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

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a life sentence in GPE .

On DATE PERSON , a young woman , was found hanged on a tree in a forested area near a bus station . It was also discovered that her mobile phone , earrings and ring were missing and that she had had sexual intercourse shortly before her death .

At TIME on DATE , officers of LOC took the applicant to the police station for questioning in connection with the investigation into PERSON ’s death .

On DATE , the applicant signed a confession statement according to which on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had met PERSON at a bus station and asked her to have sex with him in the nearby forest . PERSON had agreed to his proposal and volunteered her ring and earrings after intercourse . As the applicant was leaving , she had threatened to complain that she had been raped and robbed . In order to get away , the applicant had grabbed her by the neck ; PERSON , still alive , had lost consciousness and he had taken her mobile phone and left the scene .

According to the applicant , CARDINAL he remained in police custody without any record being drawn up or his relatives being notified .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by an investigating officer of ORG and gave further details of his encounter with PERSON He stated that after she had lost consciousness he had taken the cord from her umbrella , tied it round her neck and hung her on the tree . The applicant ’s statements were recorded on a form headed “ Explanation ” , which did not refer to any criminal proceedings against him , but stated that the applicant had been informed of his right under LAW not to incriminate himself .

At an unspecified time on the same date an investigating officer of ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that he had committed a non - aggravated murder within the meaning of LAW of GPE and notified the applicant of his right to legal assistance . He further drafted an arrest report according to which the applicant had been arrested as a suspect at TIME on that date at the premises of the prosecutor ’s office .

After the applicant ’s arrest he was assigned a legal - aid lawyer , PERSON , and was officially questioned as a suspect in her presence from CARDINAL p.m. until TIME During the questioning , the applicant largely reiterated his previous statements .

On DATE the applicant surrendered a gold ring to the police , which , as subsequently confirmed by her relatives , had belonged to PERSON former phone was also either seized from the applicant ’s home or surrendered by him .

On DATE the FAC ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody as a preventive measure . It appears from the case - file materials that that decision was not appealed against .

On DATE the applicant , questioned in PERSON ’s presence , provided further details concerning his sexual encounter with PERSON He also stated that all his confessions had been voluntary and no pressure had been applied by the authorities to make him confess . Feeling remorse for his crimes , he wounded himself with a pen top in an attempt to cut his veins and commit suicide , but his cellmate intervened .

On DATE M. was replaced by ORG . , another legal - aid lawyer .

On DATE the applicant was taken to the site of the crime and participated in a reconstruction of the crime scene in PERSON . ’s presence .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical expert , who found that he had a wound on the inner side of his left elbow , inflicted on or DATE . The expert further recorded that , according to the applicant , the wound was self - inflicted and he had not been ill - treated by the authorities either during his arrest or in detention .

On DATE the applicant was indicted of non - aggravated murder . On the same date he was questioned as an accused in the presence of Sh . and confirmed his previous statements .

On DATE the applicant was placed in a psychiatric hospital for an assessment of his mental state , where he stayed until DATE . According to him , during that period of time he was administered psychotropic drugs .

On DATE the charges against the applicant were reclassified as aggravated murder , within the meaning of Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL , rape , and robbery .

On DATE a new lawyer , ORG , hired by the applicant ’s family , was admitted to the proceedings to replace the legal - aid lawyer PERSON . On DATE the applicant , when questioned in presence of ORG , claimed he was innocent and refused to provide any further explanations .

NORP In DATE the applicant was committed for trial at ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) , acting as a first - instance court .

During the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty . He maintained that on DATE he had confessed to murdering PERSON as a result of psychological and physical ill - treatment by police officers ; in fact , he had never met PERSON On DATE he had purchased a mobile phone , a ring and earrings from a stranger on the street .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of rape , theft , robbery and aggravated murder . It referred to various sources of evidence , including the applicant ’s confession statements given on DATE and during the further course of the investigation , witness statements , forensic assessments , and DNA evidence . The court dismissed the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated and sentenced him to life imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant received a copy of ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted a cassation appeal against that judgment . He maintained his innocence and alleged that on DATE he had been beaten and given electric shocks by the police officers to break his moral resistance and make him confess to the murder , and that they had also threatened to plant narcotics on his wife if he refused to cooperate .

Subsequently ( on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) , the applicant submitted supplementary pleadings in which he challenged the validity of the various sources of evidence relied on for his conviction . He also complained that he had not been provided with an opportunity to contact his relatives or with access to a lawyer before his first questioning , and that he had been administered psychotropic drugs during his psychiatric assessment . He also maintained that ORG , the lawyer hired by his family , had performed his duties in bad faith . In particular , he had hardly visited the applicant and had completely failed to participate in the cassation proceedings .

On DATE the applicant received a rectified copy of the judgment of DATE , as the previous copy had been found to contain some technical errors .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG requesting it to ensure his personal presence at the cassation hearing .

On DATE , DATE the applicant lodged further requests to be present at the hearing . He also requested ORG to summon his first lawyer , PERSON , for the hearing and noted that he had never refused her services and did not know why she had been excluded from the proceedings .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request to be present at the hearing , finding that it had been lodged outside the DATE statutory time - limit .

On DATE the applicant re - lodged the request to be present at the hearing , stating that he had obtained the final copy of the judgment only on DATE and had lodged his request within DATE of that date .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the applicant ’s case . The hearing was not attended by either the applicant or a lawyer on his behalf .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal and upheld the previous judgment . It noted , in particular , that there was no evidence that the applicant had been subjected to illtreatment or that his right to defence had been breached in a way incompatible with his right to a fair trial . It further noted that the case file contained sufficient evidence of the applicant ’s guilt , including his own confession statements given in the presence of his lawyers . According to the text of the judgment , the prosecutor , who had been present at the hearing , had requested that the applicant ’s appeal be dismissed and the first - instance court ’s judgment be upheld .

On various dates after his conviction , the applicant unsuccessfully complained to various authorities , including the prosecutor ’s office and ORG , about his alleged ill - treatment , the poor performance of his lawyer PERSON , and other alleged breaches of his procedural rights .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and until his arrest lived in GPE . He is currently serving his sentence in a correctional colony in LOC .

ORG The applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of aggravated kidnapping , extortion and conspiracy . He remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment in a highsecurity correctional colony with the release to be followed by a DATE restriction of liberty .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .

The parties provided the ORG with the applicant ’s medical documents , including his clinical records , discharge summaries , and expert opinions .

The medical records show that the applicant had a long history of cerebral diseases as a result of having sustained a head injury in DATE that developed into traumatic cystic arachnoiditis . DATE he underwent a tomography examination which confirmed the presence of a growing liquor cyst located in the right frontotemporal part of the brain . The cyst impacted on his acoustic and visual nerves . The examination also revealed moderate internal hydrocephalus . In the recommendations written on DATE , the applicant ’s doctor noted that a nuclear magnetic resonance examination , an electroencephalography examination and a liquor analysis were required to properly diagnose the applicant ’s condition . He further observed that , in the absence of any treatment , it would be reasonable to perform urgent cerebral bypass surgery in order to prevent the applicant from going irreversibly blind . Nothing in the medical documents submitted suggests that the applicant had had any recourse to specific medical assistance or examinations regarding his cerebral problems during DATE preceding his arrest .

After the arrest the applicant was taken to temporary detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE ( “ facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) . On admission to that facility the resident prison doctor performed a general medical check - up of the applicant , having noted in the medical file that he had a brain cyst . The doctor concluded that the applicant was “ somatically healthy ” and was therefore fit to remain in the conditions provided by the detention facility .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was seen by a neurologist . In the absence of any medical documents the prison doctor was only able to perform a visual examination of the applicant . He diagnosed the applicant with hydrocephalus and recommended that an X - ray examination of the skull be carried out to make the correct diagnosis .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s medical file was supplemented with his old clinical records from a civilian hospital and the prison doctor examined him anew , paying regard to the additional medical information . He confirmed the diagnosis made in DATE and recommended a consultation with an ophthalmologist . The applicant was prescribed drug therapy for DATE .

An ophthalmologist diagnosed the applicant with angiopathy .

NORP In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis . He was immediately transferred to prison hospital no . CARDINAL in GPE , where the disease was successfully treated . The applicant was discharged from hospital with the ORG attestation of his full recovery from the infection .

On DATE the applicant was sent to NORP prison hospital in GPE for an in - depth medical examination . He underwent a large variety of diagnostic procedures , including a magnetic resonance tomography of the brain and cervical vertebrae performed in a NORP civilian hospital , ORG of GPE . The tests showed that the applicant had a liquor cyst in the right frontotemporal part of the brain and that he suffered from vicarious hydrocephalus of mixed genesis and encephalopathy at the initial stage . In addition , doctors were able to establish that the applicant ’s cervical vertebrae had several herniated disks and perineural cysts .

Following completion of the diagnostic cycle , the applicant was released from the hospital and sent back to the detention facility . Discharge summaries issued on DATE contained a recommendation of supervision by a prison doctor and regular consultations with a neurologist .

In DATE the applicant complained about headaches to the attending prison doctor . In response it was recommended that he undergo an additional neurological medical examination in NORP prison hospital . However , the hospital refused to admit him because it did not employ a suitably qualified medical specialist , such as a brain surgeon .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s lawyer contacted PERSON from the neurosurgical department of ORG , who agreed to study the applicant ’s clinical records and give his opinion about the state of the applicant ’s health at a court hearing on DATE , where he saw the applicant for the first time . At the hearing the doctor stated that the computer tomography performed on the applicant in DATE had indicated a brain oedema at the base of the skull . He insisted that any change of the applicant ’s lifestyle could induce complications related to the brain oedema and also seizures . Surgery was required to treat the cyst . However , PERSON concluded that the applicant ’s spinal problems were even more serious , as they could leave the applicant entirely paralysed . Nevertheless , the doctor noted that surgery would be only required if the applicant ’s health were to deteriorate . The doctor recommended chondroprotective therapy and cerebral bypass surgery for the applicant . He was also to wear a cervical collar .

NORP The applicant also provided the ORG with a certificate issued in DATE by PERSON , the head of the hospital where the applicant had received medical treatment in DATE . PERSON argued that the applicant ’s condition called for permanent medical supervision by a neurologist and neurosurgeon so that the applicant could be subjected to urgent surgical intervention should the need arise . In PERSON opinion , a detention facility was ill equipped to guarantee such supervision . The applicant also argued that his transfer to a northerly region in which to serve out his sentence had run contrary to the recommendations of his doctor and might have resulted in serious complications of his illness . Finally , he alleged that he lacked effective remedies whereby to complain about the poor quality of his medical treatment .

On DATE in response to a request from the applicant ’s lawyer , a medical expert commission assessed the applicant ’s health and checked for the existence of medical grounds warranting his release from detention . The commission observed that the applicant had received outpatient treatment and that he had no focal brain injuries , epileptic seizures or significant limitations of his day - to - day activity . Taking account of the results of his dynamic medical examinations , the doctors concluded that the applicant was in satisfactory health and that there were no medical grounds warranting his release from detention .

On DATE PERSON examined the applicant . No recommendations were made .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist to whom he complained about headaches , vomiting and vertigo . The doctor recommended drug therapy based on vasobral , piracetam , and vinpocetine . The following visit in DATE by the neurologist resulted in a modification of the drug regimen .

On DATE a prison doctor approved the applicant ’s transfer to a correctional colony , finding him fit to make the journey .

The applicant arrived on DATE at correctional colony no . IKCARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE ( “ colony no . IK-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) , where he was seen by the colony doctor , who noted that the applicant had been suffering from brain cyst . At DATE the doctor recommended the applicant ’s transfer to a hospital for further assessment . No urgency was warranted .

On DATE PERSON drafted another report , assessing the applicant ’s condition on the basis of his medical records and the results of his examination on DATE . PERSON concluded that his recommendations had not been complied with and that the applicant ’s cyst had increased . He stressed that the appropriate treatment could only be ensured in a specialised medical institution , not least because the requisite dynamic monitoring of the applicant ’s condition using computer and magnetic resonance tomography examinations needed to be performed DATE . Lastly , the doctor emphasised that the applicant ’s detention in a northerly region could lead to a further deterioration in his health by inducing epileptic seizures and brain ischemia , thus putting his life at risk .

On DATE the authorities transferred the applicant to a prison hospital in LOC . Following a number of tests , a medical panel declared that the applicant was not suffering from any disability . The applicant was discharged from the hospital with the recommendation that he be re - admitted for further treatment in DATE .

The last CARDINAL entries in the applicant ’s clinical records are illegible . The parties did not provide the ORG with any additional information on the state of his health .


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

George Nicolaou;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On an unspecified date the applicant became a party to proceedings for division of joint property .

On DATE the Kraków – Śródmieście District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) gave a severance order and decided to examine the applicant ’s motion in separate proceedings .

From that date the proceedings have been pending before the firstinstance court .

The applicant lodged CARDINAL complaints under section CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) .

NORP In his complaint of CARDINAL DATE he sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) examined the complaint . It found that the length of the proceedings had been partly attributable to the parties who had requested adjournment of CARDINAL hearings . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned due to the absence of CARDINAL of the parties’ lawyers . The court also considered that the impugned proceedings had been complex . At the same time , however , it found some periods of inactivity on the part of ORG , acknowledged that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy and granted the applicant ORG CARDINAL which it considered “ adequate in view of the periods of inactivity found . ”

On DATE ORG allowed another applicant ’s complaint under LAW . The court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant LAW in compensation .

NORP In DATE the applicant again lodged a complaint under LAW . He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed ORG CARDINAL in compensation .

On DATE ORG held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL in compensation . In ORG view the trial court had failed to act in an effective and diligent manner , in particular in the light of the overall length of the proceedings in issue .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić

In DATE the applicant ’s property rights to a previously nationalised part of his late father ’s land near GPE were restored . On DATE ORG restored his rights – restitution in natura – to the remainder of the land measuring QUANTITY , situated in the village of GPE . This plot of land was then entered in the land registry in the applicant ’s name .

NORP In DATE , having discovered that the decision of DATE was based on erroneous data prepared by a ORG - hired land surveyor and had possibly breached the rights of other former landowners , ORG instituted administrative proceedings to have the applicant ’s title to the plot annulled . The applicant was a third party to those proceedings and argued that the restoration process had been lawful , without , however , raising the question of an adequate compensation in the event that his title to the plot was extinguished . Shortly before the initiation of the case , ORG had admitted that its decision had been unlawful and had informed the applicant that it needed to rectify the error ; however , it appears that the latter had disagreed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor ’s complaint . However , on DATE ORG remitted the case for re - examination .

On DATE ORG granted the claim and annulled the decision of DATE . Finally , on DATE ORG upheld the decision of the lower court . The courts established that the original plot of land to which the applicant had ownership rights was actually situated in another , albeit nearby , area of LOC . Thus , the return of the plot in DATE was declared unlawful as it breached the PERSON on the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property .

Following the courts’ decisions , the plot of land was taken away from the applicant and returned to the ORG . No compensation was awarded to the applicant . However , he reserved the right to have his ownership rights restored .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG restored the applicant ’s ownership rights in natura by granting a new plot of land measuring QUANTITY in GPE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicants , whose names and DATE of birth are tabulated in Appendix I , took part in the cleaning - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . They were subsequently registered disabled , becoming entitled to various social benefits .

On various dates the applicants successfully sued the authorities for inflation adjustment of these benefits . The judgments became final .

On various dates the Presidia of Regional Courts allowed the defendant authorities’ applications for supervisory review and quashed the judgments , considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law .

Some of the judgments remained unenforced until the date of their quashing or were enforced with delay .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the administration of PERSON forwarded for review to ORG ( ORG ) letters sent by the applicant to the President of GPE , the governor of the region , and CARDINAL other administrative bodies . In these letters the applicant alleged in particular that she had a “ special relationship ” with the mayor of GPE , that she was destined to protect people in high office , and that she was being persecuted by employees of the mayor ’s office .

On DATE the Chief Psychiatrist of the ORG asked ORG to order an involuntary psychiatric examination of the applicant . The relevant part of the request read :

“ [ T]he resident psychiatrists concluded that [ the applicant ’s letters ] are morbid ( delusional ) and that she suffers from a mental disorder . The content of the letters reveals high levels of emotional stress , crystallised delusions , and the probability of unlawful actions against the persons involved in the delusions . The ORG attempted to persuade the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination voluntarily , but she refused . Her son suffers from a chronic mental disorder manifested as paranoid schizophrenia . [ Accordingly ] a judicial authorisation of the applicant ’s psychiatric examination under sections CARDINAL of LAW DATE [ is requested ] ... ”

On DATE ORG returned the application for involuntary psychiatric examination .

On DATE after a heated argument in the town hall , the applicant was brought to the police station and then transferred to the MRPC for urgent treatment .

On DATE a clinical psychiatric evaluation report was issued by the panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists in the ORG . The applicant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid syndrome . The panel noted in particular her belief that she had an affectionate relationship with the mayor of PERSON ( attempting to contact him directly by phone and in person ) , her sense of being persecuted by the mayor ’s assistants , and the intense arguments during her visits to the town hall .

Involuntary hospitalisation of the applicant was recommended in the light of her persistent refusal to commit herself to hospital voluntarily , her failure to acknowledge her medical condition , and the risk of significant damage to her health through aggravation of her psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance .

The ORG submitted the application for involuntary treatment to ORG under LAW of ORG Rights related to its ORG Psychiatric Assistance Act DATE ) .

On DATE ORG terminated proceedings on the ORG application because the applicant had agreed to undergo the necessary treatment voluntarily and had signed the consent form in the courtroom . The ORG representative thus withdrew the application for involuntary treatment .

DATE and DATE the applicant was an in - patient in the ORG , following a course of anti - schizophrenia treatment .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG asked the Chief Psychiatrist of the MRPC to take “ prophylactic measures ” within his competence in respect of the applicant . The letter stated that she persistently stalked employees of ORG , demanded that unspecified payments be made to her , and insulted and threatened individuals dealing with her .

On DATE a psychiatrist examined the applicant and established that she had not been following her medication treatment , with the result that her schizophrenia was at an acute stage . The psychiatrist recommended involuntary hospitalisation and issued the corresponding medical referral .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was interned in the MRPC .

On DATE a clinical psychiatric evaluation report was issued by the panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists at the ORG . The applicant was diagnosed with progressive paranoid schizophrenia . The panel took special note of her general medical and clinical history , with the greatest emphasis focussed on the events of DATE and the treatment she received . In respect of developments since DATE the report read :

“ On CARDINAL at CARDINAL the patient PERSON was transported to the ORG under a referral by the psychiatrist PERSON . due to changes in her mental state , her expression of delusional ideas of relations , grandeur and persecution . PERSON involuntarily ...

[ Further follows the detailed personal , family and social profile of the applicant and her medical history in DATE ]

... Currently admitted to the ORG due to progression of her psychiatric symptoms to an acute stage . During examination the following were identified : delusional ideas of relations , persecution , grandeur , exceptional importance . A lack of any objective attitude regarding her condition and statements was observed .

Having regard to the above , the panel concluded that PERSON suffers from a chronic mental disorder in the form of paranoid continuous schizophrenia and needs involuntary treatment in the MRPCV under subsections ( a ) and ( c ) , LAW of LAW DATE . ”

The application for involuntary treatment was submitted by the ORG to ORG under LAW a and c of LAW of DATE , on the grounds of significant damage to her health due to the aggravation of her psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance , posing an immediate danger to herself and others .

On DATE the ORG made phone calls to the applicant ’s son , PERSON , and PERSON , a representative of the municipal ORG of GPE , summoning them to attend the hearing and to act as the applicant ’s representatives .

PERSON rights and duties under the letter of authority of DATE issued by ORG were described as follows :

“ ... PERSON is entrusted with representing the interests of ORG of ORG in relation to all institutions , organisations , and commercial enterprises , and also to litigate in all judicial institutions with all the rights of a plaintiff , defendant or CARDINAL party ... ”

On DATE , after considering the testimony of the applicant and the ORG ’s representative , medical evidence , written statements from the witnesses and documentary evidence , ORG ordered the involuntary hospitalisation of the applicant .

Present at the hearing were a representative of the hospital , a prosecutor , a representative of the municipal social services , and the applicant . The applicant ’s legal representative PERSON ( her son , who also suffered from schizophrenia ) was notified about the hearing , but did not appear . The trial record indicated that none of the parties objected to the hearing being held in his absence , including the applicant , who stated that she had “ told him not to open the door to anyone ” .

The hearing record indicates that PERSON ( designated as a representative of a party having an interest in the proceedings ) took part in the examination of the applicant ( addressing CARDINAL question to the representative of the MRPC ) , stated that there were grounds for involuntary hospitalisation , but did not take part in the closing arguments .

In reaching the decision to order involuntary treatment of the applicant , ORG noted the applicant ’s long history of suffering from a chronic psychiatric disorder and her acute state of schizophrenia at the material time ; her inability to control her behaviour ; her lengthy exposure to harsh weather conditions while seeking encounters with the mayor on the street ; the absence of anyone able to provide her with the necessary care ; the appearance and behaviour of the applicant in the courtroom ; the answers given to the questions addressed to her ; her previous history of in - patient psychiatric treatment and the lack of any prospect of improvement outside of a specialised facility .

Only the operative part of the judgment was delivered during the hearing and the applicant was never served with the full text of the judgment .

On DATE , during her stay in the ORG , the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment . Since she had not been served with a copy of it , the appeal claims had to be confined to general statements concerning the absence of reasons for her internment . The appeal contained a request to be provided with a lawyer for the appeal proceedings , because the applicant was allegedly not allowed to use the phone in the ORG or otherwise contact a representative of her choice .

The applicant was notified of the scheduled appeal hearing by the medical personnel , but was not transferred from the hospital to the courthouse in order to participate in it .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the ORG ’s representative and a prosecutor . No other party participated in the hearing , the record indicating in respect of the applicant that she “ was duly informed about the date and time of the hearing , but did not appear ” . The applicant ’s request to be represented by a lawyer was neither specifically mentioned nor addressed in any way . After hearing the testimony of the hospital ’s representative and the opinion of the prosecutor , and reviewing the written evidence , ORG upheld the lower court ’s authorisation in full , explicitly stating that “ the arguments in the statement of appeal are essentially analogous to those examined [ by the lower court ] ” .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was released from the ORG .

During the applicant ’s stay in the ORG the medical personnel of the facility kept a treatment record , logging all the events considered significant . In the relevant parts it read :

CARDINAL Still certain about her convictions , mental process is blurred . Resists dissuasion . Considers appealing against ORG authorisation .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL Informed [ her ] about her appeal hearing on CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . [ She ] enquired whether she would be participating in the hearing ... ”


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

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

The applicant was born in GPE , GPE , in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .

On DATE and DATE , following proceedings in absentia , ORG and ORG , respectively , convicted the applicant of attempted theft resulting in death in collusion with others and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . That decision became final on DATE after ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant ’s lawyer . It appears that the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by his family throughout the court proceedings .

It appears that on DATE the applicant was extradited from GPE to GPE .

On DATE the ORG allowed a request by the applicant to appeal out of time and he lodged an appeal against his conviction in absentia .

On DATE ORG while requalifying the charges against the applicant on the basis of the evidence obtained during the proceedings in absentia , upheld the applicant ’s conviction , ruling that it had become res judicata .

By a final decision of DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction as decided in the ORG decision of DATE , ruling that it had become res judicata and that the facts and law in the case had been examined previously . It further noted that leave to appeal out of time should not have been granted as the case had become res judicata .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG against ORG decision , complaining , inter alia , about the fact that the domestic courts had not given him the possibility of a fresh factual and legal determination of the criminal charge .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer was notified of ORG decision to dismiss his appeal .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Positive obligations)

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

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

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

The applicant ’s relationship with ORG , a NORP national , began in DATE . They had CARDINAL children , P. and A. , who were born in DATE respectively .

The applicant submitted that her relationship with ORG deteriorated rapidly . In DATE they undertook relationship therapy , which was interrupted because ORG was suffering from depression . He also took no interest in the business he had set up with the applicant in DATE .

According to the domestic court ’s judgments , on DATE ORG hit the applicant several times and threatened her with a knife and a pair of scissors during a violent argument concerning the relationship that she had begun with a common friend . ORG locked the applicant in the flat and took the keys in order to prevent her from leaving . Their children were asleep in the flat and CARDINAL of them , awakened by the screaming , witnessed part of the aggression .

The carabinieri , called by the neighbours , intervened at the couple ’s home . The applicant was taken to hospital in a state of shock . She was diagnosed with , inter alia , concussion , injuries to the head and several bruises all over her body .

J.C.N. was arrested and detained . He was charged with attempted murder , kidnapping , aggravated violence and threatening behaviour . He subsequently asked the authorities in charge of the preliminary investigation to adopt the summary procedure ( giudizio abbreviato ) provided for in Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG was found guilty and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ detention .

The applicant did not join the criminal proceedings as a civil party .

On DATE ORG reduced the sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months’ detention .

By a decision issued on DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by ORG

On DATE ORG applied to ORG seeking to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest at a reception centre located in the municipality where the applicant was living ( Colognola ai Colli ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed ORG ’s application , referring , inter alia , to the proximity of the facility indicated ( QUANTITY ) to the applicant ’s home , the psychological condition of ORG and the risk that he might try to contact the applicant .

On DATE ORG lodged another application for house arrest , indicating a reception centre ( “ PERSON ” ) located in Soave , a different municipality of the province of GPE , QUANTITY from the applicant ’s home . The centre was managed by a non - profit - making organisation called PERSON .

ORG ordered an inspection of the facility indicated by ORG in order to assess its suitability to host him . The inspection was carried out by the carabinieri , who highlighted that the facility in question had already hosted persons whose prison sentence had been replaced by house arrest , without any complications having arisen . They further stressed that they carried out regular surveillance of the persons hosted by the centre . They consequently concluded that the facility was suitable to host the applicant ’s former partner .

On DATE ORG granted ORG ’s request .

On DATE ORG granted ORG permission to work outside the reception centre during the grape - harvest season .

On DATE ORG finished serving his sentence and was released . He decided to continue residing at the reception centre .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG seeking sole custody of her children and the forfeiture of her former partner ’s parental rights .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was granted sole custody of her children . In DATE , after having heard both the applicant and her former partner , ORG ordered the forfeiture of ORG ’s parental rights and prohibited any form of contact between him and the children . The court stressed that ORG could apply for the restoration of his parental rights once he had served his sentence and followed a path aimed at acquiring the parental skills he had been shown to be lacking .

In DATE ORG applied to ORG seeking the restoration of his parental rights and the suspension of his financial obligation towards his children . No information was submitted to the ORG about the outcome of the application .

The applicant claimed that following the violence suffered at the hands of her former partner , she lived in a state of constant anguish and fear of a recurrence of the violence against her and her children . She underwent psychological support therapy , as did her son PERSON , who had witnessed the violence .

On an unspecified date the applicant turned for help to an association ( Associazione scaligera vittime di reato – ASAV ) that specialised in providing material , psychological and legal assistance to victims of crime .

The applicant visited her former partner CARDINAL times during his imprisonment , which lasted from DATE to DATE .

From the material submitted by the applicant , it appears that after ORG was released he and the applicant resumed contact in the form of an exchange of emails .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC Duplek . The chamber decided that the applicant ’s , the children ’s and their mother ’s identity should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG ) .


Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a LOC national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr R. Mlinarić and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

On DATE the Government of GPE were informed of the case and invited to exercise their right to intervene if they wished to do so . On DATE the Government of GPE informed the ORG that they did not wish to exercise their right to intervene in the present case .

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

On DATE I.P. , a well - known NORP journalist , and his business associate PERSON were killed by the explosion of an improvised device placed under ORG ’s car , which was parked in front of his publishing company . The explosion also caused injuries to CARDINAL employees of the publishing company and considerable material damage to the surrounding buildings and nearby parked cars .

NORP The police immediately started enquiries into the above events and soon learned that a certain GPE , GPE and DATE were implicated and that an unknown person was supposedly aiding them in fleeing the country . It was therefore decided to arrest these individuals . The Police Chief ( PERSON ) issued an oral order that the arrests be carried out by an anti - terrorist team of ORG ( Specijalna policija , PERSON hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta DATE hereinafter “ the ORG Attorney ’s ORG ” ) indicted several individuals , including the applicant , before ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) on charges of conspiracy to kill FAC and of carrying out the plan .

On DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) found the applicant guilty on the charge of incitement to conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the applicant ’s conviction , increasing his sentence to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE , at TIME , the ORG arrested the applicant together with ORG and PERSON at the NORP petrol station off the motorway near the town of ORG .

According to the Government the CARDINAL individuals concerned resisted arrest and force had to be used against them . CARDINAL members of the ORG sustained injuries . The applicant also sustained injuries while a standard restraint technique was applied against him during the arrest .

According to the applicant , even though he was not resisting arrest , he was severely beaten by several police officers all over his head and body .

After being arrested the applicant was brought to the LOC of FAC in GPE . There he received medical assistance at CARDINAL a.m. on DATE from an emergency medical team .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by an investigating judge of ORG in the presence of CARDINAL defence lawyers . He did not make any complaints about the conduct of the police .

On DATE , upon his admission to detention , the applicant was examined by a prison doctor who found that he had haematomas around both eyes and an abrasion on his face .

According to the applicant , in the further course of the proceedings he complained to ORG , the investigating judge , the State Attorney ’s Office , the police and other authorities of the violence used against him during his arrest . However , he did not submit any documents supporting those allegations .

The documents submitted by the parties show that in a letter of CARDINAL DATE , addressed to ORG ) the applicant complained , inter alia , of alleged ill - treatment by the police during his arrest .

No investigation was ever opened in connection with the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the ORG before ORG ( Općinski građanski sud u GPE ) , claiming damages for his alleged ill - treatment by the police . It appears that these proceedings are still pending before the first - instance court .

In a constitutional complaint of DATE , lodged against ORG judgment of DATE given in the criminal proceedings against him , the applicant alleged that the police officers had used force against him during his arrest and had caused him numerous bodily injuries . On DATE ORG found that these allegations , in so far as they were admissible and susceptible to be addressed within ORG proceedings , did not reveal any violation of the applicant ’s human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by LAW .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE the police issued a payment order fining the applicant CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) for CARDINAL traffic offences under Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of FAC . From the police ’s description of the facts and evidence it appears that on DATE at TIME while trying to overtake X ’s car , which had been improperly parked , the applicant failed to make sure that he could do so without endangering X ’s car and with the rear right end of his car he hit the rear left end of NORP ’s car . Allegedly , after the collision the applicant left the scene of the accident without submitting his personal data to X who was not present during the accident or notifying the police that he had been involved in an accident . X stated to the police that an unknown witness told him that the person responsible for the accident was driving a dark car with the number plate LJ DATE . On the basis of this information the police checked CARDINAL vehicles with number plates LJ DATE and LJ CARDINAL - CARDINALL. These vehicles did not show any sign of damage . On DATE X informed the police that he had found a dark car with the number plate KP LCARDINAL - CARDINAL . The police established that the owner of the car was the applicant . On DATE the police interviewed the applicant and checked his car . They found that the damage on the applicant ’s car corresponded to that of X ’s car . They further found that Y was present in the applicant ’s car during the accident .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection . He argued that he did not detect any collision between the CARDINAL cars and that , accordingly , he had not informed GPE or the police of the accident ; that there had been many passers - by on the road who had witnessed how he had been manoeuvring the car but nobody had warned him of any kind of abrasion or dent caused to X ’s car ; that he lived at the address of the scene of the accident and would have never left the scene even if he had caused the damage ; that he had been informed of the accident only the following day when called by the police , and that together with the police he had checked his car visually and discovered a scratch of QUANTITY in length for which he did not know when it appeared . According to the applicant , due to X ’s improper parking any vehicle could have hit his car ; from the damage on X ’s car it was clear that the applicant could not have caused the damage with his car . The applicant reiterated that if he had detected the accident he would have reported it and this fact could have been proved by witness Y which was present in his car . He described in detail the events of DATE , namely approximately at TIME he drove out of the parking spaces , he wanted to turn to the right but CARDINAL cars prevented him from doing so because they were actually parked on the road ; the cars parked posed a threat to road traffic safety because the space between them would have not allowed an ambulance or any other emergency vehicle to pass ; in such a situation the applicant was forced to position his car at an appropriate angle to enable him to pass safely between the cars ; he had to fold both side mirrors ; otherwise he would not have been able to pass the CARDINAL parked vehicles without collision ; he manoeuvred his car at CARDINAL speed and was not aware that he had caused an abrasion or damage to any other vehicle .

On DATE the police issued a reasoned decision finding the applicant guilty of the abovementioned minor offences .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for judicial review . He complained that the police had not sufficiently established the facts ; he had not left or escaped the scene of the accident ; he had not been aware of any collision and , consequently , he did not inform X and the police thereof in accordance with LAW ) of FAC . He further stated that he wanted to turn right onto the carriageway but he was prevented from doing so by CARDINAL cars parked on the carriageway – on the left and on the right sides of the road . CARDINAL of the cars was X ’s car . When he wanted to drive out of the garage he could not do so and was forced to manoeuvre for quite some time to position the car at an appropriate angle and had to straighten the car almost completely to be able to pass freely between the CARDINAL cars . In order to do it safely he had to fold in both side mirrors because otherwise he would have not been able to pass the parked cars without colliding with them . During the manoeuvring he was not aware that he had caused an abrasion or damage to the cars . The manoeuvring speed was minimal . There were many passers - by who witnessed the manoeuvring but did not warn him of any accident . In order to prove these allegations the applicant proposed that he and Y be heard . He further stated that police had not considered the fact that he lived at the address of the scene of the accident and therefore he had no interest in leaving the scene . He drove to a filling station , went shopping and visited his parents . As evidence he submitted a fuel purchase receipt and a shop receipt and proposed the hearing of his parents . He further argued that if he had left the scene of the accident intentionally he would have concealed the scratches on his car . Even if he had collided with X ’s car he would not have been aware of it since his car was a diesel - fuelled car which tended to vibrate heavily . Moreover , his radio was always turned on which reduced the likelihood of noticing the collision . In order to prove this he proposed that he and Y be heard . He argued that he was not aware of the date when the scratch appeared on his car since the car was DATE and had many other scratches . Since X ’s car had been improperly parked any vehicle could have collided with it . The police did not clarify on the basis of which fact they had concluded that the scratch on his car corresponded to the damage on X ’s car . In the applicant ’s view X had been frenetically searching for the culprit and as soon as he found a black car

On DATE ORG rejected the request for judicial review without holding a hearing . ORG held that it had no reason to doubt the findings of the police who conducted an interview with the applicant and a visual inspection of his car during which they noticed damage which corresponded to the damage on X ’s car . According to the court , it was clear from the documents of the case - file , in particular the photographs of X ’s car , that the damage had been caused by the applicant ’s car and the applicant ’s complaints in this respect remained general and subjective . In particular , the allegations that the accident would have been reported by passers - by or that the applicant would not have left the scene of the accident if he had noticed it were subjective and could not be verified . The applicant could not be released from his responsibility for the minor offence by stating that he had not been aware of the collision because this was , again , a subjective allegation . Every participant in road traffic , in the circumstances described by the applicant , was expected to be particularly alert and to detect the collision . Regarding the allegation that X ’s car was parked on the road and that it had endangered the traffic safety the court stressed that only the applicant ’s behaviour was at issue . It held that according to LAW ) of FAC a traffic offender who had left the scene of the accident should have immediately notified the injured party or the police the information referred to in that Section . The court therefore did not have to reply to the applicant ’s allegations that he had not left the scene to an unknown place as they were legally irrelevant . Finally , the evidence submitted by the applicant could not change the conclusions of the police and it was only an attempt to delay the proceedings since the motions for evidence did not comply with the required legal standards regarding the subject - matter about which the witnesses proposed might have testified .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal as inadmissible .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The NORP Government ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .

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

On DATE ORG ) opened an investigation into the allegations that the applicant had committed the offences of illegal border crossing and inciting prostitution for gain . The case was registered under no . CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

It appears that the investigation was formally stayed from CARDINAL DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG lodged with ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a bill of indictment , charging the applicant with the offence of trafficking of women and inciting prostitution for gain . The case was registered under no . II K CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG remitted the case to the prosecutor for further investigation . The new investigation file was registered under no . CARDINAL Ds . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG lodged with ORG an extended bill of indictment , this time , charging the applicant , together with CARDINAL alleged accomplices , of membership in an organised criminal gang , trafficking of women and inciting and profiting from prostitution . The case was registered under no . II K CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE the trial court relinquished its jurisdiction to the Opole Regional Court ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the ORG renounced its jurisdiction and the case was remitted back to LOC . The case was registered under no . II K CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

The first hearing was held on DATE . On DATE the trial court decided to sever the charge of profiting from prostitution and to deal with it separately .

The severed case was registered under no . II K CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

The subsequent hearings in the severed case no . II K CARDINAL/CARDINAL were held on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The trial court examined CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the case no . II K CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the ground of negative prescription .

On an unspecified date , prior to DATE , the proceedings in the main case , no . II K CARDINAL/CARDINAL , were discontinued on the ground of negative prescription .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under the PERSON of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . He alleged that the pre - trial proceedings in the case no . II K CARDINAL/CARDINAL had been unreasonably lengthy as they had lasted DATE .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the complaint . The court held that the CARDINAL Act was not applicable in the applicant ’s case since the impugned proceedings were in their pretrial and not judicial phase .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are stated in the ORG ’s decisions in cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII and the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL

NORP Moreover , on DATE the PERSON of DATE on amendments to the PERSON on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o zmianie ustawy o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the LAW ” ) entered into force .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the DATE Amendment , the amended name of LAW reads as follows :

“ [ the LAW ] on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted and supervised by a LAW and to a trial within a reasonable time . ”

Following LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The LAW stipulates the principles of and the procedure for the lodging and the examination of a complaint by a party whose right to a trial within a reasonable time has been breached as a result of an action or the inaction of a court or of the prosecutor conducting or supervising the investigation . ”

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the amended CARDINAL Act , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . If a complaint concerns the unreasonable length of an investigation , it will be examined by the court immediately above the court competent to deal with the case . ”

Section CARDINAL of the amended CARDINAL LAW provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The complaint may contain a request for the court conducting the proceedings or the prosecutor conducting or supervising the investigation , to take actions in a specific time - limit or to pay suitable amount of money as specified in section CARDINAL subsection CARDINAL . ”

Section CARDINAL of the amended CARDINAL Act reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . If the complaint concerns unreasonable length of the investigation , the competent court informs ORG – the prosecutor immediately above the prosecutor conducting or supervising the investigation – and serves him with a copy of the complaint . ”

Section CARDINAL of the amended CARDINAL Act provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . If the complaint is justified , the court may , at the request of the complainant , award ... a sum of CARDINAL Polish zlotys to be paid by ORG or by a bailiff , if the proceedings have been conducted by a bailiff . ”

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the amended LAW :

“ A party may lodge a new complaint in respect of the same set of proceedings DATE after the court has decided on the previous complaint or DATE after where the complainant has been remanded in custody during the investigation , or where these are enforcement proceedings or any other proceedings concerning execution of a court ’s ruling . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW lays down the following transitional rules in relation to applications which are already pending before the ORG :

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE of entry into force of this LAW , persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to an investigation within a reasonable time as guaranteed by LAW ... , may , if their complaint to ORG was lodged in the course of the impugned investigation and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case , lodge a complaint , on the basis of the provisions of this law , that the length of the proceedings was unreasonable .

A complaint lodged under subsection CARDINAL shall indicate the date on which the application was lodged with the ORG .

The relevant court shall immediately inform the minister with a foreign affairs mandate of any complaints lodged under subsection CARDINAL . ”


Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was sued by his son in proceedings on child maintenance before ORG ( file no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

During those proceedings he made an incomplete submission on CARDINAL DATE , which he supplemented DATE after alleging that he had been waiting for a response from ORG in respect of his request for a legal aid lawyer . He also lodged CARDINAL complaints with the president of ORG about the excessive length of proceedings , namely on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which were unsuccessful . Having been dissatisfied with their outcome , he turned to the appellate court for review of his complaints to no avail .

ORG , on the other hand , took the following steps . It asked several public authorities , such as for example ORG and ORG , to provide it with information relevant to the case . DATE and DATE , it was dealing with an appointment of a guardian to the applicant , who at the material time was undergoing an ambulatory psychiatric treatment . Such an appointment was eventually revoked in DATE on the grounds that ORG had appointed a lawyer for the applicant in DATE . ORG also joined the present case file to another set of proceedings for DATE . In DATE , ORG judge responsible for hearing the applicant ’s case changed . ORG further scheduled several hearings , which were either adjourned or cancelled .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint about a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings held before FAC as manifestly ill - founded . It concluded that ORG proceeded with the matter actively and properly , apart from a few minor exceptions , such as the joining of a case file to another set of proceedings , changing of the judge and a procedural error made during one of the hearings . In particular , ORG took into account the fact that the applicant had complained of excessive delays with the president of ORG and challenged them further on appeal on each occasion .

Subsequently , ORG took several steps as follows . It asked for further information from inter alia the applicant ’s employer . It also scheduled a hearing for DATE , which was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE . It then postponed the latter hearing to an unspecified date , since it had to deal with a procedural request from the plaintiff , which was also challenged on appeal . In the absence of any further information from the parties , it appears that the proceedings are still pending and no judgment on the merits has been delivered by ORG .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the Šibenik Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG opened an investigation against the applicant on suspicion of the theft of a mobile telephone from GPE , who had come to GPE as a tourist from GPE .

On DATE an investigating judge of the ORG heard the applicant , who denied the charges against him . He explained that on the occasion in question some children from a house in GPE had thrown water - filled balloons at him . He had approached the house the children had come from and had knocked at the door , but no one had answered . He had then walked away . When he was back at home , CARDINAL young women had come to ask for the mobile telephone belonging to CARDINAL of them , but he told them he had not taken it .

NORP In response to a request for international legal assistance from the NORP prosecuting authorities , on DATE ORG in GPE heard evidence from GPE She said that on DATE in GPE , GPE , her children had thrown water - filled balloons at the applicant . He had then approached the house they were staying in and through a window she had seen him steal her mobile telephone from a table on the terrace of that house . Together with her step - daughter she had followed the applicant to his house and asked him to return her telephone . However , he had denied taking it .

On DATE the NORP Municipal State Attorney ’s Office indicted the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) on the charge of stealing a mobile telephone from GPE

During his trial before ORG the applicant gave oral evidence on DATE . He reiterated the statement he had given before the investigating judge . Throughout these proceedings the applicant challenged the allegation against him , contending that , although there had been a dispute between him and GPE over the behaviour of her children , he had not stolen her mobile telephone . The applicant ’s account was confirmed in essence by his former wife , who was also questioned as a witness during the proceedings .

At a hearing held on DATE ORG decided to admit the record of GPE ’s questioning as evidence without examining her directly . The applicant objected to the reading out of GPE ’s statement .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment suspended for DATE . The finding of the applicant ’s guilt was based solely on the evidence given by GPE The trial court held that it was clear that the applicant had been the person who had approached the house where GPE and her family were staying . The evidence given by GPE conclusively showed that the applicant had committed the offence at issue and that GPE had no reason “ to blame the accused without basis ” . The relevant part of the first - instance judgment reads :

“ Under LAW ) of LAW this court read out the statement given by GPE before ORG , GPE , on DATE without the parties’ consent because there were sound reasons for doing so , namely that the victim gave her evidence DATE and this court considers that , owing to the passage of time , it would not learn any new facts or circumstances relevant for assessing the circumstances of the event [ at issue ] , and was also mindful of the fact that the [ charges against the accused ] will become time - barred in DATE and ... summoning the victim would protract the criminal proceedings unnecessarily .

... considering the evidence given by witness and victim GPE as being credible and truthful , this court has established the criminal responsibility of the accused because it has not found in the victim ’s statement any reason for which she would blame the accused without basis . ... ”

In his appeal of CARDINAL DATE the applicant argued , inter alia , that GPE had never been summoned to a hearing during his trial before ORG and that he had had no opportunity to question her . He also argued that GPE ’s mobile telephone had not been found in his possession . On DATE the ORG ( Županijski sud u PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded , upholding the first - instance judgment . The relevant part of the appeal judgment reads as follows :

“ In the reasoning of its judgment , the [ first - instance ] court stated the reasons why it had decided ... to read out the statement of the witness - victim GPE , stating that the victim had given her evidence DATE previously , at which time her recollection of the event [ at issue ] would have been fresher than later , that the prosecution would become time - barred in DATE and since [ the victim ] was a foreign citizen ... summoning her [ to a hearing ] would protract the criminal proceedings unnecessarily .

... This decision of the first - instance court did not violate the defence rights of the accused ...

... it should also be said that the mobile telephone could not have been found in the accused ’s possession because nobody looked for it . The documents in the case - file show that the accused ’s home was not searched , which was a mistake on the part of the police . However , even without it , the [ first - instance ] court undoubtedly established that the accused had stolen the mobile telephone from the victim ... ”

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , arguing that he had not had a fair trial as he had not been given an opportunity to question GPE

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .


No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .

The applicant and her husband , GPE , had CARDINAL children , NORP and PERSON

In DATE they formed a foster family for QUANTITY brothers , GPE and PERSON On DATE the ORG appointed her and her husband as the LOC official foster parents .

NORP In DATE they fostered CARDINAL more children , siblings GPE , GPE and GPE

In DATE the family fostered CARDINAL other children , sisters TIME and PERSON

The applicant and her husband took care of CARDINAL children altogether , QUANTITY biological and CARDINAL fostered .

NORP In DATE GPE suddenly died . The applicant subsequently applied for dissolution of the foster family . She submitted that she could not cope with the task of running a foster home for CARDINAL children on her own .

NORP On DATE the ORG issued an interim care order placing GPE , GPE and GPE with another foster family , run by PERSON and PERSON The applicant was still responsible for the CARDINAL PERSON brothers and the CARDINAL PERSON sisters as their foster mother .

On DATE the ORG moved the PERSON brothers to another foster family , run by PERSON

NORP In DATE the foster family formed by the applicant was dissolved in respect of the CARDINAL M. sisters .

NORP In DATE the applicant married GPE , who did not adopt the applicant ’s biological sons NORP and PERSON . The applicant remains their sole legal guardian .

The applicant ’s late husband GPE was covered by an insurance scheme run by ORG ( ORG – “ the Fund ” ) . His children were entitled to a survivors’ pension ( renta rodzinna ) under the scheme . The total amount of the pension payable to survivors was to be divided into equal parts among all eligible individuals – in GPE ’s case , all his children , both biological and fostered .

In DATE the applicant applied to ORG for the survivors’ pension in respect of all CARDINAL children .

On DATE the ORG decided that the PERSON sisters were not eligible for the pension , as DATE had passed between the applicant ’s late husband becoming their foster father and his death . The ORG further established that the remaining CARDINAL children – the applicant ’s biological children , the CARDINAL PERSON brothers and the CARDINAL C. siblings − would be entitled to a pension of ORG MONEY in total per month . The applicant , as their legal guardian , was appointed beneficiary of the pension .

On DATE PERSON requested that the ORG grant a pension in respect of the ORG siblings , who had by that time become part of the foster family she ran with her husband ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG issued a new decision revising the amount of the pension to be paid . The applicant ’s CARDINAL biological children and the CARDINAL PERSON brothers fostered by her would be entitled to a DATE allowance of ORG between them , CARDINAL of the total amount . The CARDINAL C. siblings being raised by the PERSON family would be entitled to a DATE allowance of ORG between them , CARDINAL of the total amount .

NORP The applicant appealed against the decisions delivered by the Fund . She requested that the court amend its decision of DATE and declare that the only individuals eligible were her husband ’s biological children . She argued that the children formerly in her foster care had been placed with other families who provided for them and that they should not therefore be entitled to ORG in respect of her late husband . She was of the view that the contested decision put her children in a disadvantageous situation in comparison with the foster children .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , but on DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the lower court for re - examination with the participation of the C. and PERSON legal guardians .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal again . The court based its reasoning on ORG LOC z CARDINAL grudnia DATE roku o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników – “ the LAW ” ) . Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of that LAW all children of the deceased , including foster children , were eligible for a survivors’ pension . LAW stated that all family members were eligible for a share of the pension , which was to be divided into equal parts , even where the eligible individuals were minors under the care of different guardians . ORG stressed that the spirit of the LAW was to treat all children equally in respect of the insurance benefits payable to them on the death of an insured person , irrespective of whether they were biological or foster children . The court found no grounds on which to quash or amend the contested decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal by the applicant on the same grounds as the first . The court fully concurred with the reasoning of the first - instance court .

On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to ORG to complain about the decisions given in her case . She submitted that her biological children were being treated less favourably than the foster children in respect of their survivors’ pension . She received a response dated DATE . In that letter , the Director of ORG shared the applicant ’s view that the legal provisions in force at that time were indeed unfavourable to biological children in situations where foster children had been moved to other families . The applicant was informed that the relevant legislative amendments were in progress .

According to the most recent relevant decision of the ORG , dated DATE , the total amount of the pension would from that date be divided into CARDINAL parts , because ORG had lost his entitlement having reached the age of majority . From that date onwards , the applicant ’s biological children would receive CARDINAL of the survivors’ pension . The remainder would be paid to the other children formerly in her and her late husband ’s foster care .

The District Family Support Centre ( PCPR ) awarded the applicant the following amounts in financial support for the foster children :

for GPE from DATE until DATE – CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL MONEY for personal care of the child ;

for GPE from DATE until DATE – CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ORG for personal care of the child ;

for ORG from DATE until DATE – CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an MONEY for personal care of the child ;

for TIME from DATE until DATE CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG and an additional CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL PLN for personal care of the child ;

for PERSON from DATE until DATE , and an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG for personal care of the child .

Mr and PERSON , the GPE foster parents , received :

for GPE from DATE until DATE CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional NORP ORG for personal care of the child ;

for GPE from DATE until DATE – CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN for personal care of the child ;

for ORG from DATE until DATE – CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN for personal care of the child .

PERSON , PERSON and GPE ’s foster mother , received :

for GPE from DATE until DATE CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG for personal care of the child ;

for GPE from DATE until DATE and an additional NORP for personal care of the child .

Siblings GPE , GPE and ORG remained in PERSON and PERSON foster family from DATE until DATE ( T.C. ) and CARDINAL DATE ( GPE and GPE ) . By a court decision of DATE , GPE was placed in a Staterun children ’s home . PERSON and GPE remained with couple P. ’s foster family until DATE when the court restored their biological GPE parental rights . PERSON and GPE lived with them from DATE .

GPE and PERSON stopped drawing their survivors’ pensions on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

Siblings PERSON and GPE remained in PERSON foster family from DATE until DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . That foster family ultimately ceased to exist because they had reached the age of majority . PERSON subsequently moved in with his biological mother . He stopped receiving his survivors’ pension on DATE . PERSON moved into college accommodation .

The applicant ’s biological sons GPE and PERSON were entitled to receive ORG until DATE and DATE respectively . ORG and GPE ’s entitlement expired on CARDINAL DATE .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Afghanistan)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and has been in the GPE since DATE .

On DATE the applicant entered the GPE where on DATE he applied for asylum , fearing persecution within the meaning of the DATE LAW ( “ the Refugee Convention ” ) and/or treatment in breach of LAW . On DATE , he was interviewed about his identity , nationality and travel itinerary ( eerste gehoor ) . He stated , inter alia , that he was an NORP national of NORP origin , that he came from GPE and that he had travelled to the GPE via GPE , GPE and GPE .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed about his reasons for seeking asylum ( nader gehoor ) . He stated that he feared persecution and ill - treatment on account of his communist past as a former member of the communist ORG of GPE ( “ the PDPA ” ) and for having served as a volunteer in ORG ( PERSON ) . He further claimed that he risked ill - treatment at the hands of mujahideen party ORG for having been involved DATE with the rival NORP - dominated , PERSON party and , additionally , at the hands of a Mr S. , whom he had captured and ill - treated during an interrogation conducted in the context of his work for PERSON . He also feared problems from the side of PERSON for having stopped working for them .

The applicant stated that he had joined the youth branch of the PDPA in DATE and that in DATE he had served as a volunteer for DATE in ORG . He had been discharged after he had stepped on a mine during combat . He further stated that in DATE he had started to work for ORG in GPE , at the department for government stores , and that in DATE he had given a television interview in which he had criticised the then Minister of Trade . This interview had not been broadcast in DATE but only in DATE , after the mujahideen had seized power in GPE . DATE after it had been broadcast , the applicant had been arrested by the mujahideen faction PERSON ( ORG ) then led by PERSON . In his opinion they had been under the impression , given that he had dared to criticise ORG , that he was an important member of ORG . He had been released after DATE in a prisoner exchange operation mediated , at the request of the applicant ’s parents , by PERSON , an influential person of NORP origin .

In return , the applicant had had to work for PERSON . He had worked as a representative of the ( military ) Division CARDINAL of PERSON at the GPE peace commission in which ORG , GPE and PERSON had also been represented . His tasks had included trading prisoners and seized goods , and mediating between parties . He had also been responsible for preventing members of PERSON ORG from defecting and for preventing members of other factions from infiltrating PERSON . In the course of carrying out these duties and if circumstances so warranted , he had been under orders to take people secretly into custody . CARDINAL of the persons taken in custody , PERSON , had been interrogated by the applicant himself , who had ill - treated PERSON during interrogation . After PERSON and PERSON had taken over control of the GPE district in GPE , the applicant had been arrested and detained again by ORG in DATE . He had been released in a prisoner exchange organised by PERSON .

The applicant had continued his work for the peace committee of PERSON until DATE , when this party had been defeated and retreated to GPE . The applicant had stayed behind in GPE and had not been persecuted by “ GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , fearing ORG and the ORG , the applicant had then gone into hiding – moving around between GPE and the villages of PERSON and PERSON in the province of DATE until DATE , when NORP troops had arrived . He had been arrested on DATE by ORG , then under the leadership of General PERSON . The applicant had been tortured several times during his incarceration . Mr PERSON had been present on one of those occasions . The applicant had been told by interrogators that he had been detained because he was a NORP or a convert . He also thought that his arrest had something to do with PERSON The applicant had managed to escape from prison after DATE with the help of a guard – who like the applicant was a former communist – to whom the applicant had paid MONEY . This guard had set up a mock execution outside the prison , which had enabled the applicant to escape . This guard had told the applicant that he should leave GPE forever . After his escape , the applicant had first hidden in his house in GPE for DATE and had subsequently stayed with a distant relative until he had left GPE for GPE in DATE .

On DATE , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ) informed the applicant that his case had been transmitted to ORG ( see ORG v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) in order for it to examine whether LAW should be applied to the applicant ’s asylum request .

On DATE the CARDINAL Unit conducted a supplementary interview ( aanvullend gehoor ) with the applicant . During this interview , he declared , inter alia , that in DATE , as a member of ORG , he had participated in a purge action – ordered by ORG and ORG – aimed against persons active on behalf of PERSON and Jamiat in a specific area and that prisoners of war had been handed over to the former NORP communist security service , ORG ( ORG - e Dowlati / PERSON ) . He had become disabled when the tank on which he had been standing had hit a mine . The applicant also stated that , during the wars , PERSON had plundered houses , seized privately owned cars and physically tortured persons . It was correct that PERSON had committed many crimes and had shed much blood . He further related how he had interrogated and hit Mr S. at the PERSON headquarters in GPE . He also stated that , at present , he had no proof that he was being searched for but that it was clear to him , having been released upon payment of a bribe , that he could not show himself in GPE .

On DATE the Minister for ORG issued notice of her intention ( voornemen ) to reject the first applicant ’s asylum application and to apply LAW . The Minister found it established , given his consistent and detailed statements , that the applicant had worked for ORG and PERSON but also found that , in his account to the GPE authorities , he had in part misrepresented the facts , had sought to trivialise his activities for PERSON and had withheld important information .

The nature of the applicant ’s work , and the contents of an official report ( ambtsbericht ) , drawn up on DATE by ORG , entitled “ ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( “ PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD ” ; ORG ) and an official report , drawn up on DATE by ORG , on PERSON ( DPC / AM-CARDINAL ) , had given cause to consider whether LAW was applicable to the applicant ’s asylum claim .

In her notice of intention , the Minister analysed , on the basis of elaborate argumentation based on various international materials and on the prescribed and so - called “ knowing and personal participation ” test , the nature of the acts imputed to the applicant in the framework of LAW , as well as his individual responsibility under LAW . The Minister noted , inter alia , that the applicant had worked for a part of ORG , ORG , which had collaborated with the ORG and found that it was justified to conclude that the applicant had known or should have known about the criminal character of the ORG and that its crimes had formed part of a widespread or targeted attack aimed against the civilian population . Having regard to the official report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Minister further found that the cruel character of the ORG had been commonly known . The Minister further did not believe that the applicant had been ignorant of the criminal character of PERSON when he had started to work for it as this had been widely known at the material time . Relying on the official report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Minister underlined that PERSON had been considered during the Afghan civil war to be one of the most violent groups , not only because of its militia ’s actions on the battle field and merciless liquidation of its political opponents , but in particular because of its militia ’s crimes against the civil population of GPE and for having instilled a true climate of terror in the country . The Minister lastly found it established that the applicant himself had committed acts of torture on the person of Mr S.

As regards LAW , the Minister did not find it established that the applicant , if returned to GPE , would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by this provision . In reaching this finding , the Minister took into account , inter alia , that the applicant had stayed for DATE in GPE and DATE in GPE without having sought assistance in these countries from , for instance , the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ ORG ” ) , that he had not applied for asylum when he had been apprehended by the police in GPE , and that he had not reported immediately to the immigration authorities after his arrival in the GPE .

On DATE the applicant submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on the Minister ’s intended decision . On DATE the Minister rejected the applicant ’s asylum application , confirming the reasoning set out in her notice of intention of DATE and rebutting the applicant ’s written comments .

The applicant ’s appeal against this decision was rejected on DATE by ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE , sitting in PERSON . It held in respect of the applicant ’s activities as a CARDINAL adolescent volunteer for ORG that , according to the applicable policy in respect of child soldiers , the Minister had not adequately reasoned her decision finding “ knowing participation ” in respect of this part of the applicant ’s account . However , on the basis of the other elements of the account , it accepted the decision of the Minister to deny the applicant asylum by applying LAW against him . It further held that it had not been established that the applicant – if expelled to GPE – would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by LAW from the side of ORG on the basis of the general security situation in GPE , or on the basis of his NORP ethnic origin .

The applicant , who from his first interview was assisted by a lawyer in these asylum proceedings , could have filed a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) , but did not do so . Consequently , the ruling of DATE became final when the DATE time - limit for filing an appeal with ORG expired .

On DATE the applicant was informed by the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) of the intention ( voornemen ) to declare him an undesirable alien entailing the imposition of an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) in accordance with section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( e ) of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , following the decision to hold LAW against him in the asylum procedure .

The actual decision to impose this exclusion order on the applicant was taken on DATE by the Deputy Minister of ORG . As regards LAW , the Deputy Minister did not find it established that the applicant would be at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to this provision in GPE or that there were any obstacles of a medical nature to his removal to GPE . Further noting that the applicant did not have any relatives or other persons in the GPE with whom he had a family life within the meaning of LAW , the Deputy Minister further found that the exclusion order did not constitute an interference with the rights guaranteed by this provision .

The applicant challenged this decision in administrative law proceedings . The last ( for the applicant negative ) decision in these proceedings was taken on DATE by ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE . It noted that , in its ruling of DATE , which had obtained the force of res iudicata , ORG of The Hague , sitting in TIME , had concluded that there existed serious reasons for assuming that the applicant had been involved in acts referred to in LAW . As the Deputy Minister had enjoyed a discretionary power in deciding whether or not to impose an exclusion order , it had to be assessed whether in deciding to impose that order , the competing interests involved had been carefully balanced . In view of the reasons given in the impugned decision and the applicant ’s submissions , ORG of GPE , sitting in GPE , accepted the Deputy Minister ’s decision that the applicant ’s personal interests were outweighed by the general public ’s interests pursued by the exclusion order .

In so far as the applicant had invoked LAW , ORG noted that in its ruling of DATE it had already found that the applicant had not demonstrated that his expulsion to GPE would expose him to a risk of a violation of his rights under that provision . It found that also in the proceedings at hand the applicant had not submitted facts or referred to circumstances on the grounds of which it should be accepted as plausible that he would risk a violation of his rights under LAW if he were to be expelled to GPE . As regards Article CARDINAL , ORG noted that it appeared from the applicant ’s notice of appeal ( beroepschrift ) that it was not in dispute between the parties that the applicant could not claim a right of residence on the basis of LAW and that it was thus not necessary to consider this point any further .

The applicant , who was represented by a lawyer throughout these proceedings , could have filed a further appeal with ORG , but he did not do so . Consequently , the ruling of CARDINAL DATE became final after the expiry of the DATE time - limit for filing an appeal with ORG .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was apprehended at his home and a house search was conducted on the LOC until TIME

During this time , the applicant told the officers that he intended to attend a funeral DATE . He submits that his request was “ unofficially ” dismissed at once . The Government denied this allegation .

NORP On completion of the house search , the applicant was committed to the offices of ORG , QUANTITY away from the cemetery in question .

From TIME the applicant was interrogated as a suspect of attempted misappropriation of funds . At the beginning of the procedure , he formally requested that the authorities allow his attendance at his stepmother ’s funeral which took place on DATE , at TIME The request was rejected with the reasoning that its granting would have contravened the purpose of the arrest . The interrogation ended at TIME on DATE .

The applicant then complained to the Attorney General . That office rejected the complaint on DATE , pointing out that the relevant decree did not allow as such for arrestees DATE as opposed to those in pre - trial detention – to attend funerals , for which reason the refusal of his request had been lawful .