need for psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatment in a secure establishment , then in a closed institution , before an open facility could be envisaged . The ORG noted that , in the interim , the various attempts to find a solution to the language problem had not succeeded in bringing about a significant improvement in the applicant ’s health : the rare outings accompanied by a NORP - speaking member of the prison staff had been abandoned when this employee , who was not replaced , became unavailable ; attempts to find a NORP - language institution , doctor or therapist had met with failure ; no follow - up seemed to have been given to the announcement that a minimum number of NORP - speaking staff were to be recruited , and the applicant had , of his own accord , declined the assistance of the NORP - speaking social worker with whom he had occasionally met . The ORG rejected the application for release on parole , finding that the conditions for release ( an improvement in the applicant ’s mental state and guarantees for his social rehabilitation ) were not met . With regard to the alleged absence of treatment in NORP , the ORG specified :

“ The detainee claims that he is not receiving the appropriate treatment for his mental health condition in NORP , his mother tongue , without however describing or even mentioning the treatment that he has allegedly been denied and that he would agree to accept or in which he would take part . The mere fact that he only speaks NORP does not mean that the ORG social - protection facility has not taken all the necessary steps to provide him with the care his condition requires .

While , as the applicant points out in his submissions , it is for the relevant authorities to take all the necessary measures for his health , it is not , however , within the [ ORG powers to release a detainee who claims to be the victim of shortcomings on the part of the authorities ...

Nor does ORG have jurisdiction to issue orders to the authorities or to third parties , [ or ] to penalise their actions or shortcomings ... ”

On DATE the ORG upheld the decision by the ORG , finding , among other points :

“ Contrary to what he alleges in his pleadings , the detainee receives all the treatment required by his condition , from competent and qualified staff in ORG , and his specific medical needs are fully taken into account . In spite of the treatment given , the detainee ’s mental condition has not yet improved sufficiently , on account of his paranoid and psychopathic character traits , his lack of self - criticism and his constant demand . The detainee is thus clearly wrong in attributing the lack of improvement in his mental condition to the language issue alone .

The continued preventive detention in a ORG that is adapted to his medical condition of an individual who would represent a danger to the public in the event of release , where his mental condition has not sufficiently improved and the conditions for his social rehabilitation are not met , is not unlawful and does not amount to a violation of the provisions of the [ Convention ] . ”

On DATE ORG quashed the decision by the CSDS on the grounds that it had not addressed the applicant ’s argument that he was not receiving care appropriate to his situation , in view of the fact that he spoke and understood only NORP and that no NORP - speaking staff members were available in the facility where he was being held . The case was sent back to the ORG with a differently constituted membership .

NORP On DATE the ORG issued an interlocutory finding , requesting the ORG to appoint a group of NORP - speaking experts to update the psychiatric report of CARDINAL DATE . It instructed the head of ORG institution to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the requisite care was made available , by at least providing the services of a NORP - speaking psychiatrist and psychologist . It ordered that the case be reopened and scheduled a hearing for DATE .

The ORG has not been informed of the progress of those proceedings .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant brought proceedings against ORG before the President of the LANGUAGE - language ORG of First Instance , as the judge responsible for hearing urgent applications in application of LAW . He asked for his release or , as a subsidiary measure , the imposition of the measures required by his state of health .

By an interlocutory order of DATE , the president of the court asked the head of the ORG and PERSON from the psychosocial unit in that ORG to submit statements concerning the treatment available in the ORG and the treatment that had in fact been provided to the applicant .

Statements submitted by the head of ORG and by PERSON on DATE indicated that the applicant now had access to consultations with a LANGUAGE - speaking psychologist and that the authorities had made contact with a NORP - speaking psychiatrist who had agreed to meet the applicant .

In an order of DATE , the president of the court noted that , until DATE , the applicant had never had access to a psychiatrist who could communicate with him in NORP . He had had access to a NORP - speaking psychologist , outside the ORG , DATE . He noted that the consultations with the psychologist had come to an end not , as alleged by the ORG in its pleadings , because the applicant no longer wished to attend them , but because of late payment by ORG of the psychologist ’s fees and expenses . The consultations with the psychologist had , however , resumed in DATE . The president then noted that , until DATE , the applicant had benefitted from the presence of and care provided by a LANGUAGE - speaking nurse , that that nurse had in the meantime left the ORG , but that since DATE he had been authorised to accompany the applicant on outings . Lastly , the order noted that the applicant had had contacts with a LANGUAGE - speaking social worker , but that he had declined the latter ’s services in DATE .

With regard to the main request , the president held that he did not have jurisdiction to order the applicant ’s release , as only the social protection bodies had power to do so . With regard to the subsidiary request , the president noted that the applicant had not had access to the mental health treatment required by his condition , and that there was prima facie a violation of his right of access to health care . His situation amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of LAW . In consequence , the president ordered ORG to appoint a NORP - speaking psychiatrist and medical auxiliary for the applicant , subject to a penalty in the event of non - compliance , and to put in place the care routinely provided to LANGUAGE - speaking detainees suffering from a mental illness similar to that of the applicant .

