Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicants are all NORP nationals of GPE origin and heirs of GPE , who , together with some of the applicants , initiated the domestic proceedings . Those proceedings were still pending when GPE died on DATE .

I.B. ’s heirs pursued the case before the domestic courts and lodged a complaint before ORG on his behalf and on their own behalf .

On DATE at TIME , GPE ’s daughter - in - law , was attacked near GPE ’s home . GPE ’s CARDINAL sons ( the applicants nos . ( CARDINAL)-(CARDINAL ) in the appendix ) and ORG , the victim ’s father , went to ORG to report the assault .

In front of the police station they were allegedly attacked by a group of CARDINAL villagers . When GPE arrived there , attracted by the noise , he saw PERSON injured , with his head covered with blood . His sons’ car was also damaged ( the windows were broken and the car ’s bonnet was concertinaed ) . GPE also saw the villagers chasing his sons and attacking them with stones , bats and bricks .

At TIME police officers PERSON and ORG from PERSON police station , accompanied by colleagues from ORG ( GPE Poliţiei pentru PERSON ) arrived at GPE ’s home to take him into custody . The police intervention team entered the yard and took him by force to the police car , while shouting abuse and calling him a gypsy ( ţigan ) . To GPE ’s question whether they had a search warrant , PERSON pointed to the special squad and said “ They are my search warrant ! ” . Then the police made CARDINAL children from the household , CARDINAL aged CARDINAL and one DATE , lie down on their stomachs and called them wretched disgraceful gypsies ( ţigani borâţi ) . The sixth applicant , PERSON , who was CARDINAL at the time , and GPE , GPE ’s daughter - in - law , were taken to the police station in the same car .

Later , the first CARDINAL applicants , GPE ’s other sons , were apprehended on the street by CARDINAL masked police officers , who shouted at them to lie down and then kicked them in the stomach and face while shouting abuse and calling them “ wretched disgraceful gypsies ” . They were also taken to PERSON police station , where they found the sixth applicant and PERSON standing with their arms up , facing the wall .

The interrogations took place in the chief of police ’s office . GPE was taken there first . He was beaten up first by police officer GPE and CARDINAL masked officers . CARDINAL more masked officers joined them later . They kicked GPE in the ribs , on his right side ; they punched him and beat him with their weapon butts and shouted abuse . GPE lost consciousness . The first CARDINAL applicants were brought to the same office and tripped over their father ’s body , which was lying unattended on the floor . They were ordered to lie down and were hit and shouted at . PERSON called the chief of ORG and told him to come for “ a match with the boys ” ( la o partidă cu băieţii ) . TIME later officers from PERSON joined the interrogations and started hitting the applicants . According to the applicants , the police officers who beat them up had been drinking alcohol .

At the applicant ’s request , the officers eventually allowed GPE to leave the police station , but told the first CARDINAL applicants that they had to sign confessions concerning the rape of a foreign woman and the theft of pipes . The statements had been written by the police officers . The applicants were not allowed to read the contents of those confessions . They denied committing any crime , but eventually signed the confessions and were allowed to leave the police station .

On DATE an altercation broke out between the PERSON family and the PERSON family , both parties behaving aggressively towards each other and armed with dangerous objects . The altercation occurred in front of the PERSON police station , where the PERSON family ( belonging to the PERSON GPE community DATE țigani ursari ) was going to make a criminal complaint against the applicants’ family about a previous altercation that had occurred DATE . In their statements to the police , members of the PERSON family related that the third applicant had tried to hit them with the car and , driving dangerously , had managed instead to hit his father , GPE

In this context , at TIME ORG was called to restore public order . A team of CARDINAL officers and a driver was in place from TIME DATE . According to the police GPE statements , there were no incidents during this operation , as the PERSON family members concerned willingly complied with the police orders given when they were apprehended . CARDINAL eyewitnesses , all proposed by GPE , declared they had seen him come out of the police station feeling ill , but with no apparent indications that he had been attacked .

M.N. , the head of PERSON police station , did not participate in the investigation out of fear of reprisals from the PERSON family .

GPE was taken by ambulance to FAC , where he underwent pulmonary X - ray investigations but received no treatment . He was then taken to ORG , where he remained from DATE to DATE .

On DATE a forensic doctor examined him . The medical certificate concluded that he had suffered a thoracic trauma inflicted by a “ blow caused by a hard object or by body impact ” . He needed DATE to recover .

Mihăileşti Police started investigating the events of DATE . The accusations were of theft of pipes by members of the PERSON family and of a brawl involving CARDINAL people , mainly belonging to the CARDINAL families ( PERSON and PERSON ) . Statements were taken from all those involved in the altercation and from some eyewitnesses . In their various statements made during those investigations , GPE and the applicants declared that they had been beaten up by police . Some members of the opposing family declared that GPE had been hit by the car driven by his son , the third applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG decided not to prosecute any of those involved in the incidents . He noted that the pipes had been returned to their rightful owner , who did not wish to seek damages from the applicants’ family ; as for the brawl , the prosecutor noted that there had been “ reciprocal violence ” and therefore decided to impose administrative fines on all involved .

It appears that the decision was not contested .

On DATE GPE and the first CARDINAL applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG against the police officers who had allegedly ill - treated them . In his complaint to the police , GPE stated that the police chief was friendly with the Ursari GPE from PERSON , with whom the PERSON family were in conflict . They also complained of discrimination , arguing that because of their GPE origin the police officers had been aggressive towards them and had called them racist names .

The prosecutor started the investigations . He took statements from the QUANTITY police officers involved in the events , including GPE and ORG They all denied having harmed the plaintiffs in any way . The prosecutor examined the intervention squad ’s official report from DATE as well as the prosecution file concerning the accusations brought against the members of the CARDINAL families involved in the fight on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office dismissed the complaint on the ground that the police ORG actions did not disclose any appearance of a criminal offence . The prosecutor noted that the rapid intervention squad was called to the scene of an altercation which the local police could no longer contain . In the squad ’s official report it was explained that intervention was required “ for an altercation between CARDINAL Gypsy clans ” ( scandal între două grupuri de ţigani ) . The prosecutor considered that the plaintiffs had failed to provide medical evidence of the injuries they had sustained , or that injuries had been inflicted by police officers .

NORP The plaintiffs appealed against that decision to the prosecutorinchief , but their objection was dismissed on DATE . The applicants challenged that decision before ORG , reiterating their complaints of ill - treatment and discrimination .

On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor ’s decision , considering that the applicants had not provided proof of their allegations .

The plaintiffs appealed , and on DATE ORG quashed the above - mentioned decision and ordered the prosecutor to continue the investigation . It considered that the prosecutor had not taken into account the forensic medical certificate delivered to GPE , had not heard either the applicants or the eyewitnesses , and had not allowed the applicants to produce evidence ( medical evidence or witnesses ) .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . The prosecutor considered that the plaintiffs had not substantiated their allegations of ill - treatment and discrimination . It found that the police officers had acted lawfully and had been trying to counter the plaintiffs , who had used gas guns and sharp objects . CARDINAL eyewitness was heard by the prosecutor .

GPE and the first CARDINAL applicants appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision , but on DATE the prosecutor - in - chief dismissed their objections and thus upheld that decision . On DATE GPE and the first CARDINAL applicants appealed once again before ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal lodged by the CARDINAL plaintiffs , quashed the decisions of the prosecutor and of the prosecutor - in - chief , and sent the case back to the prosecutor , on the ground that the investigations ordered by the court had not been carried out by the prosecutor .

The prosecutor ’s office challenged that decision , and on DATE ORG allowed the appeal on points of law in part . It found that the criminal investigation should be continued regarding I.B. ’s injuries . As far as the first CARDINAL applicants were concerned , it considered that the criminal investigation should be closed because , in failing to sign the appeal against the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and of DATE , they had in fact not endorsed the application for an investigation . The court considered that by failing to sign the application for leave to appeal within the assigned deadline the applicants had lost the right to lodge that appeal .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers , on the ground that their actions were consistent with their professional duties . He heard evidence from CARDINAL eyewitnesses , who had seen GPE being taken into the police station and then had seen him coming out . They reported that they could not see any signs of violence on him . CARDINAL witness said that he could hear GPE screaming and wailing in the police station , and that when he came out he had asked them to call an ambulance because he did not feel well .

On DATE the prosecutor - in - chief upheld that decision . GPE appealed against both decisions before ORG , which on DATE dismissed his appeal . The court noted that the prosecutor heard GPE and CARDINAL villagers who were in front of the PERSON police station during the incidents . The CARDINAL villagers declared that GPE did not have any signs of violence on him when he left the police station . The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the allegations of discrimination made by GPE

On DATE GPE died of causes unrelated to the present case and the first CARDINAL applicants continued the proceedings instituted before the domestic courts .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision delivered by ORG and dismissed an appeal on points of law raised by GPE ’s heirs . It reiterated that the CARDINAL witnesses had not seen the police officers beating the victims , and considered that the fact alone that there had been other witnesses who could have been heard by the prosecutor was irrelevant , given the evidence already gathered in the case .


CASE OF MEHTIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence)

NORP The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE demonstrations were planned to be held in GPE . It appears that the organisers of the demonstrations gave no proper prior notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . Information about the demonstrations was disseminated through ORG or the press .

According to the applicants , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The demonstrations of DATE and DATE were aimed at protesting about the deaths of soldiers in the army . The demonstration of CARDINAL DATE condemned the use of force by the police against the participants of previous demonstrations , while those taking part in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE were protesting against bureaucratic injustices which had allegedly caused a disabled war veteran to set himself on fire on DATE .

Each applicant attended CARDINAL of the demonstrations ( see Appendix ) , but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse those who had gathered . All the applicants were arrested during the dispersal operations and were taken to various police stations .

The applicants were questioned at the police stations they were taken to .

On DATE of each applicant ’s arrest administrative offence reports ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) were issued , which stated that the applicants had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( “ the CAO ” ) ( participation in a public assembly that had not been organised in accordance with the law ) .

Some of the applicants refused to sign the administrative offence reports ( applications nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

According to most of the applicants , they were never served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other documents from their case files . They were not given access to a lawyer after their arrest or while they were in police custody .

According to statements ( ərizə ) written by the applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL and DATE at the police stations on DATE of their arrest ( DATE and DATE respectively ) , they refused the services of a lawyer .

The applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were released after being kept in police custody for TIME , subject to an undertaking to reappear at the police station on various dates .

Most of the applicants were taken to trial courts directly from the police stations , either on DATE of their arrest or DATE . The applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were brought before first - instance courts on DATE they returned to the police station .

According to most of the applicants , the court hearing in each case was very brief . Members of the public were not allowed in the courtroom , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .

According to most of the applicants , they were not given an opportunity to appoint lawyers of their own choosing . State - funded lawyers were asked to assist some of them . The applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL were not represented by a lawyer . According to documents from the case files , the applicants in applications ORG . CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer and decided to defend themselves in person .

According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the applicant in application no . CARDINAL , the ORG - funded lawyer stated briefly in his oral submissions that the applicant was guilty and asked the court for lenience . Similarly , the ORG - funded lawyer for the applicant in application no . CARDINAL stated in general terms that the applicant was not guilty and asked the court to discontinue the case . In addition , none of the material submitted to the ORG contains any record of showing that the ORG - funded lawyer , PERSON , made any oral or written submissions on behalf of the applicant in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

The only witnesses questioned during the court hearings with respect to the applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were the police officers who , according to the official records , had arrested them . The police officers testified that the applicants had staged unauthorised demonstrations . No witnesses were questioned by the courts in the other applicants’ cases .

The first - instance courts found that the applicants had participated in unauthorised demonstrations . The applicants were convicted under LAW of the ORG and sentenced to a period of administrative detention , varying from DATE , or to a fine of CARDINAL or CARDINAL NORP manats ( AZN ) ( see Appendix ) .

On various dates the applicants lodged appeals with ORG , arguing that their convictions had been in violation of their rights because the demonstrations in which they had participated or attempted to participate had been peaceful . The applicants also complained that their arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the first - instance courts had not been fair . They asked ORG to quash the first - instance courts’ decisions in their cases .

The applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL were assisted before ORG by lawyers of their own choosing . The other applicants were not represented by a lawyer .

On various dates ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the decisions of the first - instance courts ( see Appendix ) .

NORP In its decision with regard to the applicant in application no . CARDINAL ORG noted , inter alia , that he had voluntarily refused legal assistance at the pre - trial stage .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra

The applicant is a NORP national of NORP ethnic origin . He was born on DATE and resided in the town of GPE in GPE . After mass disorder and inter - ethnic clashes in the region in DATE , he fled to GPE , together with many other ethnic NORP , for fear of ethnicmotivated violence . It appears that his next of kin remain in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and received a temporary residence permit for the period from DATE to DATE .

After the applicant ’s departure from GPE , on DATE the NORP authorities charged him in absentia with involvement in riots accompanied by violence , inter - ethnic clashes , arson , use of firearms and destruction of property on DATE in the city of GPE , GPE . The applicant was also alleged to have kidnapped someone .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was put on a list of fugitives in GPE ; on CARDINAL DATE he was put on a list of fugitives in GPE as well .

On DATE , while travelling by train in GPE , the applicant was arrested by the transport police . He denied his involvement in the DATE events . On DATE , the ORG of GPE ordered the applicant ’s detention for DATE . His detention was subsequently extended numerous times .

The NORP authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant ’s extradition . On DATE , ORG of GPE received a request from GPE seeking the applicant ’s extradition . On DATE it granted the request .

NORP The applicant and his counsel appealed against the extradition order claiming , in particular , that he would face a risk of torture and illtreatment since ethnic NORP were a particularly vulnerable group following the DATE violence in the southern regions of GPE . On CARDINAL DATE GPE quashed the extradition order , finding it unlawful , and released the applicant . It appears that the applicant is currently at large .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the ruling of GPE of DATE and upheld the extradition order . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG held , in particular , as follows :

“ ... the conclusion of the lower court that the prosecutor ’s office failed to examine the question of the risk of unacceptable treatment in GPE in the event of [ the applicant ’s ] extradition does not fit the case - file materials . ORG office of GPE has given guarantees to the effect that [ the applicant ] would only be prosecuted in respect of the crimes indicated in the initial extradition request and the behaviour of a general criminal character . They guaranteed that he would not be prosecuted on the basis of political or discriminatory reasons , including motives based on his origins , social background , the office he may have occupied , the pecuniary situation , gender , race , ethnicity , language , convictions and relations to religion , that [ the applicant ] would be given all possibilities to defend himself , that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , and that if he was convicted and after having served the sentence he would be able to leave the territory of GPE freely . The materials submitted by the defence ... do not undermine the real guarantees provided by GPE in respect of [ the applicant ] and are sufficient to exclude any risk of his cruel treatment ... ”

According to ORG , ORG of the LOC gave all necessary guarantees that the applicant ’s criminal prosecution would be carried out in strict compliance with the national law and the international obligations of GPE . Among other things , it guaranteed that the applicant would not be subjected to torture or other cruel , humiliating or degrading treatment ; he would be guaranteed the right to defence , and NORP diplomatic staff would be given an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility .

On DATE , while in detention , the applicant applied to ORG for refugee status . He claimed , among other things , that a criminal case had been opened against him exclusively because of his ethnic origin and that he would face a real risk of illtreatment if he were sent back to GPE .

Following the examination of the applicant ’s asylum request , by its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG for GPE and GPE region refused to grant refugee status to the applicant as he did not meet the necessary criteria defined by the national law . ORG of GPE took a final administrative decision on the matter on DATE , stating as follows :

“ ... the basic criterion for granting a person temporary asylum is the presence of a well - founded suspicion that if returned to his / her home country , that person could become a victim of torture or other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

The analysis of the decision of the migration authorities in charge of GPE and GPE , the materials of the applicant ’s personal case file , the information communicated by the applicant , as well as the available information from ORG of NORP and ORG of GPE concerning the situation in GPE has shown that the migration authorities in charge of GPE and GPE have fully examined all the the applicant a possibility to remain temporarily on the territory of GPE .

According to the information submitted by ORG office , an agreement has now been reached with the NORP authorities which enables officials at ORG to monitor the compliance by the authorities of GPE with the standards of international law in respects of persons extradited to GPE .

The monitoring has established that the decision of the ORG in charge of GPE and GPE to refuse to grant the applicant temporary asylum on the territory of GPE did not breach the legislation on refugees . The decision ... is lawful , justified and should be upheld . ”

The applicant ’s representatives appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . By a final decision of DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis

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

In TIME of DATE policemen came to the applicant ’s flat and took him to the police station in GPE village in LOC ( “ the police station ” ) for an interview . He was questioned about the circumstances of a theft which had occurred DATE before and made selfincriminating statements .

During the questioning the investigator had to answer a telephone call and stepped out of the office . Left alone , the applicant attempted to walk out but was stopped at the door by a policeman who told him to stay inside and wait . He spent TIME in the investigator ’s office before he was allowed to leave . According to the Government , the applicant came to the police station voluntarily and stayed there for no longer than TIME .

On DATE the investigators charged the applicant with theft but dropped the charges DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation for unlawful criminal prosecution and deprivation of liberty .

On DATE the ORG of LOC examined the case in the applicant ’s absence . The court noted that the applicant had been informed about the date and place of the hearing but , as he was serving a term of imprisonment , his presence in person could not be ensured . On the merits , the court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the unlawful criminal prosecution . It also considered that the questioning of DATE had not amounted to a deprivation of liberty and could not give rise to any form of compensation . The applicant was awarded MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .

The applicant appealed against the judgment , arguing that the court award was too low and that it did not take into account the deprivation of liberty . He also requested leave to appear before the appeal court . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal in his absence , endorsing ORG reasoning .

The judgment of DATE was enforced on DATE .

NORP In DATE PERSON brought a civil action against the applicant , seeking to recover a contractual debt . On DATE the Justice of the Peace of LOC of LOC examined the case in the applicant ’s absence . The judgment indicated that the applicant was serving a term of imprisonment and that he had been informed in a timely way about the date and place of the hearing . The Justice of the Peace granted the claim and ordered the applicant to pay RUB CARDINAL to PERSON

The applicant appealed to ORG and sought leave to appear before the appeal court . By an interim decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused the applicant leave to appear , finding that LAW did not provide for escorting detained litigants to courts hearing civil cases . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , endorsing the findings of ORG . The applicant received a copy of the appeal judgement in DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by a police officer , PERSON , and accused of disorderly behaviour in a public place , an offence under LAW ( “ the CAO ” ) , punishable by a fine or CARDINAL days’ detention . It appears that the applicant was then taken to the police station and remained there for some time .

In the police station , PERSON compiled an administrative offence record , thereby instituting administrative offence proceedings against the applicant . The record read as follows :


CASE OF STANKOVIĆ AND TRAJKOVIĆ v. SERBIA

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

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

The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

Following ORG intervention in GPE , on DATE the NORP and ORG agreed to a phased withdrawal of their military and police forces from the territory and a transfer of all effective control to an international security force ( “ ORG ) . Concerning a number of municipalities , including GPE , the transfer , according to ORG , was to take place by DATE . It was further envisaged that it would be up to ORG to “ maintain a secure environment for all citizens of GPE ” . Pursuant to their own phased withdrawal plan , which was to be synchronised with ORG plan , the NORP police forces envisaged that a transfer of all effective control in GPE would in fact take place on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant ’s husband was kidnapped by ORG ( “ KLA ” ) in GPE .

On DATE ORG declared the first applicant ’s husband dead . This ruling became final by DATE .

On DATE the first applicant , together with her children , lodged a civil claim against GPE with ORG in GPE , seeking compensation for the mental anguish suffered as a consequence of the incident .

On DATE the said court ruled against the plaintiffs .

On DATE the first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG on appeal . The first applicant was served with the ORG judgment on DATE .

NORP In their reasoning ORG and ORG opined , inter alia , that while the first applicant ’s husband had indeed been kidnapped on DATE GPE could not be held liable , within the meaning of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , since it was up to ORG to provide for the safety of all citizens of GPE from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The fact that national security forces had been in the process of withdrawing from GPE on DATE was therefore merely a technical issue .

The first applicant could not have lodged a further appeal on points of law ( revizija ) , given that the amount of compensation claimed was below the statutory threshold .

On DATE the second applicant ’s husband was kidnapped by the ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG declared the second applicant ’s husband dead . This ruling became final by DATE .

On DATE the second applicant , together with her children and other family members , lodged a civil claim against GPE with ORG in GPE , seeking compensation for mental anguish suffered as a consequence of the incident .

In their reasoning ORG and ORG opined , inter alia , that while the second applicant ’s husband had indeed been kidnapped on DATE GPE could not be held liable within the meaning of LAW , since it was up to ORG to provide for the safety of all citizens of GPE from DATE . The fact that national security forces had been in the process of withdrawing from GPE on DATE was therefore merely a technical issue .

The second applicant could not have lodged a further appeal on points of law , given that the amount of compensation claimed was below the statutory threshold .

The applicants maintained that in other judgments , rendered DATE , ORG and subsequently ORG , as well as ORG at third instance , had ruled in favour of other plaintiffs , notwithstanding the fact that their claims were based on very similar facts and concerned identical legal issues .

Given the case - law provided by the parties , in their reasoning in those judgments where the said courts / different benches of the same court had indeed ruled in favour of the plaintiffs , the NORP authorities were deemed responsible for the lives and safety of all persons residing in GPE up until the actual transfer of effective control to ORG in respect of each of the municipalities considered separately ( see , for example , the judgment of ORG in GPE P. CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , upheld on appeal by ORG ; the judgments of the GPE ORG Gž . PERSON , PERSON , and CARDINAL of DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ; the judgments of ORG Gž . CARDINAL of DATE and DATE respectively ; and the judgments of ORG DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ) .

On DATE , according to the Government , ORG endorsed this line of reasoning , specifically the reasons given in the same court ’s ruling DATE of DATE ( cited in paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE , in GPE CARDINAL , ORG ruled against other plaintiffs on the same basis as in the applicants’ case , but in its decision Už . CARDINAL of DATE the ORG quashed this ruling and ordered the re - examination of the matter . On DATE ORG apparently ruled in favour of the plaintiffs , this time holding that the NORP authorities were responsible for the lives and safety of all persons residing in GPE until the actual transfer of effective control to ORG in respect of the municipality in question .

On DATE ORG adopted a detailed action plan aimed at ensuring the general harmonisation of case - law throughout the NORP judicial system . This plan contained a series of measures to be undertaken at various levels of jurisdiction , and , inter alia , included the following : ( i ) the adoption of guiding legal opinions based on the principles developed in the jurisprudence of ORG ; ( ii ) the dissemination of such opinions ; ( iii ) regular information sharing between the courts ; ( iv ) an increased number of thematic discussions and training programmes ; ( v ) the adoption of specific action plans by the courts at various levels ; and ( vi ) the development of various IT tools and related intranet databases .


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

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Kursk . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , ORG to ORG .

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

NORP In DATE the applicant sued a bookmaker over CARDINAL beer tokens that he could not redeem at the bar . He accused the bookmaker of luring him into betting with a false promise of free drinks and claimed CARDINAL MONEY ( RUB ) ( EUR CARDINAL ) for material loss and RUB CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) for distress .

NORP On DATE ORG of Kursk awarded him RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for material loss and RUB MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) in costs .

On DATE the judgment came into force .

On DATE the applicant appealed via ORG .

On DATE the court stayed the appeal ( оставил без движения ) until the applicant had paid a fee .

On DATE the court struck the appeal off ( возвратил ) because the applicant had not perfected it in time .

On DATE the court granted the applicant leave to appeal out of time .

On DATE the court passed the case to ORG for an appeal hearing .

On DATE a Deputy President of ORG returned the case as unappealable ( снял дело с кассационного рассмотрения ) , because while the parties were perfecting their appeals the judgment had entered into force .

On DATE the applicant objected .

On DATE the Deputy President stood by the decision .

On DATE the applicant objected again .

On DATE the Deputy President stood by the decision again .


CASE OF COMUNIDAD DE PROPRIETARIOS PANDO NÚMERO 20 v. SPAIN

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

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant is a community of owners of a building located in GPE .

On DATE L. , the co - owner of a house located next to the applicant ’s building , filed a complaint before the GPE municipality , complaining that a dividing wall belonging to the applicant ’s building and CARDINAL other buildings located next to it was in poor condition .

On DATE , in view of the “ serious risk of harm ” posed by the poor condition of the wall , the municipality repaired it motu proprio .

On DATE the applicant received a decree issued by the municipality on DATE , informing it that the repairs had been carried out in view of the “ serious risk of harm ” posed by the condition of wall in question , and ordering it to pay a provisional amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings opposing the municipality ’s demand , contesting the necessity of the urgent repairs .

On DATE , before ORG , the applicant brought a first set of judicial administrative proceedings ( recurso contencioso - administrativo ) against the decree of DATE , complaining of the shortcomings of the procedure which had led to the municipality repairing the wall .

On DATE the municipality asked the applicant to pay the remainder of the amount owed : the final cost of the repairs minus the amount already paid as a provisional amount .

On DATE , before ORG , the applicant initiated a second set of judicial administrative proceedings ( recurso contencioso - administrativo ) , contesting the amount of the requested payment and asking for a suspension of its obligation to pay that amount .

On DATE the application to suspend its obligation to pay was rejected . That decision was confirmed by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE both sets of judicial administrative proceedings were joined .

On DATE the Madrid High Court of ORG ruled against the applicant , on the grounds that the repairs had been carried out by the municipality in view of the poor condition of the wall and the “ serious risk of harm ” present at that time , which had given the municipality no other choice but to repair it and then ask the applicant for payment in respect of the costs incurred . ORG also confirmed the amount set for the costs of the repairs .

On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG , which was declared inadmissible DATE on CARDINAL DATE . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG .

On DATE the community of owners agreed to authorise Mr. PERSON to act on its behalf in the framework of the judicial proceedings concerning the costs of the repairs to the wall .

By a decision of DATE ORG declared the amparo appeal inadmissible on the grounds that “ the constitutional significance of the appeal had not been justified ” . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


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

Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the police alleging that in DATE she had been a victim of multiple acts of domestic violence by her husband , PERSON

A preliminary police investigation showed that there was a suspicion that the applicant had been the victim of psychological and physical violence by PERSON during the period at issue . On the basis of those findings , the police forwarded the applicant ’s criminal complaint to the relevant State Attorney ’s Office . The police also forwarded the applicant ’s medical records showing that in DATE she had sustained a contusion on her back after being pushed from a chair by PERSON

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u P. ) asked an investigating judge of ORG ( PERSON ) to open an investigation into the matter .

In the course of the investigation , the investigating judge heard the applicant and PERSON The latter denied the allegations of domestic violence . The judge also heard another witness , PERSON , who confirmed that the applicant had often complained of emotional and physical harassment by her husband and had twice sustained injuries as a result of the alleged harassment .

On the basis of the results of the investigation , on DATE the State Attorney ’s Office indicted PERSON in ORG ( PERSON ) on charges of domestic violence punishable under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The relevant part of the indictment reads :

“ In the period DATE and DATE in P. , ... [ PERSON ] attacked his wife PERSON several times , telling her to ‘ go back to her scumbags in the dump from which she had come’ and that she was worthless . He raised his hand [ threatening ] to hit her , punched her in the face and body , and ordered her to go to the corner of the room . In DATE he grabbed her head and banged it against the bathroom wall and on DATE he pushed her from a chair , as a result of which she fell to the ground . In this manner he reduced Ž.B. to a position of helplessness and debasement ... ”

During the proceedings , the trial court heard the applicant , PERSON , and several witnesses . On DATE it found PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

NORP On DATE , following an appeal lodged by PERSON , GPE quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case to ORG on the grounds that all the relevant facts of the case had not been established .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG again heard the applicant , PERSON and a number of witnesses . It also examined further documents from other relevant ORG bodies concerning conflicts within the applicant ’s family .

On DATE ORG found PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

B.B. challenged that judgment before ORG . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case for further examination on the grounds that some relevant facts still needed to be established .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had abolished the criminal offence of domestic violence under LAW , and that further proceedings against PERSON were therefore barred .

The State Attorney ’s Office did not challenge that decision but the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG .

On DATE the S. County Court declared the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible on the grounds that she did not have legal standing to challenge the decision on the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE . According to the latest information available to the ORG , he lives in GPE .

The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . The parties are in dispute as to whether he entered the country legally at the time .

On DATE or DATE the applicant was apprehended in PERSON while trying to flee to GPE illegally . Following brief periods of detention at ORG and ORG and ORG ( “ FAC ” ) , he was transferred to ORG and ORG ( “ FAC ” ) in GPE , with a view to being deported . The exact date of his transfer is unknown to the ORG ; while the applicant claimed that he had been transferred on CARDINAL DATE , the ORG maintained that the transfer had taken place on DATE without , however , presenting any documents in support of their submission .

It appears that throughout his stay at ORG , the applicant made numerous attempts to seek asylum , all of which were allegedly ignored by the national authorities , until he was able to get in touch with a lawyer . On DATE he lodged a new asylum request through his lawyer , which was admitted by the domestic authorities for processing .

On DATE the lawyer requested the applicant ’s immediate release from ORG in CARDINAL separate letters sent to the ORG and ORG , claiming thqsat his detention in prison - like conditions had no basis in domestic law and also contravened LAW .

On DATE the applicant was granted asylum seeker status by ORG , along with a temporary residence permit in GPE , valid until the completion of the asylum procedure .

On DATE he was released from ORG .

Following his release , on DATE the applicant went to GPE instead of staying in GPE as ordered . On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of attempted burglary and placed in police custody at Şehit Tevfik Fikret Erciyes district police station in GPE , GPE ( “ PERSON police station ” ) . On DATE , he was interrogated by the PERSON public prosecutor and ORG , which ordered his release . The relevant decision was not made available to the ORG .

Despite the court order for his release , the applicant was taken back to PERSON police station , where he was placed in a holding cell in the basement .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer visited him at the station and requested his release . He was , however , informed that this would not be possible as there was an order for his deportation .

On DATE his lawyer went to PERSON police station once again , to visit the applicant and to inspect the conditions of his detention . According to the lawyer ’s notes , there were CARDINAL cells with iron bars in the basement of the station where the applicant was being held , both of which measured QUANTITY On DATE of his visit , the applicant was sharing a cell with CARDINAL other foreigners , all of whom were sitting on the floor with their backs against the wall and sharing CARDINAL blankets between them . There were similarly CARDINAL people in the other cell . There was a small vent in the wall measuring QUANTITY , which let in very little light . There was also a pile of rubbish outside it . During their meeting , the applicant also gave a detailed account of his detention conditions , which the lawyer noted as follows . The number of detainees in the cell varied DATE . There were no beds , and there was no room for CARDINAL people to lie down at the same time . They were only provided with CARDINAL blankets and CARDINAL small pillows to share , and there was no heating . The cell , which also lacked natural light and sufficient ventilation , was always cold and there was no provision for outdoor exercise . The food provided was also insufficient ; they had to pay to receive more . It appears that the lawyer brought the applicant and some of the other detainees sandwiches after the meeting , as they had complained of being hungry .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG pending his deportation , apparently because the basement of GPE police station was flooded .

On DATE PERSON police station was inspected by the PERSON public prosecutor , who found the detention facility to be in compliance with the standards set out in the relevant regulations without , however , going into any details about the specific conditions in his brief report .

On DATE the applicant was conditionally released from ORG and instructed to go to GPE , after it became apparent that he had already been granted a temporary permit to reside there in DATE .

It appears that following his release from ORG , the applicant went to PERSON instead of going to PERSON as instructed . On CARDINAL DATE he was apprehended in PERSON close to the NORP border while attempting to flee to GPE once again . He was placed back in FAC .

During a headcount conducted on DATE , officers at ORG noticed that the applicant was intoxicated and behaving rowdily . He was therefore separated from the other detainees and escorted to the management office . According to the Government , as CARDINAL of the officers was unlocking the door to the management office , the applicant collapsed unexpectedly in the corridor and hit his face on a radiator . The impact caused heavy bleeding in his left eye , and he started throwing up , in a semi - conscious state . According to the applicant , however , he did not fall but was forcefully pushed by CARDINAL of the officers against the radiator and was severely beaten up once he landed on the floor .

The applicant was then taken to ORG , where it appears he was diagnosed with alcohol poisoning . Following some initial medical treatment , on DATE he was admitted to the ophthalmology department of ORG , where he underwent an operation on his left eye , as well as various related treatments . He was discharged on DATE . The medical report drawn up on DATE of his discharge indicated that he had been admitted to the ophthalmology department with symptoms of pain , reduced vision and exophthalmos in the left eye , which he had stated had been caused by a blow to his eye . He was diagnosed with widespread corneal erosion and a retrobulbar haemorrhage . He was also found to have an orbital floor fracture caused by the blunt trauma to his eye , for which he underwent an operation .

In the meantime , the ORG public prosecutor had initiated an investigation into the incident of DATE of his own motion . According to the documents in the case file , on DATE he took a statement from a caretaker working at FAC , who had witnessed the applicant suddenly collapse while the CARDINAL officers escorting him had been unlocking the door .

NORP Moreover , on an unspecified date , the police took a statement from the applicant in hospital , who at the time alleged that he had lost his balance because he had been pushed by an officer .

Following his discharge from hospital , the applicant was taken to PERSON police station in GPE on DATE to give a statement , in the presence of his lawyer , regarding the injury he had sustained on DATE . The applicant stated that he had no complaints of ill - treatment and that he had lost his balance and fallen over because he had been intoxicated at the time . He was subsequently told he was free to leave , but was ordered to stay in GPE in accordance with his residence permit .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor decided not to bring any charges in relation to the applicant ’s injury in the light of his statement of DATE .

In the meantime , the applicant went to GPE after being released from detention on DATE , despite being specifically ordered to remain in GPE . On DATE he lodged a criminal complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor against the police officers who had allegedly illtreated him at FAC . He argued , in particular , that following the headcount on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been taken to the management office , where one of the officers had grabbed him by the collar and tossed him against the wall , as a result of which he had hit his eye on the radiator and passed out . He claimed that he had not told the truth at GPE police station , as he had been warned by an officer that his detention would be prolonged if he pressed charges .

When the public prosecutor subsequently summoned him to make a statement , the applicant stated that he had previously misrepresented the facts as he had been scared , without giving any more details as to why . He added that he had also been severely beaten up by the officers after he had collapsed onto the floor , and admitted that he had been drinking kolonya ( citrus cologne ) , mixed with a soft drink , prior to the incident .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor issued a decision to the effect that he had no jurisdiction ( görevsizlik kararı ) in respect of the applicant ’s complaints , and referred the matter to the PERSON public prosecutor .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor took statements from CARDINAL of the suspected police officers and CARDINAL witnesses , also police officers . The CARDINAL suspects denied the applicant ’s allegation that they had attacked him . All of the witnesses corroborated that the applicant had been very drunk on the relevant day , and CARDINAL of them , who had been at the scene of the incident , stated that the applicant had fallen over without anyone having pushed him .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute because of insufficient evidence . Referring to the inconsistency between the applicant ’s statements , the public prosecutor stressed that although the applicant had stated that he had been scared to tell the truth at GPE police station on DATE , there had been no reason for him to be scared , particularly because he had made his statement in the presence of his lawyer .

The applicant did not object to the decision of the ORG public prosecutor , despite being entitled to do so before ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s request for asylum was rejected by ORG , as he had failed to comply with the requirements to be granted asylum seeker status as set out in the DATE Convention relating to LAW ( “ LAW ” ) and ORG .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment)

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

The applicant was born in DATE . He is serving a life sentence in the PERSON prison .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was taken to a police station . In the course of the night he was questioned about the violent death of his stepfather . He was tested for alcohol in his blood and biological samples were taken from him . A police investigator accused the applicant of murder . The applicant was suspected of having stabbed his stepfather CARDINAL times on DATE , as a result of which the latter had died . At the request of the public prosecutor the applicant was formally arrested at TIME on DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE a judge of ORG remanded the applicant in custody with effect from DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed a complaint by the applicant against that decision .

In the context of the investigation the applicant , repeatedly and in the presence of his lawyer , admitted having stabbed his stepfather and described the circumstances . He later requested that his action be qualified as causing bodily harm as he had not intended to kill the victim .

On DATE the public prosecutor indicted the applicant before ORG .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of murder . With reference to LAW , LAW and DATE , LAW CARDINAL(c ) , LAW and LAW of LAW of DATE , the first - instance court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment without the possibility of release on parole .

On the basis of statements by CARDINAL witnesses , the opinions of CARDINAL medical experts and a forensic institute , and the documentary evidence available , the court established that the applicant had deliberately stabbed his stepfather CARDINAL times with a knife with the intention of killing him . That action had been prompted by the applicant ’s aggressive behaviour while in a state of intoxication and his abnormally antisocial personality .

ORG noted that at the pre - trial stage the applicant had admitted , several times and in the presence of his lawyer , the offence imputed to him and had described the relevant facts in detail . However , at the main hearing he denied having killed the victim . The court held , for the reasons which were set out in detail in its judgment , that the evidence available clearly indicated that he had committed the offence . He had done so in a particularly contemptible manner as he had attacked the victim unexpectedly and had taken advantage of the latter ’s incapacity to defend himself as a result of heavy intoxication .

According to the expert opinion on which the court relied , the applicant was pathologically aggressive . He lacked any self - control and there were practically no prospects of his re - socialisation at that time . The probability that he would re - offend in the future was extremely high .

The applicant had been convicted of different offences CARDINAL times previously . Those convictions included a rape and a murder . He had committed the second murder DATE after his conditional release from prison , where he had been serving a sentence imposed for a similar offence . ORG concluded that the statutory conditions for imposing a life sentence without the right to be released on parole were therefore met .

At the same time , ORG quashed the DATE prison sentence which ORG had imposed on the applicant on DATE , as well as all consecutive decisions concerning that punishment .

The applicant appealed . He submitted that he had made the initial statements admitting the offence while in a state of a shock and fatigue resulting from his intoxication , and that the police had exposed him to psychological pressure prior to the interrogation . There existed no direct evidence proving that he had committed the offence . The applicant further argued that the first - instance court had not established all the relevant facts and had committed errors of law . The evidence obtained did not suffice for his conviction . No reconstruction of the crime had been carried out , the reference in the expert opinion as to an injury to the victim ’s hand and the applicant ’s social and psychological profile were confusing . The applicant further argued that ORG had failed to hear the children who had found the blood - stained knife .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the sentence imposed . It then imposed a term of life imprisonment on the applicant and held , with reference to LAW , that the possibility of his release on parole was to be excluded . It did so because ORG had incorrectly referred , in the operative part of its judgment , to the subparagraph of LAW which allowed for such a penalty .

In all other respects ORG endorsed the conclusions reached at first instance . It considered the applicant ’s arguments irrelevant . In particular , in DATE and DATE the applicant had admitted CARDINAL times , in the presence of his lawyer , to have committed the offence . In that context he had indicated manifold details which could only have been known to the perpetrator , for example that he had taken the knife from the flat where he and his mother lived , and where he had hidden it after the incident . The applicant had also described the T - shirt he had worn and such a T - shirt had been found hidden in the applicant ’s flat stained with the victim ’s blood . That blood could not have stemmed from an injury on the victim ’s hand , as claimed by the applicant , as the experts had excluded such an injury . The applicant had also indicated a motive for his actions .

ORG held that ORG had gathered all relevant evidence with a view to establishing the facts of the case and had correctly applied the law when convicting the applicant . The statutory prerequisites for imposing a life sentence without the possibility of release on parole were met .

The appeal court also quashed the DATE prison sentence which ORG had imposed on the applicant on DATE , as well as all relevant consecutive decisions relating to that punishment .

NORP The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . As in the appeal proceedings , he challenged the establishment of the facts and the conclusions reached in the first - instance and appeal proceedings .

On DATE ORG ( cassation chamber ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . The decision stated that in proceedings in an appeal on points of law courts could only examine errors of law allegedly committed at lower levels of jurisdiction . However , no such arguments had been put forward by the applicant . The interrogations at the pre - trial stage in the course of which the applicant had admitted the offence had been carried out in accordance with LAW and in the presence of his lawyer . ORG had therefore been entitled to read out those statements at the main hearing before it .

As to the sentence imposed , the applicant had not raised any specific arguments in his appeal on points of law . In any event , the lower courts had correctly concluded that , given his earlier convictions , the CARDINAL - strike rule set out in LAW was applicable to his case . Similarly , the lower courts had correctly exercised their discretionary power under LAW ) of LAW when excluding the possibility of his release on parole .

On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to ORG . He indicated that it was directed against the abovementioned ordinary courts at CARDINAL levels which had dealt with his case , and at the prosecuting authorities involved . In the summary of his complaint the applicant indicated that it concerned his conviction and the sentence imposed . He alleged a breach of his rights under LAW and the Convention . He complained , inter alia , that he had been detained unlawfully and that the criminal proceedings against him had been flawed . He explicitly alleged a breach of LAW ) and ( c ) and LAW , LAW , DATE and CARDINAL(d ) , and ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW , as well as LAW No . CARDINAL .

The applicant joined to his appeal the CARDINAL ordinary courts’ decisions in his case and requested that ORG quash them . He indicated that he was indigent and asked ORG to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the constitutional proceedings .

In a letter dated DATE a ORG judge informed the applicant that in his complaint he had not specified an outcome he sought to obtain from ORG which would be enforceable given the powers of that court . As ORG could not deal with such a submission , it had to be set aside pursuant to section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW DATE .

On DATE the ORG ordered that the applicant be released from pre - trial detention and start serving a DATE prison term which had been imposed by a penal order issued by ORG on DATE in a different set of proceedings .

In a decision of DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be released from pre - trial detention and start serving a DATE prison term which had been imposed in a different set of proceedings by ORG .

A decision issued by a higher judicial officer of ORG on DATE stated that the period of the applicant ’s detention from DATE to DATE was to be incorporated into the term of life imprisonment imposed on him . The applicant was further ordered to reimburse to the ORG the costs of his detention during the above period , pursuant to LAW ( a ) of LAW DATE . On DATE the presiding judge of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint against that decision . On that basis the PERSON prison administration ordered the applicant , on DATE , to pay the equivalent of QUANTITY ( ORG ) in respect of DATE he had spent in pre - trial detention .

In the course of the criminal proceedings , newspapers published several articles about the case in which they implied that the applicant was a brutal offender . The applicant considered that those articles were based on information which the media had obtained from the prosecuting authorities dealing with his case .

On DATE the applicant filed a fresh appeal on points of law in respect of the proceedings leading to his conviction . The proceedings are pending .


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

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

The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties .


No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information)

Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus Kūris;Elisabeth Steiner;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant is a journalist by profession . On DATE he published an article in the DATE magazine L’Illustré entitled “ Tragedy on FAC – the reckless driver ’s version – Questioning of the mad driver ” ( “ Drame du Grand - Pont à Lausanne – la version du chauffard DATE l’interrogatoire du conducteur fou ” ) . The article in question concerned a set of criminal proceedings against PERSON , a motorist who had been remanded in custody after an incident on DATE in which he had rammed his car into pedestrians , before throwing himself off FAC ( ORG ) . The incident , in which CARDINAL people had died and CARDINAL others had been injured , had caused much emotion and controversy in GPE . The article began as follows :

“ Surname : B. First name : PERSON on DATE in PERSON ( GPE ) , son of PERSON and GPE , resident in GPE , holder of a category C licence , spouse of ORG : nursing assistant ... It is TIME on DATE , in the austere LOC of the GPE criminal investigation department . TIME after his tragic headlong race along FAC , resulting in CARDINAL deaths and QUANTITY casualties , this reckless driver is alone for the first time , facing CARDINAL investigators . Will he own up ? In fact he does n’t actually seem to realise what is happening , as if oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him . The man who upset the whole of GPE DATE is not very talkative . This NORP citizen is withdrawn , introverted , inscrutable , indeed completely impenetrable . And yet the questions are flying from all sides . What were the reasons for this ‘ accident’ , one of the policemen rather clumsily writes , as if he had already formed his opinion . CARDINAL words in reply : ‘ I do not know’ . ”

The article continued with a summary of the questions put by the police officers and the investigating judge and PERSON ’s replies . It also mentioned that PERSON had been “ charged with premeditated murder ( assassinat ) and , in the alternative , with murder ( meurtre ) , grievous bodily harm , endangering life and serious traffic offences ” , and that he “ appear[ed ] to show no remorse ” . The article was accompanied by several photographs of letters which PERSON had sent to the investigating judge . It ended with the following paragraph :

“ From his prison cell , PERSON now spends his time sending letters to the investigating judge ... : on being taken into custody he asked for his watch to be returned and requested a cup for his coffee , some dried fruit and chocolate . On DATE , DATE after the events , he even asked to be temporarily released for ‘ a few days’ . ‘ I would like to phone my big brother in Algeria’ , he subsequently begged . He finally announced on DATE that he had come to a ‘ final GPE : he dismissed his lawyer , PERSON , on grounds of ‘ lack of ORG . DATE , another letter : could the judge send him ‘ the directory of ORG of the GPE of Vaud’ to help him find a different defence lawyer ? However , with all the recurrent lies and omissions , the mixture of naivety and arrogance , amnesia and sheer madness characterising all these statements , surely PERSON is doing everything in his power to make himself impossible to defend ? ”

The article also included a brief summary entitled “ He lost his marbles ... ” ( “ Il a perdu la boule ... ” ) , and statements from PERSON ’s wife and from his doctor .

It appears from the file that the applicant ’s article was not the only piece to have been published on FAC tragedy . The authorities responsible for the criminal investigation had themselves decided to inform the press about certain aspects of the investigation , which had led to the publication of an article in ORG on DATE .

M.B. did not lodge a complaint against the applicant . However , criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on the initiative of the public prosecutor for having published secret documents . It emerged from the investigation that CARDINAL of the parties claiming damages in the proceedings against PERSON had photocopied the case file and lost CARDINAL of the copies in a shopping centre . An unknown person had then brought the copy to the offices of the magazine which had published the impugned article .

By an order of DATE the GPE investigating judge sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

Following an application by the applicant to have the decision set aside , ORG , by a judgment of DATE , replaced the prison sentence with a fine of MONEY ( CHF ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . At the hearing on DATE , in reply to a question from the ORG , the applicant ’s representative stated that the sum of CHF MONEY had been advanced by his client ’s employer and that his client was intending to refund it after the proceedings before the ORG . He also confirmed that the amount set by the criminal court had taken account of the applicant ’s previous record .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . His appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG of the GPE of GPE .

The applicant lodged a public - law appeal and an appeal on grounds of nullity with ORG , which on DATE dismissed the appeals . Its decision was served on the applicant on DATE . The relevant passages from the decision are as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In short , the appellant submits that his conviction for a breach of LAW is contrary to federal law . He does not challenge the fact that the information which he published falls within the ambit of LAW . He does , on the other hand , submit , under an interpretation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in the light of the principles inferred from LAW by ORG , that having received that information in good faith without obtaining it unlawfully , he had the duty as a professional journalist , under LAW , to publish it owing to what he sees as the obvious interest of the so - called ‘ GPE case to the general public in LANGUAGE - speaking GPE .

In accordance with LAW of secret official deliberations ) , anyone who , without being entitled to do so , makes public all or part of the documents , investigations or deliberations of an authority which are secret by law or by virtue of a decision taken by that authority , acting within its powers , will be punished by a fine ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Complicity in such acts is also punishable ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The court may decide not to impose any penalties if the secret thus made public is of minor importance ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .

According to case - law , this provision proceeds from a formal conception of secrecy . It is sufficient that the documents , deliberations or investigations in question have been declared secret by law or by virtue of a decision taken by the authority , or in other words that there has been an intention to keep them from becoming public , regardless of the type of classification selected ( for example , top secret or confidential ) . On the other hand , strict secrecy presupposes that the holder of the specific information wishes to keep it secret , that there is a legitimate interest at stake , and that the information is known or accessible only to a select group of persons ( see ORG [ Judgments of ORG ] CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , and CARDINAL / aa , p. CARDINAL ) . This state of affairs was not altered by the entry into force of paragraph CARDINAL of this Article on DATE ( RO [ Recueil officiel – Official Collection of Federal Statutes ] DATE CARDINAL ; ORG [ GPE fédérale ] DATE IV CARDINAL ) . That rule concerns not secrets in the substantive sense but rather instances of futile , petty or excessive concealment ( see ORG CARDINAL FAC , point CARDINAL / bb , p. CARDINAL ) . In order to exclude the application of paragraph CARDINAL , the court must therefore first of all examine the reasons for classifying the information as secret . It must , however , do so with restraint , without interfering with the discretionary power wielded by the authority which declared the information secret . It is sufficient that this declaration should nonetheless appear tenable vis - à - vis the content of the documents , investigations or deliberations in issue . Moreover , the journalists’ viewpoint on the interest in publishing the information is irrelevant ( see ORG CARDINAL PERSON , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . In its PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , ORG confirmed that this formal conception of secrecy was not contrary to LAW inasmuch as it did not prevent ORG from determining whether the interference in issue was compatible with LAW , by assessing , in the context of its examination of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , the justification for classifying a given piece of information as secret , on the one hand , and weighing up the interests at stake , on the other ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

In the present case the offence with which the appellant is charged concerned the publication of records of interviews and correspondence contained in the case file of a live criminal investigation .

In pursuance of LAW ( ORG ) , all investigations must remain secret until their final conclusion ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The secrecy requirement relates to all the evidence uncovered by the investigation itself as well as all non - public decisions and investigative measures ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The law also specifies that the following are bound by secrecy vis - à - vis anyone who does not have access to the case file : the judges and judicial staff ( save in cases where disclosure would facilitate the investigation or is justified on public - order , administrative or judicial grounds ; see LAW ) , and also the parties , their friends and relatives , their lawyers , the latter ’s associates , consultants and staff , and any experts and witnesses . However , disclosure to friends or relatives by the parties or their lawyer is not punishable ( see LAW CPP / VD ) . Lastly , the law provides for a range of exceptions . As an exception to LAW , the cantonal investigating judge and , with the latter ’s agreement , the judge responsible for the preliminary inquiry or senior police officers specially appointed by the cantonal government [ ORG d’Etat ] ( see LAW , paragraph CARDINAL ) may inform the press , radio or television about a pending investigation if so required by the public interest or considerations of fairness , particularly where public cooperation is required to shed light on an offence , in cases which are particularly serious or are already known to the general public , or where erroneous information must be corrected or the general public reassured ( see Article CARDINALb , paragraph CARDINAL , CPP / VD ) .

The present case therefore concerns secrecy imposed by the law rather than by an official decision .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL . As a general rule , the reason for the confidentiality of judicial investigations , which applies to most sets of cantonal criminal proceedings , is the need to protect the interests of the criminal proceedings by anticipating risks of collusion and the danger of evidence being tampered with or destroyed . Nevertheless , the interests of the accused must not be disregarded either , particularly vis - à - vis the presumption of innocence and , more broadly , the accused ’s personal relations and interests ( see ORG , PERSON , CARDINALth ed . , DATE , § CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , op . cit . , § CARDINAL , no . DATE , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , ORG pénale suisse : DATE . , DATE , no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) , as well as the need to protect the opinion - forming process and the decision - making process within a ORG authority , as protected , precisely , by LAW ( see ORG CARDINAL FAC , point CARDINAL / aa , p. CARDINAL ) . ORG has already had occasion to deem such a purpose legitimate in itself . The aim is to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary in accordance with the wording of LAW , which also mentions the protection of the reputation or rights of others ( see PERSON v. GPE , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , § DATE , and PERSON and Others v. GPE , judgment of DATE , § CARDINAL ) .

Furthermore , in so far as the impugned publication concerned excerpts from records of interviews of the accused and reproduced certain letters sent by the latter to the investigating judge , this evidence can validly be classified secret , by prohibiting public access to it , as provided by the legislation of the GPE of GPE . This is the inescapable conclusion as regards the records of interviews of the accused , as it would be inadmissible to allow such documents to be analysed in the public sphere , before the conclusion of the investigation , before the trial and out of context , in a manner liable to influence the decisions taken by the investigating judge and the trial court . It is also the only possible conclusion as regards the letters sent by the accused to the investigating judge , which focused on practical problems and criticisms of his lawyer ( see ORG judgment , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . We might point out here that it appears from the impugned publication DATE which the cantonal authorities did not reproduce in full in their decisions , although they did refer to it and its content is not disputed – that the aforementioned practical problems concerned requests for temporary release and for access to personal effects ( letters of DATE ) , for a change of cell ( letter of CARDINAL DATE ) and for authorisation to use the telephone ( letter of DATE ) . Regardless of the guarantee of the presumption of innocence and the inferences concerning the detainee ’s character which might be drawn during the criminal proceedings from such correspondence , the detainee , whose liberty is considerably restricted , even in respect of everyday acts relating to his private life , or indeed intimate sphere , can expect the authority restricting his liberty to protect him from public exposure of the practical details of his life as a remand prisoner and as a person facing charges ( see LAW ) .

It follows that in the instant case the information published by the appellant , in so far as it concerned the content of the records of his interviews and his correspondence with the investigating judge , can not be described as a secret of minor importance for the purposes of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW . That being so , the impugned publication constituted the factual elements of the offence provided for in LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW .

Moreover , the information in question may be described as being secret in substantive terms because it was only accessible to a restricted number of persons ( the investigating judge and the parties to the proceedings ) . Furthermore , the investigating authority was desirous to keep them secret , with not only a legitimate interest in doing so but an obligation under LAW , the justification for which was mentioned above ( see point PERSON above ) .

Therefore , the only remaining point at issue is the existence of justification .

In short , the appellant submits that he had the professional duty ( under former LAW ) as a journalist to publish the information in question because of what he describes as the obvious interest in the ‘ GPE case for the population of LANGUAGE - speaking GPE . He considers that in the light of NORP case - law , the basic assumption should be that publication is justified in principle unless there is a pressing social need to maintain secrecy . From the standpoint of good faith , he submits that Article CARDINAL should apply to journalists who are not responsible for the indiscretion committed by a third party and who receive information without committing any offence themselves other than the breach of secrecy stemming from the publication . Lastly , he contends that the mode of publication is not a relevant criterion .

As regards the former point , the cantonal court found that while the accident of DATE , the circumstances of which were undoubtedly unusual , had triggered a great deal of public emotion , it had nevertheless , in legal terms , been simply a road accident with fatal consequences , and did not in itself entail any obvious public interest . It was not a case of collective trauma on the part of the GPE population , which would have justified reassuring the citizens and keeping them informed of the progress of the investigation ( see judgment appealed against , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .

It is true that the ‘ FAC attracted extensive media coverage ( see ORG judgment , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , to which the cantonal judgment refers ( judgment appealed against , point B , p. CARDINAL ) ) . However , this circumstance alone , alongside the unusual nature of the accident , is insufficient to substantiate a major public interest in publishing the confidential information in question . Unless it can be justified per se , the interest aroused among the public by media coverage of events can not constitute a public interest in the disclosure of classified information , because that would mean that it would be sufficient to spark the public ’s interest in a certain event in order to justify the subsequent publication of confidential information likely to maintain that interest . Furthermore , such a public interest is manifestly lacking as regards the letters that were published . As we have seen above ( see point QUANTITY above ) , these letters virtually exclusively concerned criticisms levelled by the accused against his lawyer and such practical problems as requests for temporary release , for access to personal effects , to change cells and to use the telephone . This type of information provides no relevant insights into the accident or the circumstances surrounding it . It relates to the private life , or indeed intimate sphere , of the person in custody , and it is difficult to see any interest which its publication could satisfy other than a certain kind of voyeurism . The same applies to the appellant ’s requests to the investigating judge in relation to his choice of defence lawyer . Nor is it clear , as regards the records of his interviews , what political question or matter of public interest would have arisen or been worth debating in the public sphere , and the cantonal authorities explicitly ruled out the existence of any collective trauma which might have justified reassuring or informing the population . This finding of fact , which the appellant has not disputed in his public - law appeal , is binding on this court ( see section CARDINAL bis of LAW ) . That being the case , the appellant fails to demonstrate the ‘ obvious’ interest to the general public of the information published , and the cantonal court can not be criticised for having concluded that at the very most , such an interest involved satisfying an unhealthy curiosity .

The other CARDINAL factors relied upon by the appellant concern his behaviour ( good faith in access to information and mode of publication ) .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . It should first of all be noted that Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code punishes only the disclosure of information , irrespective of how the perpetrator obtained it . Moreover , even under Article CARDINAL ORG , ORG does not attach decisive importance to this fact when considering whether applicants have fulfilled their duties and responsibilities . The determining fact is rather that they could not claim in good faith to be unaware that disclosure of the information was punishable by law ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL , and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ) . This point is well - established in the present case ( see section B above ) .

DATE . On the other hand , the mode of publication can play a more important role in the context of safeguarding freedom of expression . While ORG reiterates that neither it , nor the domestic courts for that matter , should substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists , in weighing up the interests at stake it nevertheless takes account of the content , vocabulary and format of the publication , and of the headings and sub - headings ( whether chosen by the journalist or the editors ) , and the accuracy of the information ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL et seq . , especially CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

In the instant case the cantonal court ruled that the tone adopted by the appellant in his article showed that his main concern was not , as he claims , to inform the general public about the ORG ’s conduct of the criminal investigation . The headline of the article ( ‘ Questioning of the mad driver’ , ‘ the reckless driver ’s PERSON ) already lacked objectivity . It suggested that the case had already been tried in the author ’s view , in the sense that the fatalities on FAC had been caused not by an ordinary motorist but by a ‘ mad PERSON , a man ‘ oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him’ ; The journalist concluded by wondering whether the driver was in fact doing his best to ‘ make himself impossible to defend’ . The manner in which he quoted the excerpts from the records of interviews and reproduced the letters sent by the defendant to the judge pointed to the motives of the author of the impugned article : he confined himself to sensationalism , his modus operandi being exclusively geared to satisfying the relatively unhealthy curiosity which anyone is liable to feel about this type of case . Readers of this highly biased publication would have formed an opinion and subjectively prejudged the future action to be taken by the courts regarding this case , without the least respect for the principle of presumption of innocence ( see judgment appealed against , point CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . The cantonal court concluded that this factor did not indicate that the public interest in receiving information prevailed . That court can not be criticised on that account .

The appellant also submitted that the records of interviews and the letters would in any case be mentioned in subsequent public hearings . He inferred from this that preserving the confidentiality of this information could therefore not be justified by any ‘ pressing social ORG .

However , the mere possibility that the secrecy of criminal investigations might be lifted during a subsequent phase of proceedings , particularly during the trial , which is generally subject to the publicity principle , does not undermine the justification for keeping judicial investigations confidential , because the primary aim is to protect the opinion - forming and decision - making processes on the part not only of the trial court but also of the investigating authority , until the completion of this secret phase of proceedings . Moreover , far from being neutral and comprehensive , the publication in issue included comments and assessments which presented the information in issue in a particular light , without providing the opportunities for adversarial argument which are the very essence of proceedings in trial courts .

Lastly , the appellant did not explicitly criticise the amount of the fine imposed on him . Nor did he challenge the refusal to grant him DATE after which the fine would be struck out ( former Article CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , in conjunction with former DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ) under NORP law . From the angle of weighing up the interest in the interference , we might simply note that the fine imposed , the amount of which took into account a previous conviction dating back to DATE ( imposition of a LAW fine , which could be struck out after a DATE probationary period , for coercion and defamation ) , does not exceed CARDINAL the amount of the appellant ’s DATE income at the material time ( see ORG judgment , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , and there is nothing to suggest that his freelance status at the time of the first - instance judgment led to any significant drop in his earnings . It should also be pointed out that at CHF CARDINAL,CARDINAL the amount of the fine is below the statutory maximum set out in former LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ( as in force until DATE ) , and that this maximum amount , set by the legislature DATE , was not revised until the entry into force of the new general section of LAW , which now sets a figure of LAW ( see Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW as in force since DATE ) . Furthermore , the sanction for the offence with which the appellant is charged did not prevent him from expressing his views , since it was imposed after the article had been published ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . That being the case , it is unclear , in view of the nature of the offence charged ( the least serious in the classification set out in LAW ) , the amount of the fine and the time of its imposition , how the sanction imposed on the applicant could be regarded as a form of censorship .

It follows from the foregoing that the appellant disclosed a secret within the meaning of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW and that he can not rely on any justifying factor in his favour . The decision appealed against does not violate federal law as interpreted in the light of the LAW provisions relied upon by the appellant . ”