No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time , the applicant was working as a journalist for the newsroom of ORG ( hereinafter “ the LOC ” ) .

The ORG is an independent public service broadcaster , comprising television , radio and online services . The ORG broadcasts news programmes on television TIME at TIME that last for TIME . During the news programmes , a series of news items is first introduced by a news anchor in a studio , and then each news item is presented by different news reporters , whether current events , live or prerecorded interviews or editorial content .

On DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE the ORG broadcast news items , prepared and presented by the applicant , on its news programme at CARDINAL p.m. The subject of all CARDINAL news items was a loan transaction of CARDINAL GPE ( ORG ; approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the exchange rate applicable in DATE ) between an NORP company , Y , and a shelf company in GPE , that had been written off in its entirety . The news items were introduced by a news anchor and then a film clip was played , showing pictures related to the subject of the news item while the applicant narrated .

On TIME news on DATE the news anchor introduced the news items , stating that the authorities were investigating whether the ISK CARDINAL had made its way back to GPE and that there was a suspicion that B , the owner of company Y , had returned the money to his business partners . In the film clip , the applicant stated that the NORP authorities believed that they had found the money trail and they thought that the money had made its way back to GPE , not necessarily into B ’s pockets but into those of his business partners . The applicant then speculated on who the business partners might be and pictures were shown , inter alia , of A , a prominent businessman in GPE . Lastly , the applicant stated that the question of where the money had ended up would be answered after the authorities’ investigation .

On TIME news on DATE , the news anchor introduced the news items by stating that the authorities were investigating whether B , A and C , an investor in GPE , had jointly planned a business deal where ORG CARDINAL seemed to vanish in GPE . Furthermore , the anchor stated that documents , from DATE and onwards , supported this suspicion and that the documents indicated that the money had found its way back into the pockets of the same group . In the film clip the applicant stated that the authorities believed that they had found the money trail , as had been previously reported , and that they were in possession of documents indicating that A , B and C had planned the GPE deal in advance , in order to send the money to GPE and then back into their own pockets again , via a circuitous route . Pictures of A , B and C were shown on the screen with the text “ under investigation ” written below each picture .

On TIME news on DATE the news anchor introduced the news item . In the film clip , the applicant stated that in DATE company Y had loaned ORG CARDINAL to the company in GPE . The funds had been transferred to GPE on DATE and DATE , on DATE , a loan agreement had been prepared . On DATE , the loan had been written off in its entirety from the accounts of company Y. Furthermore , the applicant stated that B had issued a declaration claiming that there was nothing suspicious about the loan . Lastly , the applicant stated : “ The NORP authorities have also searched for the funds , as we have previously reported , and they believe that they have found the money trail , as they have documents indicating that [ B ] , [ A ] and [ C ] organised the GPE deal in advance . That is , they sent the money to GPE , and later the money found its way back , through several detours , into the pockets of the threesome ” . Pictures of A , B and C were shown above a world map , a pile of money was shown being divided up into CARDINAL parts in GPE and each part was then visually transferred to the pictures of the men .

On DATE , a corresponding article was published on ORG ’s website . After the news broadcast , A issued a press release . The online news article was updated to include the press release .

On DATE A lodged defamation proceedings against the applicant before ORG and requested that the words “ [ A ] ” and “ threesome ” in the above - mentioned statement of the news item broadcast on DATE be declared null and void .

NORP Before the domestic courts , the applicant maintained that he had based the news item on information from sources , both verbal and written , that he deemed highly trustworthy . Furthermore , the applicant maintained that when he had prepared the news item he had attempted to contact A by telephone , in vain .

During the proceedings before ORG the applicant submitted a letter dated DATE from ORG confirming that the loan transaction , which was the subject of the news items , had been reported to the police and was under investigation . The Special Prosecutor also stated that this had been confirmed in the media in DATE . It does not transpire from the letter from ORG whether A was under investigation as a suspect or charged . The applicant did not , during the proceedings before ORG submit any other documents or evidence to in support of the information concerning A presented in the news items .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found for the applicant . In its reasoning it referred to the right to freedom of expression and the protection of private life as guaranteed by LAW .

The judgment contained the following reasoning :

“ ... The banking collapse of DATE caused great changes to the business environment and society in general . A wave of bankruptcies hit companies and individuals , the value of the krona plummeted and changes were made to the ruling government , to name a few . The media have covered these events since the crisis began and the individuals involved have also been the subject of news coverage , including [ A ] . In determining whether the content of the news item is a part of the social debate and therefore of public interest , it should be kept in mind that [ A ] himself , as well as the companies he has represented , has been in the media and public debate for DATE . [ A ] has also been very prominent in business , both here and abroad , and in both a negative and positive light . [ Company Z ] , led by [ A ] , was a large shareholder in [ F ] ... , and held an active share in ORG News about [ A ] has therefore more often than not been about his role in the banking collapse , and after the collapse of the NORP banks in DATE the media was full of news on the banking collapse and crisis , the reasons behind them and related matters . The media have been called upon to disseminate all material that could be of public interest , especially if the content might shed light on elements pertaining to parties who have played key roles in the NORP economy . In the light of the circumstances that developed after the banking collapse , [ A ] will have to withstand personal discussion of his actions and participation in business . Loan facilities and transfers of funds occurring in the leadup to the bank failure are important news stories that are relevant to the general public . Restricting that discussion through sanctions should only be done after great consideration .

[ The applicant ] has stated that the news item is based on sources , both verbal and written , that he finds trustworthy . [ The applicant ] can not be asked to prove these statements , as the journalist ’s right to protect his sources and their identity has been upheld in judicial rulings . [ The applicant ] has also sufficiently demonstrated that he tried to contact [ A ] before he delivered the news item and he has therefore not violated ORG procedures in that respect .

The ORG does not agree with [ A ] that he is accused of actions punishable by law in the news item . The news item must be assessed as a whole and not on the basis of individual statements in the piece . As previously noted , the ORG must consider the circumstances under which the statements are made , that they are necessary for a social debate on the causes and repercussions of the bank failure and also that some discrepancies can occur when dealing with complicated loan facilities and business deals . When the statements on [ A ] are assessed in this light , they are not found to violate the provisions of ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Penal Code no . CARDINAL . ... ”

On DATE A appealed against ORG judgment to ORG .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG overturned the ORG judgment and ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) to A in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , plus interest and LAW ( CARDINAL ORG ) for A ’s legal costs before the domestic courts . The CARDINAL words were declared null and void .