On the basis of the information produced , no appeal has been lodged against this order . According to the applicant ’s representative , ORG appointed a NORP - speaking psychiatrist and psychologist , who visited the applicant several times . However , these visits stopped at DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had filed a negligence claim against ORG , on the basis of LAW .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the LANGUAGE - language ORG held the fact of having failed to provide the applicant with psychological treatment in his mother tongue DATE to be negligent . It held , in particular :

“ It is undeniable that the psychiatric and psychological treatment which [ the applicant ] must enjoy must be provided to him in NORP , the only language in which he is fluent and , moreover , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL national languages in GPE .

However , DATE [ the applicant ] received no medico - psychiatric treatment in his own language .

Whatever the quality – which is , indeed , undisputed – of the care provided to detainees in the ORG [ ORG ] , it is totally inappropriate for [ the applicant ’s ] mental - health condition merely on account of the fact that it is not available in NORP .

In spite of the official and repeated denunciations of this situation by ORG to ORG since DATE , the latter has taken no steps to correct it . In addition , it has produced no evidence of the least action taken by it to that end .

This failure to act amounts to negligence within the meaning of LAW .

Moreover , and as [ the applicant ] also submits , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ of the LAW ] require ORG to take the necessary measures to provide him with access to the basic care necessitated by his mental health .

In the present case , the applicant ’s vulnerability on account of the very nature of his psychological disorder and the absence of any genuine possibility of contact in his language have necessarily exacerbated his feelings of distress and anxiety .

It is immaterial that , in any event , the [ applicant ’s ] state of mental health does not allow for his release . The mere fact of having been detained for an indefinite period without appropriate care amounts in the present case to a violation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ of the Convention ] .

Contrary to the submissions of ORG , the fact that [ the applicant ] is not always receptive to psychological , medical and social therapy does not allow for minimisation of ORG negligent attitude towards a person who suffers from a mental disorder , whose discernment is , by assumption , uncertain .

By the same token , at the risk of setting aside the lived experience of the person suffering from a mental disorder , [ the applicant ’s ] stable conduct within the institution does not suffice to establish that he received appropriate care for his condition . ”

Finding that this absence of treatment had caused mental suffering to the applicant , the court ordered the ORG to pay him MONEY ( “ EUR ” ) , an amount assessed ex aequo et bono , in compensation for the period for DATE .

According to information provided on DATE by his representative , the applicant was due to lodge an appeal against this judgment . He challenges the period accepted by the court and argues that the lack of treatment pre - dated DATE ; he also complains about a lack of treatment in DATE and the decision to award compensation ex aequo et bono rather than on a DATE basis .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant and ORG , a NORP national , married in GPE , GPE , where they were living at that time .

NORP Since DATE they have lived apart . According to the applicant , in DATE she initiated proceedings for dissolution of the marriage in GPE . By a decision of QUANTITY DATE ORG decided to grant the applicant separation from DATE which in NORP law is not identical to a divorce , since the spouses remained legally married . According to the decision ORG was thought to be in GPE ; he had been summoned to court by a public notice but had not appeared . It appears that the marriage between the applicant and PERSON has not been officially dissolved .

In DATE the applicant moved to GPE . On DATE she gave birth to a daughter , PERSON , whose father , according to the applicant , was NORP When registering the birth , the applicant was told by the officials of the municipality that since she was married , her husband O. would be registered as the child ’s father . According to the applicant this was done despite her objections .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG seeking a declaration that the entry in the birth register concerning her daughter ’s father was incorrect . She provided the court with a notice from the GPE population register about O. ’s registered address but added that in fact O. no longer lived there and she did not know his actual address . She asked the court to serve the summons on the defendant by a public notice .

By a decision of DATE ORG declined to proceed with the examination of the claim . It noted that the applicant had paid CARDINAL kroons ( EEK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in ORG fees instead of the applicable fee of EEK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) . ORG gave the applicant a DATE time - limit to pay the remaining part of the fee . It also gave the applicant the same time - limit to find out where O. currently lived . The court noted that in accordance with LAW ( GPE seadustik ) , in filiation cases parties had to appear in court in person and they also had to be summoned personally . Accordingly , the court could not proceed with the claim without having information about the defendant ’s address . The court noted that in view of the fact that the defendant was a NORP national probably living in GPE , it was likely that the defendant had to be heard in a court in the place of his residence in line with the provisions of ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on cooperation between the courts of GPE in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters . However , for that it was necessary to ascertain where NORP was residing . The court noted that it was the plaintiff ’s obligation to find out where PERSON actually lived ; it considered that the applicant ’s efforts in this respect had not been sufficient . It referred to the fact that O. was the applicant ’s husband and that divorce proceedings were pending before a NORP court , and concluded that the applicant had better chances of ascertaining O. ’s whereabouts , for example through his acquaintances , relatives and colleagues .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to declare unconstitutional the provisions of LAW related to the ORG fee and the requirement that the defendant be summoned and that he appear in court in person . She also informed the court of her intention to request information from the NORP police as to the defendant ’s residence and asked for an extension of the time - limit to rectify the deficiencies in her claim indicated by ORG in its decision of DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request concerning the alleged unconstitutionality of the provisions of LAW . It acceded to the applicant ’s request for the extension of the time - limit .

It appears that the applicant did not inform ORG of whether she had made any inquiries about O. ’s whereabouts to the NORP authorities or of the results of any such inquiries .

On DATE ORG declined to entertain the case since the applicant had failed to eliminate the deficiencies indicated in its earlier decisions . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant lodged a new claim with ORG seeking the establishment of her daughter ’s filiation from NORP , a NORP national living in GPE . She asked the court to order that a DNA test be carried out with the assistance of the NORP authorities . The applicant supplied the court with NORP ’s and his GPE addresses .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the claim . Referring to ORG case - law ( judgment of DATE , case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , ORG found that it was not legally possible to establish the child ’s filiation from NORP without the entry in the birth register , according to which her father was O. , having been declared incorrect beforehand . The claims could not be examined simultaneously .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

The applicant appealed to ORG , which decided not to examine the appeal on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON .

The applicant is a habitual offender . He was arrested on an unspecified date on suspicion of uttering threats . He was subsequently convicted as charged and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . He was first detained in FAC and subsequently in FAC .

On DATE the applicant ’s cell was searched . During the search the prison officers found a note entitled “ Protest letter ” signed by CARDINAL prisoners . The prisoners stated their opposition to the forthcoming changes to LAW affecting , in particular , the possibility of shopping during prison visits . The letter was confiscated by the authorities .

On DATE ORG imposed on the applicant the so - called “ dangerous detainee ” regime . The commission held that the applicant was one of the organisers of a planned collective remonstrance in ORG , and that it was therefore necessary to isolate him from other prisoners .

The applicant appealed against that decision . He submitted that he was not the organiser of the protest but merely CARDINAL of CARDINAL prisoners who had signed the letter .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The court held that the decision had been lawful .

On an unknown date the applicant was transferred to Goleniów Prison .

On DATE ORG extended the imposition of the “ dangerous detainee ” regime , holding that the applicant represented a serious threat to the community and should be kept in a solitary cell . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision and remitted the case to the commission . The court held that only the original decision to impose the regime of CARDINAL DATE had been justified . The following CARDINAL taken on DATE had not indicated any new circumstances justifying the continuing application of the regime and its reasoning had been scarce . The court noted that DATE had elapsed since the applicant had signed the protest letter and the suppositions regarding the allegedly planned collective remonstrance of the prisoners had been not confirmed .

On DATE ORG decided to lift the “ dangerous detainee ” regime . The regime was imposed on the applicant for a total of DATE .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events the applicant , a Ph.D. in ORG , was a tenured professor in the physics department of ORG .

By Order no . CARDINAL of DATE , the president ( ректор ) of ORG convened a university - wide conference for the election of the university ’s academic senate ( ученый совет ) , its standing governing body . The date of the conference was fixed for DATE . According to the Regulation on the Composition of the Academic Senate of ORG , candidates to the senate were to be nominated at staff meetings in structural entities by open majority vote ( section CARDINAL of the Regulation of DATE ) .

Unhappy about the fact that neither he nor his colleagues in the physics department had been consulted or informed about the nomination and discussion of candidates to the academic senate , the applicant took the floor at the above public conference and spoke as follows :

“ ... the elected academic senate may not be considered a legitimate body and its decisions likewise can not be considered legitimate . All of them can be challenged in courts . The problem is that the staff or departments did not know anything about the candidates to the academic senate or of their academic achievements ; no one nominated those candidates . This is some kind of a private party that is going on , some people have gathered and elected themselves . My rights have been violated : I , as a member of the faculty , have been excluded from the procedure which is of great importance both for me and for the university as a whole – the election of the academic senate . My rights have been breached , and I will complain to courts about the breaches of my rights . The rights of ordinary university employees , ordinary lecturers , have been breached , too : they were removed from the election to the academic senate , this is discrimination . Any discrimination is a form of war ; you have declared war to the people , and sooner or later you will get the results of this war in some way or another , in your own families . ”

ORG sued the applicant in defamation , claiming that his speech had undermined the professional reputation of the university and of its academic senate . The statement of claim was signed by the university president .

The Sovetskiy District Court of PERSON reviewed the university statutes and regulations on the procedure for the election of the academic senate and took oral evidence from witnesses . CARDINAL witnesses testified that the physics department had not held a meeting for the election of delegates to the conference or nomination of candidates to the senate because the delegates and candidates had been elected and nominated at the meeting between the heads of departments . The staff had been informed about the meeting DATE in advance and anyone could attend it .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found the applicant liable for defamation of ORG and its academic senate . According to the judgment , the applicant “ publicly accused [ them ] of a violation of applicable laws [ and ] commission of a dishonest act ” . It also held as follows :

“ The court can not agree with the respondent party ’s argument that the statements [ he had ] disseminated at the conference were an expression of an opinion . The statements were made in the affirmative form which is apparent from TIME of the conference of DATE , the audio recording of the conference , and testimony by witnesses . The witnesses PERSON and PERSON . who had attended the conference on DATE explained that they understood the statements as an affirmation which produced a negative impression on them ...

Every legal entity has the right to require that a public appraisal of its activities reflect the real state of affairs . Any negative appraisal of the activities of a legal entity affects its reputation and undermines it . The activity of a legal entity can only be potentially successful if its business reputation in the eyes of other organisations and ordinary citizens is maintained at a certain level , especially in a market economy . ”

ORG awarded the ORG MONEY ( RUB ) in damages and RUB CARDINAL in court fees and directed that the applicant read the refutation at the following university conference .

NORP The applicant filed an appeal , relying in particular on LAW . He also pointed out that the award in respect of damages exceeded his DATE salary .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment on the merits but partly amended it . Firstly , it considered that the sentences “ All of them can be challenged in courts ... Any discrimination is a form of war ; you have declared war to the people , and sooner or later you will get the results of this war in some way or another , in your own families . ” did not contain any statements about the plaintiff and could not therefore be damaging for its reputation . Secondly , it noted that the sentence “ no one nominated those candidates [ in the departments ] ” was actually true because candidates had been nominated at the meetings of department heads . Thirdly , ORG considered it appropriate that the operative part of ORG judgment be read out at the following conference by the president rather than by the applicant . Finally , it offered a more nuanced characterisation of the disputed phrases as a statement of fact :

“ Mr GPE ’s speech contained a statement of fact : the elected academic senate may not be considered a legitimate body and all of its decisions are likewise illegitimate , in other words , the academic senate was unlawfully elected and its decisions are unlawful . This is a verifiable statement . Accordingly , this information is not a subjective opinion of the defendant but a factual allegation . ”


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in detention in ORG .

ORG The applicant has been serving a prison sentence in ORG since DATE .

On DATE he brought a civil compensation claim before ORG . He claimed that the conditions of detention in many of his cells in FAC were so bad as to amount to a breach of NORP CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . He referred to the fact that the cells were not properly heated in the DATE and DATE and had no proper ventilation in DATE , meaning that the prisoners suffered from intense levels of heat . The windows were old and the frames leaked . He further submitted that the toilet facilities were only separated from the cells by a low fibreboard partition , which made even a minimum level of privacy impossible for him .

On DATE the ORG refused a request by the applicant to gather evidence by producing photographs and carrying out an on - the - spot inspection of the cells concerned . It closed the hearing and gave judgment , dismissing the applicant ’s claim in its entirety .

The court established , referring to evidence submitted by ORG , acting as the legal representative for ORG , that prisoners had access to sports , cultural and educational activities and medical care . They were provided with personal hygiene items and had appropriate food . Those factors , seen as a whole , alleviated the harm which was an inherent part and consequence of serving prison sentences .

The court further found that the toilet facilities in the applicant ’s cells were indeed separated off by fibreboard partitions . This did not provide full privacy , but was sufficient to ensure that the prisoners were out of sight of others when they used the toilet . There was a WC and a washbasin in each toilet facility .

As regards the applicant ’s allegations of inadequate ventilation and insufficient heating in the cells , the court found that the cells were well lit and properly ventilated ; the windows had been repaired and the heaters had been changed and worked properly . As regards the alleged lack of light , the court found that the applicant had been granted special permission to use an additional reading lamp .

The court was of the view that ORG had not acted unlawfully and that there had been no intention to act in bad faith or to cause harm or damage to the applicant . In the absence of unlawfulness no breach of personal rights could be found . In any event , the conditions in FAC were not so harsh as to amount to a breach of personal rights .

The applicant appealed , arguing that the court had failed to establish the facts of the case correctly , in the main because it had refused to gather evidence in the form of photographs , film or an inspection of the cells . The judgment had therefore been based on insufficient factual findings . Furthermore , in so far as the court had referred to the general conditions in which the applicant served his sentence ( quality of the food , medical care , access to cultural and sports activities ) , those factors had not constituted the basis of his claim . He had complained neither about poor food quality nor about insufficient access to cultural and sports activities . The grounds of his claim had fundamentally related to the sanitary conditions in the cells and , in particular , a lack of privacy when using the toilet . This lack of privacy had been explicitly confirmed by the first - instance court . He reiterated that the lack of a proper divide between the toilets and the cell amounted to a breach of his personal rights and dignity . He further indicated that some of the cells at the prison had toilet facilities that were properly separated from the rest of the cell by normal walls and a door .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal , fully accepting the findings of fact made by the firstinstance court and that court ’s legal assessment of those facts . In particular , ORG was of the view that the nuisance caused by the manner in which cells were fitted with toilet facilities , namely by way of fibreboard partitions , did not exceed the normal difficulties and harm which were inherent in serving a prison sentence .


Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG initially by PERSON and later by PERSON , both of them lawyers practising in PERSON at relevant times .

On DATE the applicant arrived at GPE ( GPE ) Airport where he requested asylum .

On DATE he was interviewed about his identity , nationality and travel itinerary ( eerste gehoor ) . It emerged that he had lodged a previous asylum request in GPE .

A GPE Claim interview ( gehoor GPE ) was held on CARDINAL DATE in which the applicant described the conditions in which he had been detained in GPE . Asylum - seekers lived in tents , the camp was overcrowded and sanitary facilities were filthy . He objected to being sent back to GPE as he did not wish to face the same conditions of detention again .

On DATE the Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) rejected the applicant ’s asylum request on the ground , in so far as relevant to the case before the ORG , that under LAW ( ORG ) No CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a third - country national ( “ FAC ” ) the ORG responsible for examining his application for asylum was GPE and GPE had agreed to take him back .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE on DATE . As relevant to the case before the ORG , he alleged that sending him back to GPE would expose him to conditions of detention violating LAW . He submitted documents in support of this allegation . At the same time he requested a provisional measure in the form of a stay of deportation .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( sitting in GPE ) dismissed both the request for a provisional measure and the appeal , finding that the applicant had failed to make out his case that GPE would fail to meet her Conventional obligations towards him .

The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , at the same time requesting the President of ORG to order a provisional measure in the form of a stay of deportation .

On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the request for a provisional measure on the ground that the applicant ’s deportation did not appear imminent .

On DATE the applicant lodged a new request for a provisional measure , stating that his deportation to GPE had been scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG gave a decision dismissing the request on the ground that the applicant ’s further appeal was unlikely to succeed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s further appeal on summary reasoning .

The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum - seekers and transfers of asylum - seekers under LAW are set out in LOC v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL‑CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

NORP By letter of DATE , the Agent of ORG submitted replies to questions of the Judge PERSON ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of the Rules of Court ) . As relevant to the case now before the ORG , these included the following :

“ Upon return to GPE in terms of ORG if an applicant is still considered to be an asylum seeker , and if he so wishes , the applicant will be housed in an open centre where he will be provided with shelter and medical care pending the determination of his request for protection in GPE . ”

and

“ When aliens are returned to GPE , they are not taken into police custody unless it results that an offence ( not including their irregular entry into , or exit from , GPE ) was committed by them in GPE .

Moreover , aliens who are rejected asylum seekers and who are returned to GPE will not be deprived of their liberty but efforts will be made for them to be returned to their country of origin . ”

NORP By letter of DATE , the Agent of ORG supplemented this information . His letter included the following :

“ The applicant applied for refugee status and a Preliminary Questionnaire was filled [ in ] by the applicant on DATE and the interview with the Refugee Commissioner was held on the CARDINALth DATE ;

On DATE , the applicant was granted ORG and he was released from detention on DATE and was transferred to the open centre . Thus , the applicant was put in detention for DATE ( from DATE till DATE ) ; ... ”

The applicant did not submit any comments on either letter relevant to the case now before the ORG .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Tajikistan);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE . He arrived in GPE in DATE . He travelled to NORP on a number of occasions to visit his parents for short periods of time .

On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia in NORP with participating in an extremist religious movement , ORG , and an international search and arrest warrant was issued in his name . On DATE the NORP authorities ordered his pre - trial detention .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and detained . On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered his detention pending extradition .

On DATE the NORP prosecution authorities requested the applicant ’s extradition on the basis of the above charges . The request included assurances regarding his proper treatment , which were formulated in standard terms .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

An appeal by the applicant of DATE was dismissed by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) on DATE .

On DATE ORG again extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

An appeal by the applicant of CARDINAL DATE was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s extradition was refused by ORG , owing to the absence of culpable actions under NORP criminal law .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention .

On DATE , immediately after his release , the applicant was rearrested for violating migration regulations .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of violating migration regulations , fined him and ordered his administrative removal . Allegations by the applicant regarding a real risk of ill - treatment were dismissed , and he was detained pending expulsion . ORG assessing the risks stated that “ [ CARDINAL claims of the representative ... are of a speculative nature and not confirmed by the case materials ”

The above judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . Claims by the applicant under LAW were dismissed with reference to ORG assessment of the case , which took into consideration “ ... the nature of the administrative offence , the character of the accused [ who was criminally convicted in GPE ] ...

According to the latest submissions of his representative in DATE , the applicant was still in detention .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for refugee status , referring to persecution in NORP and a real risk of ill - treatment .

On DATE his request was refused by a final administrative decision of the migration authorities . The applicant challenged that decision in the courts , referring , inter alia , to the risk of illtreatment .

On DATE his appeals were dismissed by a final decision of ORG .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant ’s father co - owned a plot of land and a house in GPE .

By a decision of the mayor of CARDINAL DATE the property was expropriated with a view to constructing residential buildings . The decision , based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LOC and Urban Planning Act of DATE ( ORG за териториалното и селищно устройство ) , provided that the applicant ’s father and the applicant were to receive a CARDINAL - room flat in compensation .

By a supplementary decision of CARDINAL DATE , based on section CARDINAL of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act , the mayor determined the exact location , size and other details in respect of the future flat offered in compensation . It was to have a surface of QUANTITY and was identified as flat no . CARDINAL on the fifth floor of a residential building which was to be constructed by a ORG - owned enterprise . Lastly , it was decided that the flat would be given directly to the applicant .

NORP In DATE the applicant paid to the authorities the part of the value of the future flat which had not been covered by the value of the expropriated property . In DATE the GPE municipality settled him temporarily in a flat which was property of the ORG - owned enterprise B.

On an unspecified date the construction of the building where the flat was to be located was commenced . In DATE the GPE municipality concluded a contract with the company B. , successor of the ORG - owned enterprise , delegating to it the construction works . The company was under an obligation to build , at its own expense , and deliver to the municipality , within DATE , the flats earmarked for compensation of the expropriated owners ; in exchange of that it was to become the owner of the remainder of the building .

NORP However , the construction was not completed within the deadline set . In DATE , in the context of the winding - up of the company B. , the building , still unfinished , was sold to another company . The latter apparently resold the property to a third company , which in DATE obtained a notary deed declaring it the owner of the building and the flats in it , including CARDINAL of flat no . CARDINAL on the fifth floor ; however , unlike what was indicated in the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that flat was described as having a surface of CARDINAL , and not QUANTITY . The applicant submitted a certificate of occupancy of the building at issue , dated CARDINAL DATE , but claimed that it only concerned “ certain construction activities ” and that the building was not in use .

In the meantime , the applicant filed several requests with the municipal authorities in GPE asking them to complete the compensation procedure and deliver the flat due to him . In a letter of DATE the municipality informed him that the company B. had reassured the authorities that it was making effort to fulfill its obligations . In another letter of CARDINAL DATE the municipality informed the applicant that it was the company that was responsible to deliver the flat to him . Lastly , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE the GPE municipality informed the applicant that he should have raised his claims in the winding - up procedure of the company B. , or should contact the current owner of the building to claim the flat due to him .

NORP In DATE the applicant was evicted from the flat where he had been temporarily settled , after it had been sold to a private party in the context of the winding - up of the company B. In the ensuing judicial proceedings whereby he challenged unsuccessfully the eviction it was established that at that time the applicant was not living in the flat , and that it was uninhabitable and in a very poor state of repair .


Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE and GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by Mr PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .

NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

From DATE the applicant held judicial office at ORG .

NORP In DATE the applicant , in series of media interviews , accused high - ranking judicial officials of putting pressure on her in connection with a high - profile criminal case .

On DATE the Judicial Qualifications Board of GPE decided that the applicant ’s statements had been insulting to the judiciary and had been defamatory as regards the individuals mentioned therein . It found that the applicant had thus committed a disciplinary offence and terminated her office as a judge .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the Judicial Qualifications Board of Moscow . It found that the applicant ’s statements in the media had been false , unsubstantiated and damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and to the authority of all courts of law . It also established that the applicant had publicly expressed an opinion prejudicial to the outcome of a pending criminal case .

On DATE ORG of GPE , ruling at final instance , upheld the judgment of DATE , having confirmed the earlier findings of the lower courts .

On DATE the ORG adopted a judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , in which it found that the applicant ’s dismissal from the judiciary had violated her right to the freedom of expression guaranteed by LAW .

In its judgment , the ORG examined the proceedings before the Judicial Qualifications Board of GPE and the ensuing judicial review . It considered that nothing in the impugned interviews would have justified the authorities’ claims of disclosure of confidential information about the pending criminal case . Having noted that the applicant had publicly criticised the conduct of various officials , and had alleged that pressure on judges was common , the ORG found that she had undoubtedly raised a very important matter of public interest which had to be open to free debate in a NORP society . It further found that her allegations had not been convincingly refuted in the domestic proceedings . Even if the applicant had allowed herself a certain degree of exaggeration and generalisation , the ORG found that her statements had to be regarded as fair comment on a matter of great public importance ( ibid . , § CARDINAL ) .

The ORG also found that the disciplinary procedure which imposed a sanction on the applicant had not complied with important procedural guarantees , in particular as regards the impartiality of ORG , which had considered her appeal despite the fact that that court ’s President was implicated in the statements ( ibid . , § § DATE ) . The ORG finally observed that the manner in which the penalty had been imposed was capable of having a “ chilling effect ” on judges wishing to participate in public debate concerning the effectiveness of judicial institutions and held that it had been disproportionately severe .

The ORG concluded that the domestic authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the need to protect the authority of the judiciary and the protection of the reputation or rights of others , on the one hand , and the need to protect the applicant ’s right to freedom of expression on the other .

NORP The applicant was awarded MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of nonpecuniary damage . No award was made in respect of pecuniary damage because no claims had been made under this head , nor was an award made in respect of costs and expenses because they had not been substantiated .

On DATE , the ORG ’s request for the case to be referred to ORG having been rejected , the judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG , asking it to quash the decision of DATE . Relying on the ORG ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE , she sought to have the proceedings concerning her dismissal reopened on the grounds of new or newly discovered circumstances and to have the case transferred to ORG for fresh examination . She argued that LAW , read in the light of LAW , required a case to be reopened if ORG had found a violation of the LAW on account of domestic judicial decisions taken in a case . She claimed that the finding of a violation of LAW as a result of her dismissal from the judiciary constituted a newly discovered circumstance within the meaning of NORP procedural law and that it bound the authorities to reconsider the merits of her case .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application . In so far as relevant , it found as follows :

“ ... in accordance with [ NORP ] procedural law , not [ all ] judgments [ of the ORG ] finding a violation of the ORG provide grounds for the review of a judicial decision , but only a judgment finding a violation of the LAW in the course of the adjudication of a particular case .

The Presidium of ORG ... has clarified that a judgment of the [ Court ] finding a violation of the [ Convention ] that affects the legal standing of a citizen is considered as an independent basis for the review of the national court ’s judgment on the matter in relation to which the violation of the Convention was found on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances .

In Recommendation No . R ( DATE ) CARDINAL of ORG ... it is also pointed out that the Contracting Parties are encouraged to examine their national legal systems with a view to ensuring that there exist adequate possibilities of re - examination of the case , including reopening of proceedings , in instances where the ORG has found a violation of the LAW .

It follows that ... the function of the court deciding on whether to reopen a case on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances is not limited to automatic quashing of the judgment with reference to the [ ORG ’s ] judgment , but involves the precise identification of the matter examined by the [ ORG ] and its relation to the circumstances taking place in the course of the [ domestic ] adjudication of the case .

The reason for this is that , in accordance with the general principles set out in the LAW , the exercise of supranational control by the [ ORG ] over [ domestic ] courts is not absolute , but is limited by the internationally recognised principle of respect for the autonomy of the national NORP judicial decisions .

Accordingly , the [ ORG ’s ] finding of a violation of the ORG in relation to a particular applicant does not by itself constitute a basis for the review of a judgment taken by the national courts ...

If the [ Court ] finds a violation of [ those ] provisions of the LAW that guarantee the general principles of lawfulness in the course of adjudication by national courts , this may provide grounds for the review of domestic judicial decisions in accordance with the procedure provided by law , unless an obstacle of an objective nature prevents it .

If , on the other hand , the [ Court ] finds a violation of the LAW unrelated to the fundamental guarantees of fair trial ... it may not give grounds for review ... under any rules of procedure because the [ ORG ’s finding of a violation ] has been [ sufficiently ] compensated by the mere fact of [ its ] acknowledgment or by the payment by ORG the just satisfaction award ...

The right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by LAW .

However , there is no ... indication that the [ Court ] declared the [ applicant ’s ] complaint admissible under LAW .

It is clear from the [ ORG ’s ] judgment of CARDINAL DATE that the question of [ whether ] the judicial decisions taken in [ her ] civil case complied with LAW was not originally the subject of the ORG ’s examination .

... [ S]he complained ... under LAW ... and it was a violation of LAW , not LAW , which the [ ORG ] found .

The violation [ found by the ORG ] ... was unconnected with the fundamental guarantees of fair hearing in civil proceedings .

... [ T]he conclusions made by the [ ORG ] in paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment ... are general statements concerning [ the applicant ’s ] freedom of expression and not her right to a fair hearing .

It follows that the [ ORG ’s decision ] in the above judgment can not constitute by itself a ground for the reopening of civil proceedings ...

In [ her ] application , [ the applicant ] also claims that under LAW undertake to abide by final judgments of the ORG in any case to which they are parties .

However , such reference to LAW is incorrect because the review of national NORP decisions on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances does not fall [ within the mandatory conditions of enforceability ] of the [ ORG ’s ] judgments .

The operative part of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ... contains no express or implicit indication that the [ domestic decision ] is subject to review .

However , it is the operative part [ of the ORG ’s judgments ] that binds the High Contracting Parties under LAW .

Accordingly [ the applicant ] is not a priori entitled to seek the review of the above judicial decision on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances within the framework of the execution of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

... [ The just satisfaction award of ] QUANTITY constitutes , under the [ ORG ’s ] case - law , exhaustive and sufficient just satisfaction ... for the violation found under LAW because the applicant is not currently suffering , and can not suffer , any negative effects resulting from the domestic judicial decision on her freedom of expression as defined in LAW , and her right of freedom of expression is ... not limited at the moment .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE does not disclose the existence of any facts of legal significance which [ the applicant ] had not been aware of during the proceedings in this civil case .

The [ ORG ’s ] statements in the judgment as to whether the disciplinary penalty imposed on [ the applicant ] was an appropriate measure are generalisations of a hypothetical and subjective , discretionary nature ; personal opinion ; and a debating point . They therefore can not , in view of the requirement of legal certainty , constitute by themselves grounds for the review of a judicial decision .

The [ applicant ’s ] motion to have the case transferred to ORG for examination ... must be refused because ... the first - instance court declining its jurisdiction in favour of another court is not permitted by civil procedural law in respect of a case where a [ final ] judgment remains in force .

The reopening of the proceedings [ in order ] to review the judgment of ORG of DATE on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances and the transfer of the civil case to ORG of GPE for examination must be refused .

This decision is subject to appeal to ORG of GPE , to be filed within DATE . ”

The applicant filed an appeal to ORG , which it dismissed on DATE , upholding ORG decision . The decision in so far as relevant read as follows :

“ On DATE the [ ORG ] delivered the judgment in the case GPE v. GPE in which a violation of LAW was found .

In [ the applicant ’s ] view , the said judgment of the [ Court ] constitutes grounds for the review of the judicial decision taken in the case .

On DATE ORG rejected [ the applicant ’s ] application for a review of [ the same court ’s ] judgment of DATE owing to newly discovered circumstances .

In accordance with LAW decisions and judgments that have entered into force may be reviewed owing to newly discovered circumstances .

ORG accepted and examined the substance of [ the applicant ’s ] application for review of [ its ] judgment of DATE on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances .

By operation of LAW , everyone has a right to express one ’s opinion freely . This right includes the freedom to hold one ’s opinion and the freedom to impart or receive information without interference by public authorities .

At the same time , the exercise of these freedoms , which carry responsibilities and obligations , may be subject to restrictions or sanctions which are prescribed by law and are necessary in a NORP society for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary .

Such restrictions are set out for judges in LAW in GPE and LAW ...

As is evident from the file , the reasons for the disciplinary penalty being imposed on [ the applicant ] were her media statements ...

Acting in breach of LAW she made public statements and comments about a criminal case , the judgment in which had not entered into force .

It should not be overlooked that [ the applicant ’s ] statements about her position , about her attitude to judges and the justice system took place not during her examination of the criminal case but a long time after .

She [ made these statements ] during the election campaign ...

The first - instance court that decided to reject [ her ] application for review of [ its ] judgment of DATE owing to newly discovered circumstances took these circumstances into account .

... and finds that ORG decision must remain unchanged . ”

The Code of Civil Procedure ( in force at the material time ) contains the following provisions regulating the reopening of civil proceedings after a final judgment on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances :

“ CARDINAL . [ Judgments ] which have come into force may be reconsidered on the basis of newly discovered circumstances .

The grounds for reconsideration ... shall be :

( CARDINAL ) significant circumstances that were unknown and could not have been known to the applicant ;

( CARDINAL ) the annulment of ... a decision of the ORG authority ... that was the basis for the judgment or decision of the court ... ”

“ ... [ An application for the reconsideration of a [ judgment ] owing to the discovery of new circumstances ] may be lodged by the parties , the prosecutor , or by other persons who participated in the proceedings within DATE of the discovery of the new circumstances . ”

“ CARDINAL . Following the examination of an application for the reconsideration of a [ judgment ] owing to the discovery of new circumstances , the court may either grant the application and quash the [ judgment ] , or dismiss the application .

A court decision by which an application for the reconsideration of a [ judgment ] owing to the discovery of new circumstances is granted shall not be subject to appeal .

Provided that a [ judgment ] is quashed , the case shall be examined in accordance with the rules of this LAW . ”

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG indicated that LAW should be interpreted as , in principle , allowing the launching of proceedings to have a final judgment re - examined on account of newly discovered circumstances , such as the finding of a violation of LAW in a given case by ORG . LAW was amended accordingly on DATE .

The Code of Commercial Procedure provides for the reopening of commercial proceedings on the basis of newly discovered circumstances . CARDINAL of the grounds allowing such reopening is a finding by ORG that there has been violation of the LAW in the examination of a particular case by a commercial court ( LAW ) .

Recommendation No . R ( DATE ) CARDINAL of ORG on the re - examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of ORG , adopted on DATE , encouraged the Contracting Parties “ to examine their national legal systems with a view to ensuring that there exist adequate possibilities of reexamination of the case , including reopening of proceedings , in instances where the ORG has found a violation of the LAW , especially where : ( i ) the injured party continues to suffer very serious negative consequences because of the outcome of the domestic decision at issue , which are not adequately remedied by the just satisfaction and can not be rectified except by re - examination or reopening , and ( ii ) the judgment of the ORG leads to the conclusion that ( a ) the impugned domestic decision is on the merits contrary to the LAW , or ( b ) the violation found is based on procedural errors or shortcomings of such gravity that a serious doubt is cast on the outcome of the domestic proceedings complained of . ”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the Appendix .

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .