András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by Mr PERSON , Agent , ORG and ORG .

The applicants are a married couple .

On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants on charges of copyright infringement . The investigation was terminated on CARDINAL DATE . A bill of indictment was preferred on DATE .

The court geographically competent to try the applicants was ORG . However , on DATE the President of this court proposed to the President of ORG ( “ the LOC ” ) to appoint another court , because the workload of ORG did not allow for a hearing within a reasonable time .

NORP The President of ORG specified the facts underlining the complexity of the case , a high priority case in which very strict procedural time - limits were applicable for the court . He identified the obstacles to the timely adjudication of the case and gave detailed information on the workload of the criminal bench of ORG . It was stated that the applicants’ case involved CARDINAL defendants , CARDINAL counsels , CARDINAL witnesses , an interpreter and experts . The investigation file amounted to CARDINAL file - boxes , and the bill of indictment consisted of CARDINAL pages with an annex of CARDINAL pages . The counts on charges of copyright infringement committed DATE amounted to CARDINAL in respect of some of the defendants , and the charges in respect of some of the defendants included money laundering and participation in a criminal organisation as well . According to information provided by the President of ORG , his court had reached the limits of its administrative and infrastructural capacities , because of other on - going high - profile cases .

On DATE the President of the ORG requested additional information from the President of ORG in accordance with the guidelines for requesting reassignment , then under elaboration . ( These guidelines were then sent to the presidents of the high courts , courts of appeals and the PERSON for consultation on DATE . As of CARDINAL DATE , they were included in decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG entitled “ the guidelines to be observed in respect of case reassignment ” . )

Accordingly , further extensive staff and case - load information was provided on DATE .

Meanwhile , the ORG identified CARDINAL high courts which were in the best position as regards their workload statistics . The President of the ORG requested the opinions of the presidents of those courts on DATE . She also requested the opinion of the Attorney General , who proposed reassignment to the ORG .

ORG , as CARDINAL other courts , declared themselves ready to try the applicants’ case .

On DATE the President of the ORG appointed , in application of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act no . CLXI of DATE on ORG , ORG to proceed with the case , as the latter had capacity to deal with it in due time ( while another case was reassigned to the ORG ) . There was no remedy available to the applicants against this decision at the material time .

DATE and DATE ORG held several hearings .

The trial is still pending at first instance .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicants filed a constitutional complaint about the reassignment and its legal background .

On DATE ORG adopted decision no . DATE . ( XII.CARDINAL . ) AB in the matter . It held that the regulation which entitled the President of the ORG to reassign cases among courts ( notably , sections CARDINAL and DATE of Act no . CLXI of DATE on ORG , as in force DATE and DATE , as well as section CARDINAL/A of Act no . ORG of DATE on Criminal Procedure , as in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) had been unconstitutional and in violation of LAW . According to ORG , the right for one ’s “ natural ” ( lawful ) judge flows from the right to be tried by a court “ established by law ” and requires that a case be heard by a judge belonging to the court with competence and jurisdiction and designated by the pre - established objective rules of case assignment of that court . In ORG view , the impugned regulation , which had conferred responsibility for the reassignment of cases , at least in the material period , entirely on the President of the ORG , had been in breach of those principles . Moreover , it had violated the requirement of the appearance of impartiality .

ORG also held that the lack of a remedy against the decision of the President of the ORG had violated LAW , as well as LAW .

Considering that its finding of unconstitutionality excluded , by the force of law , the application of the impugned regulation in the cases which had been at the origin of its proceedings ( that is , the applicants’ case and another one ) , ORG did not specify the legal consequences of its finding in the operative part of the decision . However , it dismissed the ORG request for the examination of the reassignment decision itself ( as adopted by the President of the ORG ) , considering that ORG did not have competence to inspect such decisions of a managerial nature , which did not affect the outcome of the judicial proceedings .

DATE after ORG decision , the President of the LOC expressed her opinion in a press release , saying that the decision concerned “ some rules no longer in force [ and ] does not affect the validity of the case reassignment decision of the President of the LOC . [ It ] therefore does not have direct influence on cases still pending before assignee courts ” .

Pursuant to ORG decision , ORG transferred the applicants’ case back to ORG on DATE .

This latter court declared , on DATE , that it had no jurisdiction in the case and transferred the case file to ORG so that it should assign the competent court .

ORG remitted the case to ORG on DATE .

The Balassagyarmat High Court refused jurisdiction on DATE .

On DATE ORG finally appointed the ORG to try the applicants . No remedy lay against this decision .

As appears from a similar case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which both the originally competent and the assignee court refused to hear and – unlike the present case – had already been referred to the GPE for the designation of a court for the trial , the GPE considered that the declaration of unconstitutionality of the impugned – and already repealed – legislation did not affect the validity of the case reassignment decision of the President of the LOC itself , given that ORG did not specify any legal consequence for its finding outlined above and because ordinary courts are not entitled to substitute ORG decision in this respect .

In another case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the PERSON came to a similar conclusion , albeit with a slightly different reasoning : it held that the decision of ORG was immaterial in the circumstances and designated the assignee court with reference to the principle of pre - emption .

The Act on LAW provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In order to guarantee the right to trial within a reasonable timeframe , as provided in Article ORG ) of LAW , the President of ORG may assign any case to a court at an equal level but outside the normal court ’s jurisdiction , if the caseload across courts is not balanced .

( CARDINAL ) In order to guarantee the right to trial within a reasonable timeframe , as provided in Article PERSON ) of LAW , ORG , as the leader and manager of ORG based on LAW , may assign any case to a court at an equal level but outside the normal court ’s jurisdiction , if the caseload across courts is not balanced . This does not impact the right of the President of ORG as granted in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) and the right of the prosecution to assign a case to any court within their jurisdiction . ”

LAW , as in force DATE and DATE , provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In the interest of the enforcement of the fundamental right to a court decision within a reasonable time and a balanced distribution of caseload between the courts , the President of ORG may designate a court , for cases defined in QUANTITY and in a manner defined also in QUANTITY , other than the court of general competence but with the same jurisdiction to adjudicate the case . ”

Act no . CLXI of DATE on ORG provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) No one may be deprived of his lawfully appointed judge .

( CARDINAL ) A lawfully appointed judge is the judge assigned to a specific case under the work schedule of the court having competence and jurisdiction in the case . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A case may exceptionally be reassigned by the President of ORG ( ORG , “ LOC ” ) to another court having the same competence as the competent court if the adjudication of the case or a specific group of cases filed with the court in a given period of time can not otherwise be ensured within a reasonable length of time due to the court ’s extraordinary and disproportionate caseload , provided that such reassignment does not impose a disproportionate burden on the court to which the case is reassigned . ”

( CARDINAL ) [ By relying on the principles determined by ORG ( Országos PERSON ) ] the President of the LOC shall , within DATE from receipt of the motion , examine whether in light of the case flow , the personnel and other data and of the specific features of the case affected by the reassignment , the motion is well - founded and shall examine to which court the case may be reassigned . The President of the ORG shall consult the court to which the case is reassigned DATE in criminal cases ORG , if the motion has been filed not by ORG – and may request data or opinion from any court ; such requests shall be complied with immediately .

( CARDINAL ) The President of the LOC shall , within DATE from receipt of the opinions and data referred to in subsection ( CARDINAL ) decide on the reassignment by refusing the motion in case it is ill - founded or by reassigning the case to another court in case the motion is well - founded . In the decision , the President of the ORG shall explain how the principles determined by the ORG were applied .

( CARDINAL ) A party affected by the reassignment may file an appeal against the decision on the reassignment within DATE from the publication of the decision on the ORG official website and on the central website . ...

( CARDINAL ) ... The appeal shall be adjudicated by the GPE in non - litigious proceedings within DATE . ...

( CARDINAL ) ... If the decision on the reassignment is not in conformity with those rules of this LAW which govern the reassignment of cases , the GPE shall quash the decision . A decision on the reassignment of a case may not be modified by the GPE . ”

Act no . ORG of DATE on Criminal Procedure provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A case may , exceptionally , be reassigned by the President of ORG ( “ LOC ” ) to another court having the same competence as the competent court if the adjudication of the case can not otherwise be ensured within a reasonable length of time due to the court ’s extraordinary caseload , provided that such reassignment does not impose a disproportionate burden on the court to which the case is reassigned . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) No one may act as a judge ...

e ) if he or she can not be expected to form an unbiased opinion for other reasons . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The judge affected by a ground for exclusion and the presiding judge gaining knowledge of the existence of a ground for exclusion against a member of the court committee shall immediately notify the President of the court thereof .

( CARDINAL ) The ground for exclusion may also be reported by ... the defendant , or the counsel for the defence ....

( CARDINAL ) Following the commencement of the trial the persons specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) may only invoke the ground for exclusion regulated in LAW ( CARDINAL ) e ) , if they substantiate that they gained knowledge of the fact underlying the notification only after the commencement of the trial and reported it immediately . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Unless an exception is made under LAW , the second instance court shall review the judgment challenged in the appeal and the entire court proceedings having led to the judgment . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The second instance court ...

II . shall quash the judgment challenged in the appeal and remit the case to the first instance , if

a ) the court was not lawfully formed ,

b ) a judge excluded under the law took part in adopting the judgment ... ”

Constitutional Court decision no . DATE . ( XII.CARDINAL . ) ORG DATE ( adopted by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL with the casting vote of the President ) contains the following passages :

“ [ CARDINAL ] According to LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention , everyone is entitled to a hearing by a tribunal established by law . The requirement of a tribunal “ established by law ” incorporates the right to a lawful judge , ... [ who is ] the judge belonging to the court with competence and jurisdiction and designated by the pre - established objective rules of case - assignment of that court . ...

[ CARDINAL ] ... The designation of a court for the trial DATE and this entirely at the discretion of the President of the NJO – resulted in the violation of the right to a lawful judge , flowing from LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW that enshrines the requirement of a fair trial ...

[ CARDINAL ] ‘ ... The requirement of timeliness is CARDINAL of the elements of a fair trial and its enforcement can not be taken to the extreme ; it can not prevail over other elements of fair trial and , most importantly , can not be applied to the detriment of other fundamental rights’ [ ORG decision no . CARDINAL . ( V.CARDINAL . ) AB ] . ...

[ CARDINAL ] In its decision no . CARDINAL . ( XII.CARDINAL . ) AB concerning , among other issues , the principle of nullum iudicium sine lege , ORG emphasised ( having regard to the case - law of the [ NORP ] Court [ of Human Rights ] that ‘ the reassignment of a particular group of cases from a court proceeding under the general jurisdiction rules to the jurisdiction of another court may only be compatible with the ORG if the substantive and procedural rules and preconditions of such a reassignment are laid down by the lawmaker in transparent , pre - determined , clear and objective parameters leaving no ( or minimal ) room for discretion and ensuring that the actual decision is taken by the own institutions of the independent , impartial court system.’ ...

[ CARDINAL ] Therefore , ORG held that the [ impugned provisions ] were also incompatible with LAW .

[ CARDINAL ] Since in the present case the lawmaker did not allow appeal against a decision which affected the fundamental rights of the persons concerned ( in particular , their rights to a fair trial , as explained above ) , ORG held that the provision was unconstitutional and also violated an international treaty , in that it was neither compatible with LAW CARDINAL ) of LAW nor with LAW .

[ CARDINAL ] As a matter of principle , a declaration of unconstitutionality results , by the force of law , in the non - applicability of [ the impugned provisions ] in the cases which were at the origin of ORG proceedings . For this reason , ORG did not have to rule on this question separately . ”

On DATE ORG decided ( resolution no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ( IX.CARDINAL . ) OBT ) that only those courts were entitled to request reassignment whose workload exceeded the national average from CARDINAL perspectives conjointly ( number of cases per judge , the proportion of cases pending over DATE and the proportion of high - profile / priority cases ) .

The Government submitted CARDINAL cases , in which the GPE decided on appeals against reassignments .

Decision no . ORG contains the following passages :

“ ... [ The law ] specifies reassignment as an exceptional institution which may only affect courts having the same competence in respect of cases making the effective and timely adjudication of court proceedings pending before a court difficult , due to their complexity .

In the decision affected by the remedy , the President of the ORG may , and did , take into account only courts having the same competence and fitting the forum system . ... Thus the decision ... did not create a so - called separate court for the adjudication of the individual case which might have resulted in a fundamental breach of the right to a lawfully appointed court .

... Based on numbers and statistical data it can be established that the “ high - priority ” caseload of judges of ORG is several times higher than at other tribunals .

Since the challenged decision was taken prior to the assignment of the case to the judge actually adjudicating the case , ... the defendant ’s right to his “ natural ” judge could obviously not be limited by the decision of the President of the ORG . Following the reassignment , the assignment of the case to the judge proceeding in the case took place according to the pre - arranged work schedule accessible to clients . ”

NORP The summary of case no . GPE . I.CARDINAL/CARDINAL . , published by the GPE on DATE , contains the following passages :

“ ... [ A]bove all , the question to decide was whether the ordinary court , whose jurisdiction is based on an already repealed provision that had been found , by ORG , unconstitutional and in breach of [ the Convention ] , can itself conclude that the unconstitutional provision had not been applicable in the ongoing proceedings , even if neither ORG nor the lawmaker specified a consequence of that kind . ... Annulation of a law [ by ORG ] ... does not prejudice legal relationships and ensuing rights and obligations established before or on DATE of the decision ’s publication – except when ORG explicitly orders the review of the criminal ... proceedings . ... In the absence of any specific ORG instructions in this respect , the declaration of unconstitutionality of the ( already repealed ) provisions that made possible for the President of the ORG to designate the competent court does not affect the validity of the decisions adopted on the basis of those provisions . ”

Decision no . GPE . GPE . of the GPE , adopted on DATE , contains the following passages :

“ [ The PERSON shall decide on the question of jurisdiction ] if CARDINAL courts both refuse to hear the case for want of jurisdiction , but they do not consider the other court competent reciprocally and it is CARDINAL of them who deems the other one competent . ... According to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , a court shall be designated by the GPE to hear / try the case if the circumstances defining the jurisdiction are unclear . ... In that case , jurisdiction will be based on the decision of the GPE . ... In the present case , the PERSON adopted its decision [ assigning the case to the court designated previously by the President of the LOC ] with regard to [ the principle of pre - emption ] . The former assignment decision of the President of the LOC and the decision of ORG are both immaterial in this procedural situation . ... The existence of a procedural act may only be set aside ... if the invalidation was explicitly directed on it . ... Thus , the fact that the [ court designated by the President of the ORG ] already conducted a part of the proceedings can not be ignored ; it forms the basis for the application of the principle of pre - emption . ”

Document ORG contains the following passages :

“ The ORG fully acknowledges the need to establish an efficient and operational administration of justice . However , the ORG has serious doubts about the reform model chosen , which concentrates these very large competences in the hand of CARDINAL individual person , the President of the newly established ORG ( ORG ) .

States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation when establishing a system for the administration of justice and a variety of models exist in LOC . However , in none of the member states of ORG have such important powers been vested in a single person , lacking sufficient democratic accountability . In countries where the Minister for ORG appoints judges , the Minister is directly accountable to ORG , has a shorter mandate and tends to be personally involved only in the most important cases .

Even if most of the competences of the President of the ORG do not relate to decision - making in individual cases , many of the powers listed above are closely related to the position of the judge who makes these decisions . The President of the LOC is not only a strong court “ administrator ” , he or she also intervenes very closely in judicial decision making through the right of transferring cases to another court , his or her influence on individual judges and on the internal structure of the judiciary .

In contrast , the President of the LOC has abundant competences and , hence , is the main actor in judicial administration . However , the mere fact that only judges are eligible as President of the LOC , does not make the latter an organ of judicial self - government . Instead , this would imply that the judges have a decisive vote in his / her election . Since the President of the ORG is elected by ORG , i.e. an external actor from the viewpoint of the judiciary , it can not be regarded as an organ of judicial self - government .

Allocation of cases

The allocation of cases is one of the elements of crucial importance for the impartiality of the courts . With respect to the allocation of cases , ORG - in line with ORG - holds that “ the allocation of cases to individual judges should be based on objective and transparent criteria established in advance by the law . According to the DATE ’s case - law , the object of the term “ established by law ” in LAW is to ensure “ that the judicial organisation in a NORP society [ does ] not depend on the discretion of the Executive , but that it [ is ] regulated by law emanating from ORG ” . Nor , in countries where the law is codified , can the organisation of the judicial system be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities , although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation . Together with the express words of LAW , according to which “ the medium ” through which access to justice under fair hearing should be ensured must not only be a tribunal established by law , but also one which is both “ independent ” and “ impartial ” in general and specific terms [ ... ] , this implies that the judges or judicial panels entrusted with specific cases should not be selected ad hoc and/or ad personam , but according to objective and transparent criteria .

The order in which the individual judge ( or panel of judges ) within a court is determined in advance , meaning that it is based on general objective principles , is essential . It is desirable to indicate clearly where the ultimate responsibility for proper case allocation is being placed . In national legislation , it is sometimes provided that the court Presidents should have the power to assign cases among the individual judges . However , this power involves an element of discretion , which could be misused as a means of putting pressure on judges by overburdening them with cases or by assigning them only low - profile cases . It is also possible to direct politically sensitive cases to certain judges and to avoid allocating them to others . This can be a very effective way of influencing the outcome of the process .

Furthermore , Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL.b AOAC enables the President of the ORG to designate another court based on the vague criterion of “ adjudicating cases within a reasonable period of time ” . This relates to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act on Transitional Provisions of DATE , which were adopted on the constitutional level in order to overcome the annulment of a similar provision on the legislative level by ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE . ORG had found that provision contrary to ORG . The fact , that some courts in GPE are so small that the designation of such a court would effectively amount to the designation of a single judge or a special chamber , further adds to this . Even though the reasonable time requirement is part of both LAW and LAW , it is not absolute , but forms a field of tension with the often conflicting right to a fair trial with respect to the fact that having and exercising more procedural rights necessarily goes hand in hand with a longer duration of the proceedings . Taking into account the importance of the right to a lawful judge for a fair trial , the state has to resort to other less intrusive means , in particular to provide for a sufficient number of judges and court staff . Solutions by means of arbitrary designation of another court can not be justified at all .

In order to prevent the risk of an abuse of the power to allocate and to bring the provisions in line with LAW , ORG recommends that the NORP authorities use other mechanisms for the distribution of cases , especially those outlined by ORG as follows : “ In order to enhance impartiality and independence of the judiciary it is highly recommended that the order in which judges deal with the cases be determined on the basis of general criteria . This can be done for example on the basis of alphabetical order , on the basis of a computerised system or on the basis of objective criteria such as categories of cases . The general rules ( including exceptions ) should be formulated by the law or by special regulations on the basis of the law , e.g. in court regulations laid down by the presidium or President . It may not always be possible to establish a fully comprehensive abstract system that operates for all cases , leaving no room to decisions regarding allocation in individual cases .

There may be circumstances requiring a need to take into account the workload or the specialisation of judges . ... The criteria for making such decisions by the court President or presidium should , however , be defined in advance on the basis of objective criteria . Workload statistics provide objective statistical data , but they are not sufficient as a basis for the decision on transferral , since they do not contain criteria for the selection of certain cases for transferral or for the selection of the individual receiving court . In order to prevent any risk of abuse , court Presidents and the President of the ORG should not have the discretion to decide which cases should be transferred or to select the ‘ sending’ or ‘ LOC courts . In addition , any such case allocation should be subject to review in order to take into account possible harsh situations where persons without the means to come to a court that is far away from their home town .

There may therefore be a basis for an objective system ( even though it seems that in the present case , the CARDINAL cases were not assigned to CARDINAL of the least burdened courts ) . The real problem lies in the selection of some cases , which are transferred , and in the lack of any justification , why it was just these cases that were selected . The Commission delegation was indeed informed that CARDINAL of the cases transferred was a highly sensitive CARDINAL of alleged political corruption . ”

Document no . PERSON contains the following passage :

“ DATE . Many NORP constitutions contain a subjective right to a lawful judge . As a rule , the guarantee is worded in a negative way , such as in LAW : “ No one can be separated , unwillingly , from the judge that the law has assigned to GPE ( LAW ) or GPE : “ No one may be removed from the normal judge predetermined by law ” . Other constitutions state the “ right to the lawful judge ” in a positive way such as LAW : “ Everyone has the right to have any decision regarding his rights , duties and any charges brought against him made without undue delay by an independent , impartial court constituted by law . Only a judge duly appointed pursuant to rules previously established by law and by judicial regulations may judge such an individual . ”


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s son – a young man who was born in DATE left home and never returned .

On DATE a young man was found severely injured and unconscious , lying in a street in GPE . An ambulance and the police attended the scene of the incident . According to the report of a police officer of ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , a doctor explained to him that the man had fallen from a building with a height of QUANTITY ; the doctor also specified the man ’s surname , which was the same as that of the applicant ’s son .

The injured man was taken to hospital , where his surname was noted down slightly differently . On DATE he died in hospital . According to the post - mortem examination , the man died from a serious craniocerebral injury ; the injuries identified on the body ( including the CARDINAL which was fatal ) could have been sustained as a result of his fall .

On DATE the applicant – who had no information concerning the whereabouts of her son – reported his disappearance to ORG .

On DATE the unclaimed body of the man found in the street was buried in a municipal cemetery .

In DATE the applicant was invited by the police to look at a picture of the man found in the street . The applicant found that the man very closely resembled her son .

Following the exhumation of the body of the man found in the street , forensic medical experts conducted CARDINAL DNA examinations . On DATE they concluded with PERCENT certainty that it was the body of the applicant ’s son .

On DATE the Podilsky District Prosecutor ’s Office of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ) , having conducted pre - investigation enquiries , refused to open a criminal investigation into the disappearance of the applicant ’s son . ORG had regard to the unsuccessful searches carried out by the police and the statements of PERSON , PERSON , NORP and PERSON , who had been acquaintances of the applicant ’s son but could not give any information as to his whereabouts .

On DATE the ORG refused to open a criminal investigation into the incident regarding the man who had been found injured and unconscious in the street . According to that decision , the identity of the man had not been established . ORG had regard to the statements of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and other people , who had submitted that they had known the man and that he had often talked about suicide .

On DATE the Podilskyy ORG of GPE quashed the decision of DATE as unsubstantiated , and ordered further pre - investigation enquiries .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unsubstantiated , and ordered additional enquiries to establish the circumstances of the incident and the identity of the deceased .

In addition to the above decisions refusing to open investigations , on CARDINAL occasions DATE ORG and ORG ( following the pre - investigation enquiries ) refused to open criminal investigations into the disappearance and death of the applicant ’s son . Those decisions were quashed as unsubstantiated by the supervising courts or prosecutors , and further pre - investigation enquiries were ordered . In particular , on DATE the Podilskyy ORG of GPE ordered further pre - investigation enquiries , stating that it was necessary to carry out an inspection of the scene of the incident with a forensic medical expert . Among other things , the court also stated that detailed drawings and photographs of the site had to be prepared ; the expert had to be questioned in order to establish whether the applicant ’s son could have fallen from the building and , if so , whether he could have sustained the injuries found on his body ; and additional steps had to be taken to identify potential witnesses .

In the last decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG Office of GPE refused to open criminal proceedings in relation to the death of the applicant ’s son . According to that decision , the man found in the street had been identified , with a high degree of certainty , as the applicant ’s son . He could have sustained fatal injuries as a result of DATE ; there had been no evidence of violence and the incident did not appear to have had any criminal element .