“ ... In assessing where the line should be drawn between freedom of expression , as protected by LAW , and the right to privacy , as protected by LAW , it is important to determine whether the content published can be considered a part of the social debate and therefore of public interest , see ORG judgments of DATE in case no . CARDINAL , DATE in case no . DATE , DATE in case no . CARDINAL and DATE in case no . CARDINAL . The media play an important role in disseminating information and opinions on social issues . The public has a right to information on such issues and there must be particularly strong reasons for determining that limitations on media freedom are warranted in a democratic society . The collapse that occurred in the NORP economy following the failure of the CARDINAL NORP commercial banks in DATE has had a significant and broad effect on all activity in the country and the general public ’s quality of life . Public debate and media coverage have been very focused on identifying the preceding events and reasons for the collapse , and reporting on the financial business of individuals has often been personal .

When the content of the news item debated in this case is assessed as a whole , and the disputed remarks are evaluated in context with other statements in the news report and in consideration of the visual presentation , the comments clearly implied that [ A ] had committed an act which was punishable in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL .

[ The applicant ] has not presented any documents supporting the legitimacy of the statements , for which he has to bear the burden , as it was incumbent on him rather than [ A ] to secure such evidence . [ The applicant ] has also not demonstrated that he sought information from [ A ] on the content while preparing the news report . He therefore failed in his duty , as outlined in LAW dated DATE , to seek “ ... information from both or all parties and attempt to show their points of view as equally as possible ” . ORG therefore finds that [ the applicant ] could not have been acting in good faith as pertains to the accuracy of the remarks in the news piece . Therefore [ A ’s ] demand for the quoted statements to be declared null and void is granted , pursuant to LAW , cf . Article CARDINAL of the Penal Code . ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .

The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


SOBERANÍA DE LA RAZÓN AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

Branko Lubarda;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The first applicant , PERSON , is a NORP political party registered with ORG in DATE . The second and the third applicants , Ms. PERSON and Mr. PERSON Luis Mazón Costa , are NORP nationals who stood as CARDINAL of the first applicant ’s candidates for the DATE elections to ORG . The applicants are represented before the ORG by the third applicant , Mr. PERSON Costa , a lawyer in GPE . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .


Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

NORP The applicant , Mr Slavko Stojnić , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , ORG .

NORP The applicant was an officer of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG ( “ the SFRY ” ) . The present case concerns his attempt to repossess his pre - war flat in GPE .

The detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .

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

In DATE the applicant was allocated an occupancy right to a military flat in GPE .

On an unknown date in DATE he bought that flat under the terms of LAW and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY ( MONEY ( DEM ) at the time ) .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in GPE . On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE the competent ORG rejected his appeal as submitted out of time .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex CARDINAL to ORG ) about his inability to repossess his pre - war flat . He relied on LAW .

On DATE ORG ( the legal successor of ORG ) found a violation of LAW because of the length of the restitution proceedings and awarded the applicant MONEY ( BAM ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) for non - pecuniary damage in this connection . As regards the complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL , the Commission concluded that the interference with the applicant ’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his “ possessions ” had been justified . However , it ordered ORG to secure the applicant ’s right to compensation envisaged under section DATE of ORG , without further delay and at the latest within DATE from the delivery of that decision .

On DATE , the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) seeking to establish the validity of a purchase contract and to register his title to the flat in the land register . On DATE ORG declared the purchase contract legally valid . However , it rejected the applicant ’s claim to have his title registered . The court held that under LAW DATE those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war , like the present applicant , were not entitled to repossess their pre - war military flats and to register their title , but were entitled to compensation . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to GPE , a member of ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the Government of GPE that the applicant ’s right to allocation of a military - flat in GPE had been established by the competent authorities .

The Government did not dispute the facts submitted by the applicant . However , they provided additional information as follows .

On DATE the applicant received BAM PERSON ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation for his prewar flat in GPE in accordance with section PERSON of ORG , as ordered by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( no . GPE , § § DATE , DATE ) .


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

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in FAC .

On DATE the applicant was detained pending trial on charges of aggravated murder and placed in ORG .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG convicted him of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant lodged his first application before the ORG , namely application no . CARDINAL , alleging that his rights under LAW had been violated on account of , inter alia , the material conditions of his detention in FAC . He argued in particular that the cells were small and overcrowded ; that the toilets were not separated from the cells , were uncovered and smelled badly because there was no running water ; that he lacked sufficient physical exercise given that he was rarely taken out of his cell and allowed to walk in the small courtyard , which in any case smelled unpleasant ; and that his food was inadequate and low in calories .

On DATE the applicant ’s complaint concerning the material conditions of detention was communicated to ORG and they were asked to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case .

On DATE the observations submitted by ORG were forwarded to the applicant and he was asked twice to submit observations in reply . However , he failed to submit any observations .

By a decision of DATE the ORG decided to strike application no . CARDINAL out of its list of cases , pursuant to LAW . The applicant did not ask for the aforementioned application to be restored to the ORG ’s list of cases .

According to the applicant , in ORG he had to sleep on metal beds with large holes in them . The cells lacked natural light and air , were squalid and damp , infested with lice and bed bugs , and there were no proper facilities for serving food . The sanitary facilities lacked air vents and running water and had no doors or mirrors , while the waste bins were made out of cut plastic containers .

The applicant attached to his letter several photographs allegedly taken by him in prison to support his allegations .

The applicant also contended that the food was poor and that he did not have access to adequate medical care .

The Government informed the ORG that the applicant had been detained in ORG from DATE to DATE , DATE , DATE to DATE and CARDINAL DATE to the present date .

During his detention the applicant had stayed in several detention cells .

All the detention cells where the applicant had stayed had been connected to electricity , heating and water supplies . Each cell had a window measuring QUANTITY long by QUANTITY wide or QUANTITY long by QUANTITY wide , depending on the size of the cell and the number of occupants . The cells were aired manually by opening the available window . They had a separate area with sanitary and personal hygiene facilities , which could be accessed from the detention room directly . The sanitary facility area was fitted with an air vent .

The cells had individual beds and were adequately furnished for the detainees to be able to eat their meals and store their personal belongings . They were fitted with radiators connected to the prison ’s own heating system , which provided an adequate temperature when needed . The sanitary utilities were functioning adequately and they were promptly fixed whenever they were damaged .

The detainees had permanent access to drinking water and bathed twice a week in specially designated areas , based on a schedule approved by the prison authorities .

The applicant received a diet which was served in accordance with the regulation in force . The quality of the food was checked DATE by , inter alia , a medical office representative and a detainee representative . There was no indication that the food quality had been inappropriate during the applicant ’s detention . The food was served in the cells , which were furnished with wooden tables and chairs or benches .

Hygiene in the cells was the detainees’ responsibility , and they were provided regularly with cleaning materials by the prison authorities . From DATE to DATE the cells were fumigated by specialist companies every CARDINAL or periodically by the hygiene manager attached to the medical office . The inmates were provided with waste baskets and the sanitary facilities were cleaned DATE with chlorine by the prison hygiene manager .

On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against ORG authorities , contending that his right to adequate medical assistance had been breached . He argued that on CARDINAL occasion he had not been examined by the doctor and had been unable to purchase the prescribed antibiotics the following day .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action on the grounds that the medical examination and the required treatment had been made available to him DATE . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts .

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a new set of proceedings against ORG authorities , contending that his rights to adequate medical assistance , to correspondence , to working and educational activities , as well as to access to running water and adequate detention conditions , had been breached . He had to share a cell with CARDINAL other inmates , was involved in activities only once a week , was not provided with adequate medical care or given the correct diet . In addition , the sanitary facilities were out of order , the prison lacked running water , his cell was squalid and lacked air , his right of correspondence was restricted and he was not allowed to work .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . On the basis of the information provided by the prison authorities , it held that the size of the prison did not allow any reduction in the number of detainees per cell , and that the applicant ’s cell allowed QUANTITY of air for each detainee . Moreover , he had access to DATE activities and exercise , and was provided with adequate medical care in the prison hospital . His cell had been disinfected in DATE and no insects had been found during the sanitary inspection of DATE . Furthermore , the applicant was provided with an adequate diet . The quality of the food was checked daily and there was no indication that it was of poor quality . In addition , the applicant ’s cell was equipped with private and hygienic sanitary facilities , which provided permanent access to running water . Also , the applicant ’s right to correspondence was observed . Lastly , his request to be allowed to work had not been examined by the work commission on the grounds that he did not meet the work - related requirements . The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a finalinstance court , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE . It held that the applicant had failed to identify a particular circumstance when his right of correspondence had been breached . The distribution of correspondence to prisoners by the supervisors of the prison sections rather than by specially authorised personnel had not been unlawful . The applicant had made a general complaint about the absence of adequate medical treatment without identifying the circumstances in which his right had been breached . His medical file contained information that he had repeatedly refused treatment or examinations by specialist doctors . The quality of the food had been adequate and had been reviewed DATE by a representative of the medical office . Although the cells were overcrowded , the detainees had access to the statutory number of QUANTITY of air , and to sanitary facilities and installations which provided access to drinking water as well as adequate privacy . They also had access to daily activities and exercise . The photographs of the cell bathroom submitted to the court by the applicant did not prove the absence of running or drinking water . Some of the bathroom installations were indeed damaged or missing , but that was linked to the inmates’ behaviour and the limited budget available to ORG . In addition , according to the documents submitted by the detention centre , in DATE the prison had been disinfected twice . The aspects the applicant complained of had been examined bearing in mind the needs of the other detainees and the aspects which made the observance of the GPE rights possible , namely the available staff and budget . Lastly , the applicant ’s remaining complaints were examined and dismissed by the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences on the basis of the documents submitted by the prison authorities .

On unspecified dates the applicant brought CARDINAL further sets of proceedings against ORG authorities , seeking an injunction to be allowed to receive several food items from his family .

By decisions of DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to ORG allowed the applicant ’s actions seeking to be allowed to receive several food items .


CASE OF ŠTERJOV AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicants’ personal details are listed in the appendix below .

On DATE CARDINAL people ( “ the predecessors ” ) , the ninth and the CARDINAL applicants initiated civil proceedings for determination of title to plots of land .

DATE the predecessors died . The first , second , third and fourth applicants stepped in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessor . The fifth to eighth and the tenth to CARDINAL applicants did not step in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessors .

On DATE the ninth applicant died .

On DATE the CARDINAL applicant died and his heirs , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , applied to continue the application in his name .

On DATE the fourth applicant died and her heirs , the second and third applicants , applied to continue the application also in her name .

The impugned proceedings , which were reconsidered on CARDINAL occasion , ended on DATE when the final decision of ORG was served on the applicants . This decision listed the following as plaintiffs : the first , second , third , fourth , ninth and CARDINAL applicants as well as the predecessors of the remaining applicants .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

The applicants complained , inter alia , of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of an effective remedy in this respect .


CASE OF SELAMI AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković

The applicants alleged , before the domestic courts and before the ORG , that on DATE police detained Mr PERSON and took him from PERSON to GPE where he was severely beaten . Mr PERSON sustained serious injuries to his head including a brain haemorrhage and fell into a coma . The police brought him to ORG , where he underwent brain surgery . He was in a coma for DATE and was connected to a ventilator for assisted breathing .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicants contacted ORG seeking information about Mr PERSON ’s whereabouts . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG had informed them that PERSON had been admitted to ORG .

According to a medical certificate from ORG issued on DATE on the basis of the available medical evidence , Mr PERSON was in a post - operative state ( following medical trepanation of his skull and evacuation of the internal brain haemorrhage ) ; parts of his skull and the tough brain membrane had been seriously damaged ; he had suffered reduced mobility of all limbs , muscle hypotonia and neck and rib fractures . According to the report , those injuries had qualified as serious and had had permanent effects on the life and body of Mr PERSON .

As to the subsequent establishment of facts by the domestic civil courts , see paragraphs CARDINAL below .

On DATE , DATE after first having been detained and beaten by the police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , an investigating judge of ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) opened an investigation against Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other persons in connection with their alleged involvement in enemy activities against the ORG and ordered their pre - trial detention . The investigating judge specified that Mr PERSON had been hospitalised and that the detention order would be enforced as soon as he was discharged from hospital . Mr PERSON ’s detention was extended on CARDINAL occasions . The extension orders specified that he had been deprived of his liberty on DATE and that he had been held under the detention order in ORG until DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON was indicted for membership of a terrorist group whose aim had been to organise terrorist attacks on the police in order to endanger the security and constitutional order of the ORG . On DATE Mr PERSON was released on bail on account of , inter alia , the “ serious deterioration of [ his ] health ” .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the trial court discontinued ( запира ) the criminal proceedings against PERSON since the prosecution had withdrawn the charges . The remaining accused were acquitted ( ослободени од обвинение ) .

On DATE Mr PERSON contacted ORG with a view to securing an out - of - court settlement and payment of MONEY ( MKD – equivalent to QUANTITY ( EUR ) ) in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused , so it was asserted , by the unlawful deprivation of his liberty and the serious injuries that he had sustained at the hands of the police on DATE . In support he submitted the medical certificate from ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the absence of any response from ORG , on DATE Mr PERSON and the applicants submitted CARDINAL separate lawsuits , CARDINAL in relation to his unlawful detention and CARDINAL in relation to his physical ill - treatment by the police , claiming pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages in both . They reiterated that on CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty ; that he had been taken to police stations where he had been beaten and physically ill - treated ; and that the police had taken him to ORG where he had undergone head surgery . On DATE he had been transferred from the hospital to GPE detention facility in view of his detention on remand . The applicants’ claim was based on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ORG за облигационите односи ) , which entitles a spouse and children to obtain non - pecuniary damages in a case of severe disability of the victim ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Both claims were joined and decided in a single set of proceedings . During the proceedings , the domestic courts commissioned CARDINAL expert opinions and admitted into evidence extensive medical material issued by relevant medical institutions in GPE concerning Mr PERSON ’s earlier injury while at work in that ORG .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG ruled partly for Mr PERSON and , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it awarded him the equivalent of LAW in non - pecuniary damages for the unjustified detention DATE . It dismissed the remaining part of Mr PERSON claim . As to the ORG claims , the court held that the consequences suffered by PERSON as a consequence of “ the unjustified detention ” could not be regarded “ extremely severe disability ” , as required by section ORG ) of LAW .

On the basis of the available medical evidence , the court established that in DATE , while at work in GPE , Mr PERSON had fallen and injured his spine and right leg , which had become dysfunctional . As a result of that injury , he had been certified as disabled for the purposes of work in GPE and he had had to use crutches and a disability - adapted car .

Relying on the expert evidence admitted at the trial , the court established , as a matter of fact , that during the “ incriminating event of CARDINAL DATE ... Mr PERSON had sustained serious bodily injury . As a result of the head trauma , there was haemorrhage ... in the right ( part of the brain ) ... After the surgery , Mr PERSON had remained in coma and ... had been connected to a ventilator for assisted breathing . He had recovered after DATE ... ” . The court further referred to the expert opinion according to which Mr PERSON had sustained strong and intensive physical pain , as well as strong emotional pain and humiliation while being beaten . He had sustained serious head injuries , which had affected , though not permanently , the left side of his body and had provoked other negative psychological effects .

Relying on the statements of PERSON and the first and fourth applicants , the court established that in DATE the police had searched their house . They had asked PERSON to come with them to ORG police station . There , he had been questioned in relation to an incident in which CARDINAL policemen had been killed . He had denied having any connection to that incident . He had been taken by police car to GPE , where he had been placed in “ a cellar or a garage ” and beaten . The applicants had not been aware of Mr PERSON ’s whereabouts for DATE after which they had discovered that he had been hospitalised in ORG . Despite these findings of fact , ORG expressed no conclusion about the lawfulness of any detention prior to DATE or the treatment suffered by PERSON during that detention .

Both Mr PERSON and the applicants appealed to ORG . They argued that the first - instance court had not determined their claim in relation to the serious injuries inflicted on him by the police , as a result of which he had had his skull broken ; had suffered a brain haemorrhage ; had required head surgery ; had been immobilised and had lost the full use of his hands . ORG also challenged the judgment .

On DATE Mr PERSON died .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals by PERSON and the applicants and allowed the appeal by ORG . It overturned the lower court ’s judgment and awarded Mr PERSON the equivalent of LAW in respect of non - pecuniary damage due to his “ unjustified detention DATE and DATE ” . The court , inter alia , stated :

“ In the impugned judgment , the first - instance court established ... on the basis of the expert opinion [ that Mr PERSON ] had experienced intense pain on his head and body when he had been physically attacked ... every blow had caused physical pain of different intensity , accompanied by swelling and bruises on his body ... Regarding the intensity and duration of the fear , the experts are of the opinion that when arrested and physically assaulted and hit , particularly on his head , [ Mr PERSON ] had had intense , unpleasant , emotional experiences of primary fear ... which persisted until he had fallen into a coma ... Regarding the emotional suffering due to his unjustified deprivation of liberty and detention , the experts are of the opinion that the basis for an award of non - pecuniary damages ... is the time calculated as of CARDINAL DATE ... when [ Mr PERSON ] was arrested by the police ... , transferred to other police stations , where he was subjected to serious physical ill - treatment and beaten , which caused serious bodily injury ...

This court considers that the [ above ] facts were correctly established .

... This court established on the basis of medical evidence that in DATE [ Mr PERSON ] had been certified disabled in GPE and that he had been receiving disability benefits ever since . The serious injury inflicted on him ( during the DATE detention ) had caused his left limbs to become dysfunctional to a minor extent , which can not be regarded as an extremely severe disability . ”

The court rejected the ORG arguments that the first - instance court had not decided the claim for compensation for damage sustained as a result of Mr PERSON physical ill - treatment . In this connection it stated that :

“ the operative provisions and the reasons given in the [ impugned ] judgment clearly and unequivocally confirm that the court had decided the entire claim ... This court considers that the emotional suffering due to unjustified detention is a single type of damage which includes all the detrimental effects on the victim , including his physical ill - treatment ... In assessing the amount of the award , this court took into consideration all therespect with which the plaintiff was held in his family and in the community , that during the unjustified deprivation of liberty he was physically ill - treated and sustained serious bodily injury , as a result of which his left limbs became dysfunctional to a minor extent , that he was hospitalised and operated on and that he had been disabled before ... ”

By a final decision of DATE , delivered by a notary public , the fourth applicant was declared the sole heir of Mr PERSON ’s inheritance , including the compensation awarded to him . The remaining applicants refused to accept being declared heirs of the late Mr PERSON .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of ORG reiterating their earlier arguments . The fourth applicant , as the statutory successor of the late Mr PERSON , lodged the appeal in his name and on behalf of PERSON .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal on points of law finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasoning given by the lower courts .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the Court by Ms PERSON Tuncer , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation , namely the ORG .

On DATE she was arrested for interrogation at the AntiTerrorism Branch of ORG ( “ the Anti - Terrorism Branch ” ) . In her statement , taken in the absence of a lawyer , the applicant declared that she had worked as a secretary at a local branch of HADEP for DATE and that she had been a member of the youth branch of ORG since DATE . She also admitted that she was a member of the ORG , that on CARDINAL occasion she had hidden a bomb in her house upon the request of another ORG member , that she had assisted in sending a number of persons to ORG camps in eastern GPE and GPE and that she had acted as a messenger for some ORG members detained at the PERSON prison . The applicant duly signed her statement .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who stated that there were no traces of ill - treatment on her body .

Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant was brought before ORG at ORG , again in the absence of a lawyer . The applicant alleged that at the Anti - Terrorism Branch , she had been forced to sign a statement which had been prepared by the police officers and stated that she did not even know the content of the statement . When her police statement was read out to her , she denied any involvement in the activities mentioned therein , apart from her membership of the youth branch of ORG and her work experience there .

On DATE , the applicant was further interrogated by a single judge at ORG , in the absence of a lawyer . She denied all the accusations against her , reiterating the statement she had made before the public prosecutor . At the end of the questioning , the judge ordered her pre - trial detention .

On DATE ORG at ORG filed an indictment with that court against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons , accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation under LAW no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL civilian judges , held its first hearing . The applicant made her defence statement at the fourth hearing held on DATE , and denied all the charges against her . The applicant also denied her police statement , alleging that she had been forced to sign it without knowing its content . At the end of the hearing ORG ordered the applicant ’s release .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation . Accordingly it sentenced her to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment . In convicting her , ORG mainly relied on the applicant ’s police statement , and the statements made by her co - defendants .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG .

In the meantime , by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG were abolished . The case against the applicant was accordingly transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation under LAW no . DATE ) based on the evidence in the file and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It expressly held that the assize court had correctly classified the offence committed by the applicant as membership of an illegal organisation .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time , as well as recent developments , can be found in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .

The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant .

NORP In particular , the Government acknowledged that the applicant had remained in pre - trial detention for an excessively lengthy period in violation of LAW . They offered to pay the applicant MONEY and invited the ORG to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with LAW ( c ) of the LAW . The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent ORG at the rate applicable on the date of payment , and would be payable within DATE from the date of notification of the ORG ’s judgement . In the event of failure to pay this amount within the abovementioned DATE period , the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them , from the expiry of that period until settlement , at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of ORG during the default period plus CARDINAL percentage points . The declaration did not mention the applicant ’s complaint under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW .

The applicant informed the ORG that he agreed to the terms of the declaration .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);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 region . He took part in the clean - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . He was subsequently registered disabled , and became entitled to various social benefits .

In DATE the applicant brought proceedings claiming that his benefits should be increased in accordance with a particular method . The adjustment method suggested by the applicant was approved by the domestic courts , which in addition increased the social benefits to which he was entitled to in DATE in accordance with this same method ( judgment of CARDINAL DATE ) .

NORP In DATE the applicant brought a similar set of proceedings in respect of social benefits to which he was entitled to during DATE . Relying on their previous judgment by which they approved the adjustment method suggested by the applicant , the domestic courts increased his social benefits for the new period accordingly ( judgment of DATE ) .

NORP In DATE the judgment of DATE approving the adjustment method suggested by the applicant was quashed by a supervisory review court .

In DATE the domestic courts quashed on the basis of newly discovered circumstances the judgment delivered on DATE on the ground that it was based on the judgment delivered in DATE but quashed since then by way of supervisory review .

Both judgments , of DATE and DATE , remained unenforced prior to their quashing .

In DATE the applicant brought proceedings against welfare authorities claiming arrears for various benefits as well as indexation of those benefits . ORG of GPE granted the applicant ’s claims ( judgment of DATE , upheld on DATE ) . This judgment remained unenforced for DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

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

The applicants complained of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties .


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

Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

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

On DATE the applicant was travelling on a passenger bus from GPE to GPE , with GPE as his final destination .

At TIME his bus arrived at the NORP border crossing between GPE and GPE . NORP custom officers stopped the bus , got on and started searching the passengers . CARDINAL silver ingots were found in the applicant ’s pockets .

A customs officer decided that the applicant had failed to declare the ingots and confiscated them . An offence report drafted by the officer stated that the applicant had failed to declare CARDINAL silver ingots of QUANTITY each and had thereby breached the provisions of LAW ( a ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In addition to the confiscation the applicant was fined CARDINAL NORP lei ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) . The report also stated that according to documents produced by the applicant he had bought the CARDINAL ingots from a bank .

The applicant lodged an administrative complaint with ORG , asking for the annulment of the offence report of CARDINAL October CARDINAL and the restitution of the confiscated goods . He explained that he had legally acquired the CARDINAL ingots , which had a value of ORG CARDINAL . He had kept them on him in order to prevent them being stolen during the bus trip and not to elude customs . He also stated that it had not been possible to declare goods to customs in a discrete manner or in writing . The passengers had not been allowed to get off the bus before the customs officers had got on and he had wished to avoid saying what he was carrying in front of the other passengers .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as ill - founded . Based on the elements in the case file , the court observed that the customs officer had asked the applicant whether he had anything to declare and the applicant had said no . Under those circumstances the court held that the applicant had been correctly sanctioned by the customs officer .

An appeal on points of law by the applicant ( recurs ) was dismissed with final effect on DATE by ORG . The court held that the applicant , who had signed the offence report , had failed to produce any evidence to challenge the customer officer ’s findings in that document .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON in LOC .

On DATE at TIME he was arrested by traffic police while driving a vehicle which had been declared stolen TIME , and was taken to the local police station .

On DATE at TIME he gave a confession statement .

Later on at TIME a record of his arrest was drawn up . This document indicated that he had been apprehended at TIME by an investigator , Mr S.

On DATE the ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) authorised the first applicant ’s detention . The court found that there were grounds to believe that he would abscond , because he was suspected of having committed an offence punishable by DATE imprisonment , was unemployed and without any source of income , and did not reside at his official address . It further referred to the risk that the first applicant might continue his criminal activities on the grounds that , having been released on parole on DATE , he had been apprehended DATE on suspicion of an offence similar to that for which he already had a conviction .

On DATE the first applicant was charged with theft .

On DATE the detention order of CARDINAL DATE was upheld on appeal .

By a judgment of DATE , upheld on appeal on DATE , ORG convicted the first applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE PERSON complained of having been raped by CARDINAL unidentified individuals .

A criminal investigation into the rape was opened at TIME on DATE and the second applicant was apprehended on DATE . He and the Government provided differing versions of how he was arrested .

According to the second applicant , at TIME he was stopped in the street by police and escorted to the local police station . CARDINAL and TIME he took part in an identification parade , as a result of which he was identified by the victim as one of the individuals who had raped her . TIME he was questioned by an investigator . A record of his arrest was not drawn up until TIME

According to the Government , the second applicant was taken to the police station as a witness . They have provided no indications as to when he was taken there or why he was considered to be a witness for the purposes of the investigation . The Government further claimed that the second applicant was interviewed as a witness TIME and TIME , and that the identification parade during which he was identified by the victim took place TIME At CARDINAL p.m. he was arrested as a criminal suspect and TIME later an arrest record was drawn up .

During the above procedures , the second applicant waited in different offices of the police station . Had he tried to leave , he would have been stopped by the police officers who were standing guard at the doors of the offices . As soon as the record of arrest was compiled , he was incarcerated .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE PERSON of GPE ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) remanded the second applicant in custody on the basis of LAW ( hereinafter “ the CCrP ” ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It found that he was suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence , had been identified by the victim , had escaped from the scene of the crime , did not work and had a recent criminal record , and that for those reasons he might abscond , reoffend , influence the victim and the other parties to the proceedings , destroy evidence , or otherwise obstruct the proper administration of justice . ORG did not address the second applicant ’s allegation that he had been unlawfully detained for TIME without judicial authorisation .

On DATE the second applicant appealed . Among other things , he complained that his detention was unlawful , on the grounds that he had been brought before a judge CARDINAL after his actual arrest and ORG had not established any “ exceptional circumstances ” , as required by the ORG in order to place a suspect in detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) upheld the order of CARDINAL DATE . It considered that the second applicant had been apprehended as indicated in the arrest record . It further found that ORG had based its decision on sufficient grounds . Lastly , as regards his argument concerning the absence of “ exceptional circumstances ” , ORG held as follows :

“ The exceptional nature of remanding a criminal suspect in custody implies that he must be charged not DATE from the time of his arrest . Otherwise , he should be immediately released . ”

In the meantime , on DATE the second applicant was charged with aggravated rape .

On DATE ORG found him guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

DATE and DATE the second applicant was held in FAC in connection with the criminal proceedings against him . He submitted that the facility had been severely overcrowded and in an appalling sanitary condition . The detainees did not have access to fresh air , sunlight or drinking water .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of shoplifting . ORG ( rechtbank ) imposed the measure of placement in a Persistent Offenders Institution ( inrichting voor stelselmatige daders ) for the duration of DATE on him . It took into account the statements of different police officers and probation officers who had had direct contact with the applicant . From these statements it appeared that the applicant was a drug addict who would not voluntarily cooperate with treatment plans . ORG further decided that the measure would be reviewed DATE from the date the judgment became final ( DATE ) .

On DATE ORG reviewed the measure and decided not to terminate it , because it was deemed that there was still a high risk of the applicant reoffending . The applicant appealed against this decision on DATE , but on DATE ORG ( gerechtshof ) dismissed the appeal .

On DATE PERSON , the applicant ’s personal case officer , issued a progress report about the applicant , containing , amongst other things , the following :

“ [ The applicant ] is currently residing in ORG . The placement is progressing reasonably well . ( ... )

If the measure should be terminated , [ the applicant ] will immediately find himself in a situation where he has no income , housing or DATE activities . The risk of reoffending is consequently high . To lower the risk of reoffending the measure should be continued . ”

On DATE ORG decided to prolong the measure further , holding that there was a considerable likelihood that the applicant would reoffend after his release .

The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE counsel for the applicant made inquiries with ORG about the progress of the appeal and requested that its examination be given priority . Prior to the hearing before ORG , counsel for the applicant requested in a letter of CARDINAL DATE that , for the benefit of the applicant , an interpreter be present who spoke Aramaic or Assyrian , and he gave the name of an interpreter who spoke the correct language .

On DATE a hearing took place before ORG . It appeared that the applicant was unable to understand the interpreter who spoke NORP . With the applicant ’s agreement , the case was adjourned for a maximum period of DATE to allow counsel for the applicant to put written questions to certain of the applicant ’s counsellors . It was also determined that case officer PERSON should be heard as an expert witness and that an interpreter speaking Aramaic should be present at the next hearing .

After DATE had elapsed , counsel for the applicant inquired with ORG into the progress of the proceedings on DATE and again on DATE . The proceedings were resumed on CARDINAL DATE , when a hearing took place . On that occasion case officer PERSON declared the following :

“ [ The applicant ] is no longer addicted to substances . The risk of reoffending is maximally reduced at this moment . The parole board has made several attempts to include [ the applicant ] in a treatment plan , but unfortunately this has not been sufficiently achieved . The clinical features of [ the applicant ] play an important role in this , but PERSON [ the institution ] could have signalled earlier that there were no further possibilities to treat [ the applicant ] . The measure has contributed to the protection of society since [ the applicant ] is no longer addicted , thus reducing the risk of him reoffending . [ The applicant ] is now residing in a halfway house and has been placed on the waiting list for sheltered accommodation . ”

It would appear that sheltered accommodation became available for the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered its decision , holding , amongst other things , the following :

“ No violation of LAW

ORG considers that in the present case it can not be said that the appeal was dealt with speedily within the meaning of LAW . It took DATE after the appeal was lodged before it was dealt with on the merits . Unlike counsel [ for the applicant ] , the court is of the opinion that the decision to accept that a violation of the LAW has occurred in itself constitutes sufficient satisfaction for the outrage to his sense of justice .

Termination

ORG has held that the execution of the measure has not been sufficiently expeditious in all stages . ORG deems that the difficult progress of the measure can not only be attributed to [ the applicant ] and finds that ORG could have signalled the difficult progress of the measure earlier .

Having regard to the fact that [ the applicant ] currently has accommodation where he can stay as well as a prospect of placement in appropriate sheltered accommodation where he can also stay if the measure is terminated , and the fact that partly due to this the risk that the termination of the measure will lead to endangerment , nuisance and degradation of society is small , ORG considers that continuation of the measure is no longer necessary . ”


CASE OF S.C. ANTARES TRANSPORT S.A. AND S.C. TRANSROBY S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicants are commercial companies authorised to provide services in the area of passenger transport . They are located in GPE .

On DATE ORG adopted a decision which set out a programme of passenger transport for the local area for a period of DATE . Within the programme , the NORP – PERSON – NORP - NORP route was considered as an individual route . Following a public tender , an association consisting of CARDINAL companies was granted a licence to transport passengers along that route .

On DATE ORG modified its previous decision and adopted a new programme of passenger transport for a period of DATE , covering DATE to DATE . Within the new programme , the NORP – PERSON – NORP - NORP route was grouped together with CARDINAL other routes . Another public tender took place , and the applicant companies submitted a tender for the group . They subsequently received licences to operate public transportation services for the CARDINAL routes in the group .

On DATE CARDINAL of the CARDINAL companies which lost their licence for the NORP – PERSON – NORP - NORP route asked the courts to annul ORG decision of DATE , and to oblige the local authorities to adopt a new decision in which the route in question could again be considered as an individual route .

The first applicant company requested ( and was granted ) leave to intervene in the proceedings in order to defend its own interests . Through its submissions , the applicant company argued that the decision adopted by the council on DATE was in accordance with the law , and asked ORG to dismiss the action .

On DATE ORG held that , by grouping routes together , the county council had acted arbitrarily and had limited access for other competitors in the public transport market . The court considered that the routes had been grouped together without any economic or geographical considerations . The court therefore ordered the county council to re - analyse route no . CARDINAL ( the Drăgăşani – Băbeni – Râmnicu - Vâlcea route ) , and to proceed to a new public tender of the route as an individual route . The court used the following terms :

“ We consider that , by grouping together these routes , the creation of a monopoly on the road transport market was encouraged , thereby breaching the principles of free competition .

In conclusion , the court holds that it is necessary to partially revoke decision no . CARDINAL on the approval of the programme for passenger transport ... for DATE in respect of offer CARDINAL , group of routes no . CARDINAL , route no . CARDINAL Drăgăşani– Băbeni– Râmnicu - GPE .

Considering that ... Order no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was repealed by Order no . DATE ... , it follows that the defendant should re - analyse route CARDINAL NORP - PERSON - Râmnicu - Vâlcea as an individual route in view of these legal provisions and , taking into account the results , proceed to a new public tender . ”

The first applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against this judgment , arguing that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of a legitimate interest for its request , and that the partial annulment of a public tender would be unlawful .

On DATE ORG rejected the first applicant company ’s appeal on points of law with final effect . The court explained that there were preconditions imposed by law which had to be fulfilled before a decision to group together certain transport routes could be taken by a local authority . Bearing in mind that in the current case those requirements had not been observed , the lower court had correctly annulled the administrative decision in question in the context of the request before it , namely in respect of route no . CARDINAL . ORG explained that the lower court had ordered the county council to conduct an analysis of whether or not route no . CARDINAL might be grouped together with other routes , in compliance with the legal provisions in force . Lastly , the court held that non - compliance with those obligations would give those whose interests had been negatively affected the right to request reparation for any consequent damage .

On DATE ORG adopted a new decision ; modifying the programme of public transport for the period DATE by putting out to public tender all CARDINAL routes from group no . CARDINAL as individual routes . Consequently , on DATE the applicant companies received a letter from ORG ( PERSON ) informing them that they had to hand over their licences for the entire group of CARDINAL routes within DATE of the final decision in a new public tender .

On DATE the new public tender was organised for the CARDINAL routes in question . The applicant companies did not participate .

On DATE the applicant companies lodged administrative proceedings requesting the annulment of the decision made by ORG on DATE . They argued that ORG , by its judgment of DATE , had ordered the analysis as an individual route of CARDINAL route out of the group of CARDINAL . They further alleged that , by withdrawing their licences for the remaining CARDINAL routes and organising a new public tender for all of the routes in the group , the authorities had acted unlawfully .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ORG complaint . The court held that the contested decision had been adopted in accordance with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , but also in compliance with new regulations adopted by ORG ; regulations which no longer provided for the possibility of grouping routes together for economic or geographic purposes .

The applicant ORG appeal on points of law against that judgment was rejected with final effect by ORG on DATE . ORG considered that the lower court had made a correct analysis of the facts .

The president of the panel of CARDINAL judges added a separate dissenting opinion to the judgment on the appeal on points of law . He considered that , by adopting the decision of DATE , ORG had not properly enforced the judgment of DATE , and had therefore breached the applicant companies’ right to property guaranteed by LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . The judge explained that the applicant companies had participated in a public tender , and had won the right to exploit the group of CARDINAL routes in question . Although the county council had been ordered by final judgment to reanalyse only one of the routes above as an individual route , they had adopted without any legal basis a new decision which considered all of the routes individually .

On DATE the first applicant company requested before the administrative court the annulment of ORG decision of DATE to withdraw its licences for the entire group of routes . The first applicant company also requested that the enforcement of that decision be suspended pending the delivery of a final judgment in the case .

The first applicant company argued that the contested decision prevented it and its associate ( the second applicant company ) from participating in the next public tender for the same route . The applicant companies further argued that the withdrawal of their licences had not been in compliance with LAW no . DATE , which set out the grounds on which licences could be withdrawn .

On DATE ORG rejected the action as submitted by the first applicant company . The court held that the applicant had not proved the alleged damage caused by the decision of ORG , since it could participate in the new tender . In addition , there was no proof that the applicant company would be prevented from participating in the new tender . The court further explained that , should the applicant company consider itself prejudiced by the administrative act which was in dispute , it could request damages from those responsible for any consequent loss .

The first applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment . It alleged that the licences for the entire group of routes could not be lawfully withdrawn , since not all of them had been annulled by a court judgment . The first applicant company argued that , in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , a company whose licence for a certain route had been withdrawn could not participate in a new tender for the same route .

On DATE ORG and ORG decided to allow the first applicant company ’s request , and partially annulled the decision of ORG , which was upheld only in respect of the licence for route no . CARDINAL . ORG considered that the licences held by the applicant company for the other CARDINAL routes of offer CARDINAL , group no . CARDINAL constituted “ possessions ” within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW , and that there was no reason to order their remittal through an administrative act .


Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted fraud . On DATE at TIME criminal proceedings were instituted against him .

On DATE at TIME a record of the applicant ’s arrest was drawn up by the investigator . The record indicated that the applicant ’s arrest took place at TIME on DATE .

On DATE ORG of FAC ( “ the ORG ” ) authorised the applicant ’s detention pending investigation . The court noted as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] is charged with a serious offence representing an increased danger to society ; the material submitted contains sufficient data about [ his ] involvement in the crime , including the testimony of the victim ... [ The applicant ] is an acting police officer , and under such circumstances the court finds that the ORG has made a well - founded argument about the necessity to isolate [ the applicant ] in view of the risk of [ his ] absconding and obstructing the establishment of the truth in the early stage of the investigation by putting pressure on witnesses using his [ status ] . ”

On DATE the ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) upheld the above decision on appeal . The appeal hearing was held in the applicant ’s absence . The applicant ’s lawyer was present .

On DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been completed and that the case file had been submitted to ORG for trial .

In the meantime , on DATE , the DATE time - limit for the applicant ’s detention pending investigation expired . The applicant , however , remained in detention .

On DATE ORG scheduled a preliminary hearing and ordered that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unchanged until a date for the opening of the trial had been set .

The applicant challenged the above decision in a supervisory review procedure . He argued that since there had been no valid court order authorising his detention from CARDINAL August to CARDINAL DATE , the decision to retain the custodial measure unchanged had been unlawful .

On DATE ORG scheduled the opening of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure remain unaltered .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention pending trial for DATE , until DATE , noting as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] is charged with a serious crime , representing an increased danger to society . The crime , according to the charges brought , was committed in abuse of office . So far [ the applicant ] has not been suspended from [ his post ] . Under these circumstances , if released , [ the applicant ] may put pressure on the victim and the witnesses . The sanction for the offence with which [ the applicant ] is charged varies from CARDINAL to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ; therefore the arguments of the prosecution that [ the applicant ] may abscond from justice and render the examination of the case on the merits impossible are well - founded . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the application for release and extended the applicant ’s detention pending trial for DATE , until DATE . The decision mentioned that an appeal could be lodged within DATE to ORG and the applicant appealed . However , on DATE ORG discontinued the examination of the applicant ’s appeal . Referring to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , the ORG held that rulings rendered by a court in the course of the trial were not amenable to separate appeal .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE , until DATE . The court applied the same reasoning as in its decision of QUANTITY DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application to quash the decision of CARDINAL DATE by means of supervisory review . The court held , inter alia , that the applicant ’s detention from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE had been lawful and that the decision of CARDINAL DATE should stand .

On DATE ORG , applying the same arguments as in its previous decisions , extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . During the hearing , the applicant requested that the court let his sister represent him . However , in view of the fact that the applicant was already represented by CARDINAL professional advocates , the court dismissed the request . On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court again relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant , his position and the risk of his putting pressure on the victim and witnesses , and of absconding and obstructing justice . CARDINAL of the applicant ’s lawyers was absent from the hearing . On DATE ORG upheld the above decisions on appeal .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , noting that the grounds for detention had not changed .

The applicant lodged another application for release , relying on a deterioration of his health and the unavailability of adequate medical assistance in the remand prison . However , on DATE ORG dismissed the application .

The applicant appealed , but on CARDINAL DATE ORG , relying on Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , discontinued the appeal proceedings .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempted large - scale fraud in abuse of office and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine . During the hearing the applicant was kept in a metal cage .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE the applicant obtained a conditional early release .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to DATE the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE . He claimed that the facility had been severely overcrowded and that the cells had been in a poor sanitary condition .

In the above periods , the applicant was transported between the remand prison and ORG on CARDINAL occasions . He claimed that the conditions of his transport to and from the courthouse had been appalling .

Upon the applicant ’s arrival at IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL remand prison in DATE he underwent a mandatory medical examination , including clinical laboratory tests and an examination by medical specialists . No abnormalities were found . The applicant subsequently underwent scheduled health examinations .

On DATE the applicant sought medical assistance . In connection with this application , on DATE he was referred to the prison hospital in IK-CARDINAL correctional colony for examination and treatment . The examination showed that the applicant was suffering from the initial stages of a cardiovascular disease . He was prescribed and provided with the necessary treatment and his condition improved . The applicant was discharged on DATE in a satisfactory condition with a recommendation to continue outpatient supervision . Upon return to IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL the applicant was put under outpatient supervision and given the recommended treatment .

From DATE , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent subsequent scheduled courses of inpatient treatment in IK-CARDINAL correctional colony ’s prison hospital . The applicant ’s health condition remained satisfactory and no complications were noted .

Despite the ORG ’s request to submit a copy of the applicant ’s medical file , the ORG ’s account was not supported by any relevant documents .

Several times during his detention in IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL the applicant applied for treatment for acute toothache . However , he was informed on each occasion that there was no dentist on the medical staff of the remand prison . In DATE a dentist was recruited by the remand prison . The only treatment available was extraction and there was a DATE waiting list .

A medical certificate issued by the applicant ’s dentist ( who had provided dental care to the applicant since DATE , up to his detention ) confirmed in DATE that there were no traces of dental care having been provided to the applicant in the period DATE and DATE and noted a serious worsening of the state of the latter ’s teeth . It also stated that the applicant needed treatment for tooth decay ( CARDINAL teeth ) and a dental prosthesis .

The applicant also complained on numerous occasions about hypertension . He was given unidentified pills and a prescription for a more effective and costly medicine , with reference to the facility ’s lack of finance . The applicant could not afford to buy the medication prescribed .

The applicant developed chronic gastritis while in remand prison .

At the request of the applicant ’s lawyer , on DATE the doctor at IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL remand prison issued a medical certificate reading as follows :

“ During his detention in IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL [ the applicant ] repeatedly turned to the medical unit of the [ remand prison ] for medical assistance . He was examined by a physician and diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia of a hypertonic type , and chronic gastritis of type B at the stage of unstable remission .

Appropriate treatment was prescribed with the medicine available at the remand prison . Furthermore , a prescription was given to the applicant to purchase more efficient medication .

At the present moment [ the applicant ’s ] state of health is relatively satisfactory .

In the event of a worsening of his state of health the applicant can be transferred to the regional prison hospital for inpatient treatment . ”

An ambulance was called for the applicant at the court hearings on several occasions and he was given treatment for high blood pressure . The applicant submitted a medical certificate dated DATE , which shows that the ambulance was called for him on that date during the court hearing and that he was provided with the necessary medical assistance for a hypertensive crisis .

NORP Following numerous complaints about inadequate medical assistance in the remand prison , the applicant was transferred on several occasions to the hospital in the IK-CARDINAL correctional colony in LOC . However , no effective treatment was available in the hospital either , because the applicant was not transferred there when his health required , that is following his hypertensive crises , but in accordance with an unclear schedule fixed by the administration of the remand prison .

As is apparent from the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his allegations , on DATE an inspection of IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL was carried out by the prosecutor ’s office of GPE . The inspection revealed , inter alia , that there was a problem of deficient health care in the remand prison .

The applicant brought the issue of inadequate medical assistance before various domestic authorities , including the head of the remand prison , the GPE regional prosecutor ’s office , the ORG and a judge of ORG , but all to no avail .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in Požega .

They were employed by ORG , a socially - owned company based in PERSON ( hereinafter “ the debtor ” ) .

On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE upon the first applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .

On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final by DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE upon the second applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .

The debtor , which operated as a socially - owned company , was privatised on DATE .

On DATE the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations .

Following the annulment of the debtor ’s privatisation the ORG owned PERCENT of shares in the company .

On DATE the ORG sold its shares to a private company .

On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . As a result , all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were stayed .

The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above - mentioned judgments to the insolvency administration .

On DATE ORG recognized a part of the ORG claims .

NORP In DATE and DATE some of the judgments at issue had been partially enforced in the insolvency proceedings .

The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing .