No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

On DATE the applicant and PERSON ( a NORP national ) were married in GPE .

On DATE their son , PERSON , was born there . The family lived in GPE . A GPE passport was issued in PERSON ’s name .

On DATE S. obtained permanent resident status in the GPE .

NORP In DATE the family arrived in GPE for a holiday and to visit PERSON ’s relatives .

On DATE the applicant returned alone to the GPE . The child stayed with LOC in GPE .

In DATE S. ’s GPE permanent resident card expired .

NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before the LOC CARDINALth ORG ( “ the GPE ORG ” ) , seeking dissolution of the marriage and sole custody of LOC In the course of the proceedings PERSON agreed to the dissolution of marriage . She argued , however , that ORG did not have jurisdiction with regard to the issue of PERSON ’s custody pursuant to the GPE Statutes § CARDINALD.CARDINAL because the child had been in GPE for a period of DATE .

In DATE the applicant spent DATE in GPE with PERSON

On DATE the applicant asked ORG of GPE to order the return of PERSON from GPE to the GPE in accordance with LAW of DATE on ORG ( “ LAW ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the GPE ORG dissolved the marriage between the applicant and S. The court reserved the issue of ORG ’s custody , finding that it did not have jurisdiction over that issue pursuant to GPE Statutes § DATE .

On DATE the ORG of ORG of GPE issued a certificate declaring PERSON ’s citizenship of GPE pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Citizenship Act DATE .

On DATE the ORG of Justice , acting in the applicant ’s interests , lodged a claim with LOC of Chernihiv ( “ the LOC ” ) , asserting that PERSON had been wrongfully retained in GPE and must be returned to the GPE in accordance with LAW .

The applicant submitted that he had expected PERSON to return from GPE to the GPE on DATE ; however , PERSON changed her plans and decided to stay on with PERSON in GPE after that date . During the hearings the applicant stated that he was prepared to cover travel expenses for both the child and the mother if the latter were to be ordered to accompany the child to the GPE .

S. objected and submitted that it was the applicant who had asked her to stay in GPE with the child beyond DATE . In that regard PERSON stated that on DATE the applicant had sent her CARDINAL parcels from GPE containing all her and PERSON ’s personal belongings , including toys and clothes . The applicant also sent her PERSON ’s vaccination certificate for his admission to a child - care centre in GPE . In DATE , despite the divorce action initiated by the applicant in the GPE , GPE agreed to spend a holiday with him and their son in GPE , trying to restore good relations . She further submitted that the applicant had arrived in GPE in DATE and stayed for a considerable period of time but had not attempted to meet up with the child . S. therefore alleged that there was no factual child abduction or unlawful retention which would necessitate a return order under LAW .

On DATE the NORP ORG found that PERSON had arrived in GPE with both GPE agreement , but that later the mother had retained the child in GPE without the father ’s consent . The court found that such retention was wrongful within the meaning of LAW and that the child should be returned to the country of his habitual residence , the GPE . No exceptions under LAW applied . Given the applicant ’s verbal assurances , the court considered that there were no objective obstacles to the mother ’s accompanying the child to the GPE and resolving the custody dispute before the courts of that country . In the operative part of the decision , the court ordered that PERSON should be returned to ORG to the father ’s home address in GPE ‒ specifying that the child should be accompanied on the journey by both parents .

On DATE the Desnyansky ORG issued an additional decision stating that if the child were not returned voluntarily , S. would be ordered to transfer the child to the applicant at his home address in GPE .

S. appealed against those decisions , maintaining that there was no abduction or unlawful retention of the child and that , in any event , there were grounds to apply the exception provided by LAW b ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as regarded the risk of psychological harm to the child and his being placed in an intolerable situation .

On DATE ORG and Youth of ORG issued a certificate stating their psychiatrist ’s opinion that PERSON was “ well settled in GPE and , having regard to the strong bond between the child and the mother and the need to avoid causing the child psychological trauma , it would be inappropriate to remove the child to the other place of residence ” .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) and dismissed the applicant ’s claim as unsubstantiated . The court considered there was a grave risk that PERSON ’s return to the GPE would expose him to psychological harm or would otherwise place him in an intolerable situation , as provided in LAW ( b ) of LAW . In that regard ORG stated that PERSON was completely settled in his new environment , as he had been living in GPE since DATE . PERSON had always lived with the mother and there were close ties between them . There was no realistic possibility for the mother to accompany PERSON to the GPE and stay near him in that country . In addition , ORG noted that the applicant had not provided any information regarding his actual place of residence in the GPE , his current living conditions , or his level of income .

On DATE ORG of GPE for ORG ( “ the Cassation Court ” ) quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and upheld the Desnyansky ORG decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , noting that they were well substantiated and had been adopted in compliance with the requirements of LAW . It found the submissions concerning the risk of exposing PERSON to psychological harm unconvincing .

On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution in respect of its decisions of DATE and DATE . On DATE PERSON ’s lawyer contacted ORG in GPE and enquired about applying for a GPE visa in the specific circumstances .

On DATE ORG instituted enforcement proceedings , resulting in the imposition of fines on S. for failure to comply with the return order .

In DATE S. submitted a request to ORG for review of the case on the grounds that LAW had been applied divergently in the cassation proceedings , resulting in inconsistent judicial practice . On DATE ORG declared the request admissible and referred the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG considered PERSON ’s request for review of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the grounds of divergent application of the law by the cassation courts . Having examined the domestic judicial practice , ORG found that Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been applied divergently . It set out the principles which had to be followed when interpreting and applying those provisions . As regards the present case , ORG found that the domestic courts had failed to apply the provisions properly . In particular , there had been no clear stance on the question of whether or not the removal or retention of the child had been wrongful , and ‒ if that were the case ‒ at what moment it started to be wrongful , nor as to whether or not the father had consented to or subsequently acquiesced as regards the child ’s retention , nor whether facts existed demonstrating that the child was settled in his current environment . ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .

On DATE the Cassation Court quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on the grounds that ORG had breached procedural rules and had failed to establish all the relevant facts . The case was remitted to ORG .

On DATE ORG found that there was no dispute regarding removal of the child because the father had only complained about the wrongful retention of the child in GPE . ORG then considered the applicant ’s updated submissions , in which he no longer argued that the retention of the child had been wrongful as from DATE but rather as from DATE , which was the date when he had first expressed his disagreement with the child ’s retention in GPE . It was also established that in DATE the applicant had sent parcels to GPE containing the child ’s belongings .

As regards the period commencing on DATE , ORG considered that the applicant had continued to consent to the child ’s retention in GPE as there was no express objection on that point before the request was made under LAW . ORG found that on DATE the applicant ’s divorce claim was delivered to S. ’s representative . In that claim the applicant also sought to establish sole custody of the child ; however , that claim did not mean that the applicant disagreed with the child ’s ongoing stay in GPE . Moreover , in DATE , the applicant had spent DATE with PERSON in GPE and in DATE , after his return to the GPE , he had sent PERSON ’s vaccination certificate in order to facilitate PERSON ’s admission to a child - care centre in GPE . ORG concluded that in these circumstances the applicant enjoyed custody rights in relation to PERSON and that he had failed to demonstrate that those rights had been violated . For those reasons the child ’s retention in that period could not be considered wrongful within the meaning of LAW .

ORG next stated that , even assuming that there had been a wrongful retention of the child , the return request could be rejected under the provisions of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG examined the evidence relating to the child ’s place of residence in GPE , and the social and medical care provided to him in GPE , and found that PERSON was assured of all the conditions necessary for his proper development . Based on the evidence presented and having regard to the overall period during which the child had lived in GPE , ORG found that PERSON was entirely settled in his current environment . It also considered that PERSON ’s return to the GPE without his mother – who no longer had legal basis for entering and living in the GPE – would not be in the best interests of the child . ORG therefore quashed the Desnyansky ORG decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) and dismissed the applicant ’s claim as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG dismissed appeals on points of law brought by the applicant and ORG and upheld the decision of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above ) .


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);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Alvina Gyulumyan;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus Kūris;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE - ten - Noode ( a district of the GPE - Capital region ) .

The applicants are brothers who live with their parents , their brother and CARDINAL sisters next to the local police station of FAC - ten - Noode . They both complained that they had been slapped in the face by police officers – which allegation is disputed by the Government – one on DATE and the other on DATE . They submitted that those events had taken place in the context of tense relations between their family and certain officers in the police station .

The applicants submitted that on DATE at TIME the first applicant had been standing with a friend in the street outside the door of the building where he lived with his family , and , since he had forgotten his keys , had been ringing the bell so that his parents would let him in , when a plain - clothes policeman , ORG , had asked him to present his identity card . The first applicant had refused to comply , asking the officer to show his credentials . The officer had then grabbed him by his jacket DATE tearing it – and taken him to the police station . The first applicant had been placed in a room and , while he was alone with ORG , the officer had slapped him in the face as he was protesting about his arrest .

The applicants provided a certificate issued at TIME on DATE by a general practitioner , attesting that the first applicant had been “ in a state of shock ” and had presented the following injuries : “ erythema on the left cheek ( disappearing ) ” and “ erythema on the left - side external auditory canal ” .

The Government submitted that , on account of the first applicant ’s refusal to show his identity card , officer ORG had had no choice but to take him to the police station for identification . The first applicant had then caused a scene , claiming to have suffered an injustice and been subjected to an unlawful identity check , and had insulted an officer who was telling him to calm down . He had been allowed to leave the police station once his identity had been verified and after being informed by ORG that a police report would be filed against him for forceful resistance to a public officer , abusive behaviour and verbal threats . He had returned to the police station TIME with his parents , accusing ORG of having struck him , but the officer had always denied this .

At TIME had lodged a criminal complaint against the first applicant , alleging forceful resistance to a public officer , abusive behaviour and verbal threats . The record drawn up on that occasion showed that ORG had notified his superiors of the events at TIME , and also one “ Superintendent K. ” .

The applicants indicated that on DATE , between CARDINAL TIME ( as shown by the record of the second applicant ’s questioning ) , while the second applicant was at FAC police station and officer PERSON was interviewing him about an altercation involving him and his mother together with a third party ( and about which the latter had filed a complaint ) , P.P. had slapped him in the face after asking him not to lean on his desk . He had then forced him to sign his statement by threatening to put him in a cell .

The applicants provided a medical certificate issued on DATE by a general practitioner , who observed “ bruising [ on the ] left cheek ” of the second applicant . The certificate did not specify the time at which it had been drawn up , although it must have been before TIME , the time at which it was presented to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The Government explained that the second applicant had been very arrogant during his interview : slouching in his chair , leaning casually on ORG desk , laughing without any reason and giving pithy answers to questions . He had also had his statement changed several times , saying that the police were paid to do that , and had threatened the officers on leaving by shouting that they would be hearing from him again . The Government emphasised that , in spite of the attitude shown by the second applicant , who had clearly been intent on conflict , P.P. had remained calm and patient .

In the applicants’ submission , their family had been harassed by the Saint - Josse - CARDINAL - Noode police force . They stated that the problems had begun in DATE , when CARDINAL of the officers had suspected their brother PERSON of deliberately scratching his car . ORG had subsequently been charged with threatening the same officer and committing robberies , on which charges he had been acquitted by ORG on DATE . According to the applicants , the case against him had been entirely fabricated by members of the Saint - Josse - CARDINAL - Noode police by way of reprisal .

They added that on DATE the first applicant , then aged DATE , had been “ beaten ” by another police officer in the police station , where he had been taken following a fight in the street . He had sustained a perforated eardrum . His mother and CARDINAL of his sisters , who had been in the waiting room , had been shaken and manhandled by police officers .

On DATE CARDINAL of their sisters had been verbally abused by an officer of the Saint - Josse - CARDINAL - Noode police force , and on DATE their brother PERSON had been searched , jostled and verbally abused by police officers .

They further stated that in DATE a “ case ... initiated by the ORG - ten - Noode police force had been opened against ORG and entrusted to an investigating judge ” , but the proceedings had been discontinued . In DATE the second applicant had been “ wanted for questioning ” and even though the Saint - Josse - ten - Noode police had announced on DATE that he was being taken off the relevant “ wanted ” list , he had still had to make various applications to the prosecutor ’s office and wait until DATE for the process to be completed , causing him a great deal of inconvenience .

On DATE and DATE respectively , their brother PERSON and the second applicant had been verbally abused by officers of the FAC - ten - Noode police .

The applicants explained that they had systematically reported to the judicial authorities or police all the incidents of which they had been victims , and had filed complaints .

At TIME on DATE the first applicant filed a complaint with the standing committee for the oversight of police services ( known as “ ORG P ” ) and was interviewed by a member of the investigation department . A copy of the medical certificate drawn up DATE was appended to the initial record .

The second applicant followed suit at TIME on DATE . He indicated in particular that he considered that the “ general attitude of the LOC police vis - à - vis [ his ] family [ had become ] absolutely intolerable and excessive to the point [ where they had envisaged ] moving house ” . A copy of the medical certificate drawn up DATE was appended to the initial record .

NORP The applicants’ mother was also interviewed on DATE by the investigation department of ORG in relation to the second applicant ’s complaints . She pointed out that as soon as they had returned home she had called CARDINAL “ Superintendent K. ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ask him to persuade PERSON to apologise . PERSON had immediately come to their house , where he had found himself in the company of the physician who had drawn up the medical certificate . The ORG mother also filed a complaint , indicating , moreover , that she herself had been treated with scant respect by officer P.P.

On DATE officer PERSON was interviewed by the director of internal oversight of the local police force in relation to the complaints by the second applicant and his mother . P.P. stated in particular that the second applicant had been particularly disrespectful towards him during his interview and that , although he had grabbed the youth by the arm to make him leave the office , he had not slapped him in the face .

On DATE the applicants applied to intervene as civil parties in respect of charges of harassment , arbitrary interference with fundamental freedoms , abuse of authority , arbitrary arrest and wounding with intent . They gave an overview of all their difficulties with the SaintJossetenNoode police , and expressly stated that they wished to intervene as civil parties in relation to the events of CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

Officers ORG and GPE were charged with using violence against individuals in the course of their duties and , in particular , with intentional wounding or assault , and with engaging in arbitrary acts in breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW .

On DATE an investigating judge of ORG of First Instance gave directions to the investigation department of Committee P asking it to take note of the applicants’ civil - party application , interview them in order to ascertain the details of their complaint , draft a report on the conduct of the PERSON family , draw up a list of the cases brought against them and complaints filed by them and explain what action had been taken in that connection .

Having regard to the fact that it had already taken testimony from the applicants when they had filed their respective complaints ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , the investigation department of Committee P decided not to interview them again . On DATE it forwarded a report to the investigating judge , based on the documents from the internal oversight department of the police district covering GPE - ten - Noode , describing developments in the relations between the applicants’ family and the local police force . The report then listed the cases against the family , noting in this connection that the first applicant had been implicated in proceedings opened in DATE for abusive and threatening behaviour and for obstructing a police officer , and ORG in CARDINAL sets of proceedings opened DATE . It then noted that , in addition to the ORG complaints at issue in the present case , CARDINAL judicial complaints had been filed by members of their family ( CARDINAL with ORG , in DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL with the “ ORG ” in DATE ) and CARDINAL complaints had been dealt with by the internal oversight department of the police district covering GPE - ten - Noode . Lastly , citing a report drawn up in the context of a case against the first applicant and the findings of administrative inquiries , it noted the problematic nature of the relations between the local police and the PERSON family and commented on the “ general behaviour ” of the latter , observing as follows :

“ In sum , according to the police officers , the PERSON family ( especially the women and the mother in particular ) apparently refuse to admit that the children of the family bear any responsibility for the abusive conduct in question . They are thus supported in their behaviour by this protective attitude . More generally , the family members are said to behave aggressively and provocatively towards the police .

Following the incidents involving police officer [ B. ] , a dialogue facilitator apparently failed in an attempt at reconciliation , owing to an intransigent attitude on the part of the women in the PERSON family .

In DATE and DATE the situation required the appointment of a police cadet as a mediator for this family . ”

On DATE the investigating judge decided to close the investigation and sent the file to the prosecuting authorities .

On DATE officer ORG was interviewed by a member of the investigation department of ORG about the events of DATE . He stated in particular that he had not previously known the first applicant when he had taken him to the FAC - ten - Noode police station that DATE .

In an application of CARDINAL DATE the ORG called for the discontinuance of the case on the ground that “ the judicial investigation [ had ] not established that the facts constituted a serious or petty offence and [ had ] not adduced any evidence that would justify the taking of further measures ” .

The applicants were informed that the case file would be finalised before ORG of ORG of First Instance on DATE . On DATE they sent an application to the investigating judge seeking CARDINAL additional investigative measures . That request resulted in the adjournment sine die of the case before ORG .

On DATE the investigating judge ordered CARDINAL of the requested measures and rejected the remainder of the application on the ground that it concerned facts that predated the events referred to him and that the measures sought were not necessary for establishing the truth . Consequently , recapitulating all their complaints against the LOC police force , the applicants and other members of their family sent the investigating judge a request for an “ extension of civil - party status ” , but it was rejected . The QUANTITY additional measures were performed on DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG , endorsing the grounds set out in the Crown Prosecutor ’s application , discontinued the proceedings .

The applicants appealed against that order .

In an application of CARDINAL DATE ORG requested that the discontinuance order be upheld .

On DATE the applicants and other members of their family filed a complaint as civil parties in respect of all the facts that the investigating judge had considered not to have been referred to him ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .

On DATE ORG of ORG , after refusing to join the case concerning the events of DATE and DATE to the new case that had been opened after the civil - party complaint of CARDINAL DATE , upheld the discontinuance order in a judgment that read as follows :

The facts of the case can be summarised as follows :

– On DATE the defendant [ ORG ] is alleged to have engaged in illegal police conduct against ORG FAC , described by the latter as follows : police officer [ ORG ] , on stopping him outside his house , allegedly grabbed him by his jacket and tore it ; he was then taken to the police station close by , where the same officer allegedly slapped him on the face with his right hand .

– On DATE the defendant [ P.P. ] is alleged to have engaged in illegal police conduct against the civil party PERSON , described by the latter as follows : on stopping his car in front of his house so that his mother could take out her shopping , he had a row with the driver of the car behind ; he was summoned to the police station following a complaint by that driver ; during the interview , PERSON was allegedly slapped by the defendant [ P.P. ] ( see the medical certificate issued by PERSON ... ) , who threatened to put him in a cell if he did not sign his statement , when in fact he wanted to change it .

– The PERSON family have apparently encountered great difficulties with certain members of the Saint - Josse - ten - Noode police force since DATE , when police officer [ B. ] suspected FAC of having scratched his car , giving rise to a certain degree of tension and to persecution of this family by the police .

– There is said to be constant provocation on the part of the police of FAC - ten - Noode making the life of the PERSON family unbearable .

Both the police ’s internal oversight department for the police district [ concerned ] and the investigation department of ORG conducted an in - depth investigation into the facts complained of by the civil parties .

It transpires from all the findings of the judicial investigation , and in particular from the inconsistent statements of the parties in question , that there is no evidence against the defendants such as to justify their committal on the charges listed in the submissions of ORG , in respect of the period in which the offences were said to have been committed .

The statements of the defendants , who deny the charges , are consistent ; it is appropriate in this connection to refer to the detailed report concerning the general conduct of the civil parties’ family drawn up by ORG , which sheds light on the general context of the case .

The civil parties have not adduced before the court , sitting as ORG , any new , relevant and convincing information not previously brought to the attention of the court below and capable of revealing the slightest evidence against the defendants that might justify their committal for trial .

Moreover , the judicial investigation did not bring to light sufficient evidence to show that a criminal offence had been committed by the defendants at the time of the incidents in which they were allegedly implicated .

In addition , it does not appear from the case file that the provisions of LAW of DATE have not been complied with .

As emphasised by the submissions of both LAW of DATE and those of ORG , and by the decision of ORG , the facts of the present case do not constitute a serious or petty criminal offence .

An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants – relying in particular on Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention – was dismissed on DATE by ORG .

On DATE members of the PERSON family , including the CARDINAL applicants , had filed a civil - party complaint with an investigating judge of ORG of First Instance concerning all their accusations against the Saint - Josse - ten - Noode police officers , in particular relating to facts that predated the events of DATE and DATE .

The civil - party complaint led to the appearance of CARDINAL officers before ORG , hearing the case on the merits . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court declared that the prosecution of the relevant offences was time - barred . It does not appear from the file that an appeal was lodged against that judgment .


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)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings against ORG of the Sakha ( GPE Republic ( “ the Administration ” ) , a private person PERSON , her husband PERSON , and a private company A. claiming a title to a flat , damages , and PERSON ’s eviction from the flat .

On DATE the ORG of the Sakha ( GPE Republic ( “ the GPE ” ) refused to consider his action , because there already had been a decision of DATE taken by ORG concerning the same dispute .

On DATE ORG of the Sakha ( GPE Republic overruled the refusal and remitted the case for a new examination , as the action included a new co - defendant , and , therefore , it could not be said that the dispute was among the same parties .

On DATE ORG ordered eviction of S. and her family from the flat and dismissed the claim against the ORG .

On DATE ORG of the Sakha ( GPE Republic quashed the judgment on appeal and returned the case for a fresh examination , as the lower court had failed to address issues related S. ’s property rights .

On DATE ORG ordered an expert examination of the flat in order to determine its market value .

On DATE the court proceedings resumed .

NORP In the meantime , the applicant amended his claims and sought to obtain compensation for his belongings allegedly stolen in DATE , nonpecuniary damage , legal costs , travel expenses and reimbursement of the rent he had to pay after his eviction from the disputed flat back in DATE .

On DATE ORG examined the case , ordered the ORG to pay the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of the flat ’s market value and dismissed the remainder of the claims . In particular , the claim for compensation for the allegedly stolen property was dismissed as unfounded .

On DATE the judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG ( GPE ) and entered into force .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s request , the bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG granted the ORG ’s request for suspension of the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE until DATE due to financial difficulties encountered by the debtor .

On DATE the applicant ’s appeal against the above decision was dismissed .

On DATE the monetary award in accordance with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was paid to the applicant .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s extraordinary appeal , the Presidium of ORG ( GPE ) quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the decision of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination . The ORG found that the courts had incorrectly applied the material law to various aspects of the case , and had failed to join the appropriate financial body as co - defendant .

It appears that the amounts paid to the applicant under the quashed judgment of CARDINAL DATE have not been reclaimed .

On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings , due to B. ’s illness and asked the applicant to clarify his claims .

On DATE the applicant submitted the amended claims .

On DATE ORG joined , at the defendant ’s request , ORG as co - defendant in the proceedings and suspended the examination of the case on account of PERSON ’s poor state of health .

On DATE the case was assigned to a different judge of ORG , for the sake of the court ’s impartiality .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action .

On DATE ORG ( GPE ) upheld the judgment on appeal except for the parts concerning the eviction of LOC and B. , reimbursement of the rent , payments for utility services , a commission fee , and recovering of the cost of the apartment . The decision in those parts was remitted for a fresh examination due to failure by the lower court to assess certain evidence and misapplication of the material law .

On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings pending PERSON ’s return from vacation .

On DATE the court ordered the applicant to clarify his claims and scheduled a new hearing on DATE .

On DATE the court issued a special writ ordering the bailiffs to obtain clarifications of the claims from the applicant .

It appears that at some point the applicant provided the required information .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action as unfounded . The court explained that the applicant had other remedies to use under the civil law in order to protect his property rights . In particular , he could claim that an equivalent apartment or a compensation be provided to him .

By the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( GPE ) upheld the lower court ’s findings on appeal .

In the meantime , the applicant sued the ORG for statutory interest for the delay in enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been quashed and a new decision in the case had not yet been adopted .


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

Angelika Nußberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

All the applicants are relatives of PERSON , as specified in the Appendix .

On DATE PERSON was struck by a car when crossing a street in the city of PERSON . Following the accident he died in a hospital .

On DATE the PERSON regional police department refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with the accident , noting that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T. , the driver of the car .

On DATE the PERSON city prosecutor ’s office quashed the decision of DATE as unfounded and instituted criminal proceedings for causing death by careless driving .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the PERSON regional police department terminated the investigations on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T.

Following the applicants’ complaints , all those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unsubstantiated and further investigations were ordered . When quashing those decisions , the supervising authorities held that the evidentiary basis had been incomplete and that the investigations had not been carried out thoroughly . In particular , on DATE the ORG of PERSON quashed the decision of DATE as unfounded and noted that serious contradictions in the case file had still not been removed , despite numerous orders to the investigators dealing with the case . The court considered that it was necessary to carry out additional investigative measures and expert examinations .

On DATE the PERSON regional police department terminated the investigation on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T. The police referred to the results of expert examinations suggesting that T. had had no technical possibility of avoiding the accident ; at the same time the materials of the file suggested that PERSON had violated the traffic rules .

On DATE the ORG of PERSON upheld that decision , noting that it was lawful and substantiated .

On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Respect for private life)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant , Mr Steingrim Wolland , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He ran a law firm in his own name in GPE until his licence to practice was suspended as a result of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against him personally in DATE .

On DATE , the prosecuting authority ( ORG – ORG ) issued charges ( siktelse ) against the applicant for aiding and abetting fraud in connection with art sales ( kunstbedrageri ) , an application for a bank loan ( lånebedrageri ) , and forgery of documents in connection with the latter .

On DATE ORG ( tingrett ) , finding that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion ( skjellig grunn til mistanke ) in respect of the charges , decided at the request of the prosecuting authority to authorise that a search be carried out at the applicant ’s premises , including his office . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against ORG decision .

On DATE the police were at the applicant ’s premises – his home and office . In accordance with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) a third party – a lawyer acquaintance of the applicant DATE was present . As there was a presumption that some material would be covered by the applicant ’s statutory legal professional privilege as a lawyer , and therefore be exempt from seizure pursuant to LAW ibid . ) , documents were put in sealed bags instead of being searched for evidence by the police . The police also collected a hard disk and a laptop . The third party had no objections as to how the police had proceeded .

Mirror copies ( speilkopier ) of the hard disk and laptop were taken ; the hard disk and laptop were returned to the applicant DATE .

On DATE , at the prosecuting authority ’s office , the applicant went through the paper documents that had been collected and sorted out those which he considered to be covered by legal professional privilege . This material was stored separately and placed under seal .

On DATE the prosecuting authority applied to ORG to examine the paper material that had been collected at the applicant ’s LOC and to have those documents that could lawfully be seized made available to it for search . As to the mirror copies , the prosecuting authority proposed that ORG authorise a staff member at ORG ’s computer department to acquaint him or herself with the material . The prosecution authority would thereafter return to ORG with an application for a decision on whether specific documents would be exempt from seizure owing to legal professional privilege . ORG accepted this procedure ( see , however , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Subsequently , the prosecuting authority , upon discussions with the applicant as to which keywords ( søkeord ) should be used when looking for documents on the mirror copies , made keyword - searches which gave results in CARDINAL files .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer disputed the lawfulness of what he categorised as the “ seizure ” ( “ beslag ” ) , arguing that there had been no reasonable grounds for suspicion against the applicant and requested that ORG quash the “ seizure ” decision and order that the collected material be returned to him .

On DATE the prosecuting authority submitted the CARDINAL files from the mirror copies to ORG for examination .

NORP In response to the letter from the applicant ’s lawyer of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG wrote a letter of CARDINAL DATE , pointing out that the procedure applicable to material allegedly covered by legal professional privilege had been set out by ORG ( PERSON ) in its decision of CARDINAL DATE , reported in PERSON ( FAC . ) DATE page CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In line with that procedure , there were no grounds on which ORG could at that time hold a court hearing devoted to the discontinuation of any “ seizure ” and return of the material . No seizure had been decided – the court was at the time carrying out the task of reviewing the material collected in order to decide on what should be made available to the prosecuting authority for it to search . ORG would obtain the views of the parties in a hearing before making a formal decision as to whether to authorise the search of the prosecution . Its decision would be amenable to appeal . Since the handling of the case so far had taken considerable time , ORG examination would be expedited .

The applicant and his lawyer disagreed with ORG description of the procedure to be followed . After further exchanges between the parties , ORG reiterated in a letter of CARDINAL DATE which was formally a judicial decision amenable to appeal ( see paragraphs DATE below ) – that a decision on seizure had not yet been taken . There was a presumption to the effect that documents and other materials in the office of a private lawyer were subject to legal professional privilege . In such cases the court would first go through the material in order to examine what could be made available to the prosecuting authority for it to search . ORG also informed the parties that it was about to complete this task , having examined each document . It also reiterated its disagreement with the applicant ’s view that before carrying out its perusal of the material it ought to consider anew whether there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against him , failing which its examination of the material would be unlawful , and that in the absence of such grounds it ought to return all the material to him with the seals intact .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE not to examine the merits of his request to quash what was in his view a “ seizure ” , and to return the material .

On DATE ORG ( lagmannsrett ) dismissed the appeal .

The High Court , as had ORG , reiterated that the relevant procedure for the search and seizure of material allegedly subject to legal professional privilege had been thoroughly examined by ORG in GPE . DATE page CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . ORG was at the time in the process of sorting out which documents could be lawfully searched by the prosecuting authority , and there had been no decisions on seizure taken .

From the above it was apparent , in the High Court ’s view , that the applicant was not at that stage of the procedure entitled to have the question of whether to maintain the “ seizure ” in force ( spørsmålet om opprettholdelse av beslaget ) under LAW reviewed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and it could not see how him disputing the existence of reasonable grounds for suspicion in his case could lead to a different result . ORG decision contained no statements suggesting that the procedure should be different in such cases . Nor could ORG find that there were other grounds , even if regard were had to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW , as invoked by the applicant , suggesting that the accused had a wider right to judicial review in cases where he or she disputed the grounds for suspicion .

ORG also noted that LAW contained several provisions conferring on the accused a right to judicial review in respect of enforcement measures taken in the form of search and seizure , inter alia could a decision by a court to the effect that documents were to be handed over to the prosecution authorities after perusal of the documents in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) – which was what ORG was doing at DATE be appealed against . ORG considered that the LAW did not give the applicant any rights to have the legality of searches and seizures judicially reviewed beyond what followed from LAW . The search had been authorised by ORG on DATE , finding that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against the applicant . The applicant had not filed any timely appeals against the decision and the search had been effectuated .

From the reasoning above it also followed that the applicant ’s alternative submission that he ought to have a right to judicial review of whether there was a legal basis for an “ ongoing search ” ( om det er grunnlag for en “ pågående ransaking ” ) could not succeed .

It was also clear that the accused did not on a general basis have a right to judicial review of the reasons for the charges brought against him , whether there were reasonable grounds for suspicion or not , regardless of the use of any enforcement measures . The existence of such reasons could be examined again but then only in connection with , for instance , future investigative measures where the latter were required . The Convention provisions relied on could not lead to any different result .

Against this background , ORG concluded that ORG procedure had suffered from no defects . Its decision of CARDINAL DATE had been based on a correct approach to the handling of the material gathered at the applicant ’s LOC .

On DATE ORG Leave Committee of ORG ( Høyesteretts ankeutvalg ) , whose jurisdiction was limited to reviewing ORG procedure and interpretation of the law , rejected the applicant ’s appeal in both respects .

On DATE ORG held a hearing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the issue of which materials could be sent to the prosecuting authority for it to search . In the court records it was registered that the court had informed the parties that it was desirable if a decision could be reached as soon as possible and preferably within DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , it ruled that CARDINAL documents collected from the data carriers could be handed over . The applicant accepted the decision with respect to CARDINAL of the documents , but appealed in respect of the remaining CARDINAL and some of the paper documents . The prosecuting authority also appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecuting authority ’s appeal and rejected the applicant ’s appeal except for CARDINAL issue relating to a bank account transcript .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision in so far as it had rejected the applicant ’s appeal ( ORG . DATE page CARDINAL ) . It found , in essence , that ORG had applied a too narrow understanding of what was lawyer ’s work ( egentlig advokatvirksomhet ) that could bring legal professional privilege into play .

During its reconsideration of the case , ORG , on DATE , concluded that CARDINAL of the disputed CARDINAL documents could be submitted to the prosecuting authority for it to search . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant against ORG decision .

On DATE the applicant applied to have some of the material , including the mirror copies , returned to him . ORG , on DATE , refused his application in so far as it concerned the mirror copies , but granted the other parts thereof .

The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG , which on DATE ordered that the mirror copies were to be returned to the applicant unless the prosecuting authority promptly ( relativt omgående ) requested that ORG examine them . It referred , inter alia , to the general obligation to ensure progress in investigations , as reflected in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Upon an appeal by the prosecuting authority , ORG , on DATE ( ORG . DATE page CARDINAL ) agreed with ORG that the prosecuting authority ’s continued possession of and searches on the mirror copies ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been unlawful . The mirror copies should , like the paper documents , have been placed under seal and transferred to ORG without the prosecution authority having accessed material on them through keyword - searches . Unlike ORG , however , ORG did not for that reason find that the copies should necessarily be returned to the applicant . It quashed ORG decision in order for that court to further assess the prosecuting authority ’s submissions that the copies should instead be kept with ORG , as ORG had not sufficiently considered that possibility .

The prosecuting authority transferred the mirror copies to ORG on DATE .

When , on DATE , ORG contacted the prosecuting authority , its decision concerning the mirror copies having been quashed by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the authority responded by informing ORG of the developments in the criminal case against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It moreover stated that the seizure had been lifted on DATE and requested that the case therefore be dismissed . The material could be deleted by the court or the data carrier could be handed over to the applicant . The applicant argued that the case should not be dismissed and requested that the ORG examine the merits of his application to have the mirror copies returned , in order for him to have a judicial review of whether his Convention rights had been violated .

In a letter of DATE ORG set out its views on the matter . It stated , inter alia , that the case concerned the applicant ’s application to have the mirror copies returned . This request would be met if the copies were actually returned , which was what the prosecuting authority had proposed . This made it difficult to see why the applicant should have legal standing to require that the courts examine his application . Moreover , the court assumed that the applicant could obtain a review of his LAW claims in other ways . The case as concerned the mirror copies was ultimately dismissed on DATE . There is no information about the applicant having appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of having obtained credit by way of fraud ( lånebedrageri ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG convicted him for having shown gross negligence in that respect . This judgment became final when ORG refused leave to appeal on DATE . The charges concerning forgery of documents ( ibid . ) were dropped on CARDINAL DATE . Some of the charges concerning aiding and abetting art fraud ( kunstbedrageri ) ( ibid . ) were dropped on DATE and the remainder on CARDINAL DATE .


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

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

At the material time , PERSON was Vice - President and PERSON was a member and activist of ORG ) , a registered left - wing political party . The party had no known intention of participating in NORP political life in defiance of the rule of law .

Mr PERSON was the editor of the ORG ’s web page containing news and articles related to the NORP and NORP movements . On DATE Mr PERSON placed a CARDINAL - pointed red star and a sickle - and - hammer logo on the web page .

On DATE the applicants participated in a peaceful demonstration commemorating the DATE NORP liberation of GPE from NORP occupation . PERSON wore a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket , whilst PERSON wore a sweater ornamented with CARDINAL - pointed red star and a sickle - and - hammer pattern .

Subsequently , criminal proceedings were instituted against them for the offence of having worn totalitarian symbols in public . In the context of these proceedings , the public prosecutor summoned the applicants . On DATE they appeared in the public prosecutor ’s office wearing CARDINAL - pointed red stars on their jackets .

On DATE and DATE and DATE , in the context of other criminal proceedings against him , PERSON appeared in court wearing a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket . On DATE , the applicant spoke on the national television about his ORG ’s political aims and the criminal proceedings against him . On that occasion he wore a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket .

NORP On DATE the applicants participated in a peaceful demonstration in FAC . PERSON wore a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket , whilst PERSON wore a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his rain coat .

On DATE the applicants were convicted by ORG under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of the offence of having worn totalitarian symbols in public . The court observed that the applicants had worn a CARDINAL - pointed red star and a sickle - and - hammer logo on several occasions of public appearance .

Mr PERSON was sentenced to a criminal fine of MONEY ( ORG ) and ordered to pay another ORG CARDINAL in criminal costs . In the case of PERSON , the court refrained from imposing a sentence for a probationary period of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .

On DATE ORG adopted a judgment in a case introduced by PERSON on account of a previous conviction similar in nature ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The ORG held that prosecution for having worn a red star amounted to a violation of the applicant ’s freedom of expression enshrined in LAW .

Subsequently , the applicants challenged ORG judgment before ORG . Relying on section PERSON ) of LAW , they claimed that their conduct did not represent danger for society in the face of the PERSON judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ petition for review .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At TIME , the applicant and his friends were involved in a fight with a group of people outside a bar . PERSON , who was inside the bar , called the police . When the police arrived the group of aggressors ran away . The applicant and his friends were taken to the police station to give statements and possibly complain against their aggressors .

While he was waiting inside the police station , the applicant saw a police officer who was behaving roughly with an arrestee who had just been brought in . He commented loudly that the police officer represented the ORG authority and should not hit people . D.C.I. , the police officer in question , became angry and asked a colleague , PERSON , to “ take him [ the applicant ] to the toilets to teach him how to speak ” . The applicant , who resisted entering the toilets , was taken outside and then into a back office where the QUANTITY police officers , D.C.I. and PERSON , handcuffed him to a radiator and started punching and kicking him . Alerted by the applicant ’s screaming , another police officer entered and put an end to the hitting . At that point , CARDINAL of the officers who had assaulted the applicant warned him not to say anything or he would find him and beat him again . The applicant and his friends were then escorted home by police officers .

On DATE the police were called in order to stop a fight between several people on a street in GPE . By the time the police arrived , the applicant and his friends had had their clothes torn and had already been injured . They were accompanied to the police station to make statements . The police officers took statements from ORG

S.L. declared that he had been in a bar when he had seen that his brother , ORG , was involved in a fight outside . He called the police emergency number and then went outside to help his brother . He and his brother received blows to their bodies . He further stated that he did not wish to lodge a complaint against the aggressors at that time but reserved his right to do so later . PERSON stated that when he had left the bar he had seen some people fighting . Someone was throwing stones , one of which hit him in the leg . He stated that he did not wish to lodge a complaint .

Afterwards the applicant and his friends were all escorted home by the police in order to avoid further violent incidents .

An investigation was opened nonetheless in order to clarify the circumstances surrounding the incident . However , after a discussion on DATE with the bar attendant and a sales woman at a nearby store , who said they had not seen or heard anything , the case was closed on DATE .

Later on DATE , the applicant went to the emergency unit of ORG , where he was diagnosed with maxillofacial trauma , and contusion of the lower lip and of the thorax . His injuries were treated .

On DATE a forensic medical certificate was issued by ORG at the request of the applicant . According to the certificate , the applicant had a sutured cut on the lower lip and bruising on the upper lip , bruising on the left side of the chest , CARDINAL excoriations on the left side of the back , grazes and bruising on the right elbow , right leg and the left knee . The applicant also had CARDINAL excoriations covered with brown scabs measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY to CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the back of each wrist . The injuries may have been caused by an impact with or on a hard object on DATE . The injuries would require DATE of medical treatment if no complications developed .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against the CARDINAL officers who had assaulted him , accusing them of abusive investigative conduct and bodily harm . He lodged his complaint with both ORG and ORG of the Timişoara ORG . He requested that ORG , ORG and ORG , who had been taken to the police station with him , be called to testify as witnesses .

On DATE the applicant was heard at ORG . He declared that he had been taken to the police station after a street brawl . Once inside the police station , the applicant drew an officer ’s attention to his disrespectful behaviour towards someone else . The police officer in question and another colleague of his became angry with him and tried to drag him into the toilets , but he resisted . They then told him to go outside , where CARDINAL of them , officer ORG , punched him in the mouth . He was then handcuffed with his hands behind his back and taken to a room where he was punched and kicked . The applicant further stated that he had suffered severe injuries , for which he was submitting a forensic medical certificate and claiming civil damages from his aggressors .

On DATE ORG decided that ORG of the Arad ORG should deal with the case because the CARDINAL police officers in question were not members of the military .

In DATE the applicant , ORG and ORG were heard by a prosecutor from ORG of ORG . In a statement dated DATE , handwritten in front of the prosecutor , ORG stated that he had been taken to the police station on DATE following a dispute with a group of people in the street . Once inside the police station he was taken to the second floor together with his brother . TIME , he overheard through an open window a person screaming with pain outside the building and recognised the applicant ’s voice . Afterwards he was taken home together with his brother in a police car . DATE they met the applicant in front of his house and he told them that he had been handcuffed and beaten up by police officers . The applicant showed them his injuries and the marks on his hands . PERSON declared that he knew for sure that the applicant had been beaten up at the police station because he had seen him when they were leaving the police station . On DATE PERSON ’s statement was typed on a witness statement form bearing the heading of ORG of the Arad County Court and PERSON signed it . In addition to the facts described in the previous handwritten statement , the typewritten statement included the following phrase : “ ... one of my friends , PERSON , came to me and told me that some ... were beating up my brother and PERSON . ” In that statement PERSON also mentioned that , after he had heard the applicant shouting outside the police station , he had received on his mobile phone a message from the applicant who was telling him that he was being “ beaten by policemen ” . At that point he wanted to go outside but he was not allowed to and TIME later he was taken home in a police car together with his brother .

On DATE ORG also gave a handwritten statement in front of the prosecutor . He declared that he had been taken to the police station following a street fight . The applicant was with him . After his arrival at the police station , while he was upstairs to give a statement , he heard the applicant screaming outside . TIME later he was taken home in a police car together with his brother . Later that day he met the applicant in front of his house . The applicant told him and his brother that he had been beaten up by police officers . He showed them the injuries on his lips and hands . Like his brother , ORG also stated that he knew the applicant had been beaten inside the police station because he had seen him when they were taken home . That statement was subsequently typed on a witness statement form bearing the heading of ORG of ORG and was signed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant declared that he maintained the account he had given in his initial complaint as well as in his statement of DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG decided to join the applicant ’s complaint to CARDINAL complaints lodged by other individuals who claimed that they had been physically assaulted by the same police officers on DATE . Subsequently , the prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings for abusive investigative conduct as requested by the applicant , since he had not been under investigation at the relevant time . Lastly , the prosecutor held that the investigation for the CARDINAL counts of abusive behaviour of which ORG and PERSON were accused would be continued by ORG of the Arad ORG , which was the competent authority in view of the GPE functions within the police force .

On DATE an officer in charge of internal affairs at the Arad County Police took statements from the CARDINAL police officers who had allegedly physically assaulted the applicant . D.C.I. stated that in TIME of CARDINAL DATE he had taken an arrested person to the police station . When he entered the waiting room he saw a group of CARDINAL people who were drunk , had had their clothes torn and were visibly injured . They were arguing and swearing at each other . When he asked them politely to wait outside , CARDINAL of them swore at him .

PERSON stated that he had accompanied D.C.I. on TIME of the incident . When he saw a group of people in the police station waiting room , he asked what had happened to them and they replied that they had been beaten up by some people on the street and were waiting to give statements . Then he asked them to wait outside .

On DATE the police officer in charge of the investigation took statements from GPE , NORP and PERSON , CARDINAL of the police officers who had responded to the emergency call .

Officer PERSON stated that he had gone to the scene of the incident accompanied by QUANTITY police patrols . He found a group of people who claimed to be the injured parties . Amongst them was the applicant . They said that they wished to lodge a criminal complaint against their aggressors , so he accompanied them to the police station . There he took statements from GPE and GPE , but he did not know whether any of the police officers physically assaulted any of the above - mentioned people . ORG also stated that after statements had been taken , the applicant had been taken home by officer PERSON , while he had accompanied the others home in order to avoid further possible conflicts if they decided to go back to the scene of the incident .

PERSON stated that he was a member of one of the police patrols that had been called to the scene of the incident . When he arrived PERSON told him that he had been physically assaulted by a group of people who had then run away . He maintained that he did not recognise any of the aggressors . The officer further stated :

“ ... I accompanied to the police station the person who had been assaulted [ ORG ] and Mr D.V. , who was also at the scene when the incident took place . The accompanied people had injuries on their bodies , probably caused by the stones with which they had been aggressed and their clothes had also been torn as a result of the incident . ... Subsequently , I was asked by PERSON to accompany home another person involved in the incident in order to avoid other unpleasant incidents , this person was PERSON . While I was with PERSON and until reaching his home ... , he did not tell me that he had been beaten by a police officer , he had traces of violence on his face , his tee - shirt was torn but I did not ask him where this came from , I assumed it had come from the street fight . ”

PERSON declared that the applicant could not have been assaulted by police officers since he was one of the people who had been injured in the street fight .

On DATE ORG of the Arad ORG decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings with respect to the CARDINAL counts of abusive behaviour for which officers ORG and PERSON had been investigated . As for the applicant ’s complaint , the prosecutor held that the statements given by the applicant and the QUANTITY persons accompanying him on DATE of the incident had been contradicted by the statements of the officers under investigation as well as by those of CARDINAL other police officers , namely GPE , PERSON and PERSON Therefore , it could not be established with certainty that the applicant had been assaulted by the QUANTITY police officers .

The applicant complained against that decision , claiming that the statements of the QUANTITY police officers and their colleagues were subjective and should have been corroborated by other evidence . He requested again that PERSON ( referred to as ORG in the initial complaint ) be called as a witness and gave his address . He added that PERSON ’s testimony would have been relevant , since he had witnessed the applicant receiving a punch from ORG outside the police station .

On DATE the applicant ’s complaint against the decision not to bring charges was dismissed by the head prosecutor of ORG of the Arad ORG with the same reasoning , namely that the statements of the injured party had not been corroborated by the statements of the alleged perpetrators and their colleagues .

The applicant contested the prosecutor ’s decision before the court , requesting non - pecuniary damages for the injuries sustained . In his submission before the court , the applicant emphasised that as he had been escorted to the police station by CARDINAL officers , the statement of the third officer should not have been taken into consideration . In addition , the applicant complained that the prosecutor had overlooked important evidence . The only pieces of evidence he had taken into account were the statements of the CARDINAL officers under investigation and the statements of their colleagues , who could not have been impartial . The applicant argued that PERSON , who had accompanied him to the police station on DATE of the incident , should also have been heard by the prosecutors , as he had partially witnessed the alleged ill - treatment .

The applicant ’s complaint , together with the other CARDINAL complaints against the QUANTITY police officers , were analysed jointly and rejected as manifestly ill - founded by a final decision of ORG on DATE .

The court considered that the evidence administered during the criminal investigation had sufficed to conclude that “ it had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that on CARDINAL DATE the defendants had physically abused [ the applicant ] ” . The court based its verdict on the discrepancies found between the applicant ’s account of the events and the statement given by PERSON More specifically , PERSON declared that he had heard the applicant screaming outside the police station , whereas the applicant claimed that he had been beaten inside . PERSON also declared that the applicant had told him that he had been handcuffed with his hands behind his back , whereas the applicant stated that he had been handcuffed to a radiator . In addition , the injuries on the applicant ’s body may very well have been caused during the street brawl . That fact had been confirmed by the QUANTITY police officers who had intervened at the scene , namely GPE , PERSON and PERSON , as well as by the witness , PERSON , who had declared in his statement of CARDINAL DATE that he had been told when he was inside the bar that a group of people were “ beating up my brother and PERSON ” .


CASE OF AVIAKOMPANIYA A.T.I., ZAT v. UKRAINE

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant company was a NORP joint - stock company registered in GPE . At the relevant time it operated a commercial air carrier business ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant company brought a claim for damages , in particular loss of profit , against ORG . The claim was based on a delay on the defendant ’s part in issuing a safety certificate , which the ORG had been required to issue in DATE by a court judgment .

On DATE ORG allowed the claim in part .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the first - instance court ’s judgment and rejected the claim , mainly on the grounds that the applicant company had failed to prove the loss of profit it had claimed . It considered the estimates of the loss profit speculative .

On DATE ORG reversed the ruling of ORG and upheld the judgment of the first instance court . ORG held that because the defendant ’s inaction prevented the applicant company from operating its business as from DATE , the first instance court was correct in accepting the information about the applicant company ’s gross income for DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the ruling of ORG and upheld the ruling of ORG . ORG considered that no causal connection has been proven between the defendant ’s culpable inaction and the alleged loss of profit . It held , in particular , that the applicant company had failed to prove that it had realised a profit , rather than gross income , prior to DATE , or that its income for DATE came from operations which required a safety certificate .

Following communication of the case and unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations , on DATE the Government informed the ORG of their intention to resolve the issue raised by the application . They produced a unilateral declaration , in which they acknowledged a breach of LAW and offered to pay the applicant company a sum to cover any pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses . The ORG requested that the ORG strike out the application in accordance with LAW .

On DATE the applicant company objected to the striking out of its application , wishing to have its merits determined with a view to obtaining appropriate redress . It argued , in particular , that under domestic law the unilateral declaration , unlike a ORG ’s judgment finding a violation , would not provide grounds for reexamination of its case by ORG . The Government ’s unilateral declaration would therefore not lead to actual restoration of the applicant company ’s rights .

The Government were invited to comment and on DATE informed ORG the relevant domestic legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY below ) . They submitted a letter from ORG informing ORG there was no relevant domestic caselaw on the matter .

On DATE the applicant company ’s only shareholder , East / West , informed the ORG that on DATE ORG had declared the applicant company bankrupt and opened liquidation procedure and on DATE had declared it liquidated . Accordingly , East / West requested that any just satisfaction award due to the applicant company be paid to GPE . Asked to comment , the Government responded on DATE that they “ do not object against the applicant ’s request as to the payment to its sole shareholder the awarded compensation and , thus , leave this question on the ORG ’s discretion ” .


Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant states that he is a NORP national , born in DATE . At the time of the introduction of the application , he was in the GPE . On an unspecified date after DATE , he was removed to GPE . He was initially represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , who was succeeded by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .

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

On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE under the provisions of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , stating that his name was GPE , that he was a NORP national and that he was born in GPE in DATE . The examination and comparison of his fingerprints by the GPE authorities generated a PERSON report , indicating that on DATE he had entered GPE where on DATE he had applied for asylum .

NORP In his interviews with the GPE immigration authorities he stated , inter alia , that he had arrived in GPE ( GPE ) on DATE and that under another identity – namely ORG , born in DATE he had been granted a residence permit in GPE ) on DATE with a validity of DATE . He had also been provided with an NORP travel document for refugees . After his arrival in the GPE , he had given these documents to a person who had taken them to GPE . The applicant further stated that , directly after having taken out of the water near GPE , he had been taken to a reception centre in GPE where he had stayed for DATE and he had subsequently been taken to another centre in GPE where he had stayed for DATE pending the outcome of his request for a residence permit . After having obtained this permit , he had been asked to leave the reception centre which he had done . After having stayed in GPE and GPE , he had traveled to the GPE . He had told the NORP authorities that he was DATE because he had wanted to work in GPE . He had not succeeded in finding work and had given his real age to the GPE authorities .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice informed the applicant of her intention to reject his asylum request . The applicant filed his written comments ( zienswijze ) on this intention on DATE .

On DATE the GPE authorities requested the NORP authorities to take back the applicant under the terms of LAW ( c ) of ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ LAW ” ) . As the NORP authorities failed to react to that request within DATE , they were considered under LAW of LAW as having implicitly acceded to that request .

The applicant ’s asylum request filed in the GPE was rejected on DATE by the Deputy Minister , who found that , pursuant to ORG , GPE was responsible for the processing of the asylum application . The Deputy Minister found that the applicant had not demonstrated facts and circumstances on the basis of which the GPE could not rely on the principle of mutual interstate trust in respect of GPE . The Deputy Minister did not find it established that GPE fell short of its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum - seekers and refugees , and rejected the applicant ’s argument that he risked treatment in breach of LAW .

The applicant ’s appeal against this decision , filed on DATE , and his accompanying request for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) were rejected on DATE by the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE . The judge rejected the applicant ’s claim that his removal to GPE would be in violation of his rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW and held that the applicant had not established that GPE would fail to respect its international treaty obligations vis - à - vis the applicant .

Although possible , the applicant did not file a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . Such a further appeal does not have automatic suspensive effect . Suspensive effect can be requested by applying for a provisional measure to the President of ORG . A request for a provisional measure does not have automatic suspensive effect either .

On DATE , the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been removed to GPE by the GPE authorities without specifying on what date this removal had taken place . She further stated that she was still in contact with the applicant . Her letter contained no information about the applicant ’s whereabouts or current situation .

The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum - seekers and transfers of asylum - seekers under LAW have recently been summarised in LOC v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL & CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and § § DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) ; ORG and NORP v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and § § DATE , DATE ) ; and PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .


CASE OF EGILL EINARSSON v. ICELAND (No. 2)

No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time he was a well - known personality in GPE who for DATE had published articles , blogs and books and appeared in films , on television and other media , under pseudonyms .

Some of the applicant ’s published views attracted some attention , as well as controversy . These included , inter alia , his views about women and their sexual freedom . In some instances his criticism had been directed towards named individuals , often women , and in some cases his words could have been construed to mean that he was in fact recommending that they should be subjected to sexual violence . The applicant had often justified such conduct by stating that the material had been meant in jest and that those who criticised him lacked a sense of humour ( see ORG GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

NORP In DATE , an CARDINAL-year - old woman reported to the police that the applicant and his girlfriend had raped her . In DATE another woman reported to the police that the applicant had committed a sexual offence against DATE . Upon the completion of the police investigation ORG , on DATE and DATE , dismissed the cases in accordance with LAW , because the evidence which had been gathered was not sufficient or likely to lead to a conviction . The applicant submitted a complaint to the police about false accusations made against him by the QUANTITY women . This case was also dismissed .

On DATE Monitor , a magazine accompanying PERSON ( a leading newspaper in GPE ) , published an interview with the applicant . A picture of the applicant was published on the front page , and in the interview the applicant discussed the rape accusation against him . The applicant stated several times that the accusations were false . He stated , inter alia , that it was not a priority for him for the girl ’s name to be disclosed and that he was not seeking revenge against her . He accepted that , having placed himself in the media spotlight , he had to tolerate publicity which was not always “ sunshine and lollipops ” but criticised the way the media had covered his case . When asked about the girl ’s age , he responded that the girl had been in a club where the minimum age had been DATE and that it had been a shock to find out later that she had been DATE . When asked about his complaints against the girl for allegedly wrongful accusations , he stated again that he was not seeking revenge against those who had reported him to the police , but that it was clear that they had had ulterior motives . He hoped that the police would see that it was important to have a formal conclusion in the case and that the documents in the case were “ screaming ” conspiracy .

On DATE a ORG page was set up for the purpose of protesting about the interview and encouraging the editor of ORG to remove the applicant ’s picture from its front page . Extensive dialogue took place on the site DATE . DATE , X posted a comment on the abovementioned ORG page which stated , inter alia : “ This is also not an attack on a man for saying something wrong , but for raping a teenage girl ... It is permissible to criticise the fact that rapists appear on the cover of publications which are distributed all over town ... ” .

On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer sent a letter to X requesting that she withdraw her statements , admit they were unfounded , apologise in the media and pay the applicant punitive damages , which would be donated to charity . By letter the following day , X ’s lawyer opposed the applicant ’s claims and submitted that the impugned statements were not defamatory . Furthermore , the lawyer informed the applicant ’s lawyer that X had removed the statement in question from ORG .

On DATE , the applicant lodged defamation proceedings against X before ORG of PERSON and asked for her to be punished , under the applicable provisions of LAW , for publishing the statements in question . The applicant further requested that the statements “ This is also not an attack on a man for saying something wrong , but for raping a teenage girl ... ” and “ It is permissible to criticise the fact that rapists appear on the cover of publications which are distributed all over town ... ” be declared null and void . Moreover , the applicant requested that X be ordered to pay him CARDINAL NORP krónur ( ORG ; QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) in non - pecuniary damages under LAW , plus interest , LAW ( CARDINAL ORG ) for the cost of publishing the main content and the reasoning of the final judgment in the case in the media under LAW , and the applicant ’s legal costs .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found that PERSON ’s comment on ORG had been defamatory and declared the statements null and void . However , the court dismissed the applicant ’s claim for the imposition on X of a criminal punishment under LAW , as well as rejecting the claim to have X carry the cost of publishing the main content and reasoning of the judgment in a newspaper . Furthermore , ORG did not award the applicant non - pecuniary damage and concluded , finally , that each party should bear its own legal costs .

The judgment contained the following reasons :

“ ... The [ applicant ] claims damages in the amount of ISK CARDINAL and bases his demand on the general rules of tort law and on LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL [ LAW ] . According to the aforementioned , it is clear that [ X ] made defamatory insinuations about [ the applicant ] . However , when assessing the damage suffered by [ the applicant ] , it has to be taken into account how [ the applicant ] has built a certain reputation by his conduct in public . Notwithstanding the extensive disputes about his comment made under the name of PERSON , it can not be seen that he took a clear stand against sexual violence until complaints against him materialised . Nevertheless [ the applicant ] had full reason to clarify his situation in this respect , taking into account that material stemming from him is often very ambiguous and provocative , and could easily be interpreted as an incitement to this type of violence .

When assessing the possible damage to [ the applicant ] , the distribution of the comments which was , as stated before , limited to the distribution entailed in publications on the said ORG page , together with CARDINAL of other comments , has to be taken into account . Additionally , the comments were removed from the website when [ the applicant ] so requested .

Lastly , it should be considered that by declaring the comments null and void , as this judgment concludes , [ the applicant ] has received full judicial satisfaction .

In light of all the above - mentioned considerations there is no reason to order [ X ] to pay non - pecuniary damages .

Furthermore , [ the applicant ’s ] claim to have [ X ] carry the cost of publishing the main content and the reasoning of the judgment in a newspaper will not be accepted . The impugned comment was published on a ORG page and therefore it is not necessary to incur the costs of publishing the judgment in any other way .

In light of the conclusion of the judgment , and taking account of all the facts , it is appropriate that each party bears its own legal costs [ er rétt að málskostnaður falli niður ] . ”

By judgment of DATE the majority of ORG ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL judges ) upheld ORG decision to declare the statements null and void . Furthermore , ORG upheld the ORG decision not to award damages to the applicant and that each party should bear its legal costs . In its assessment regarding that issue ORG referred to LAW , the principle of proportionality and the reasoning of ORG .

The dissenting judge agreed with the majority to declare the impugned statements null and void . However , the judge found that the criteria set out in LAW for the granting of non - pecuniary damages were fulfilled in the case and the applicant should be awarded CARDINAL ORG in non - pecuniary damages as well as his legal costs before ORG and ORG .


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

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

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


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

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

The applicant and his former spouse , also of NORP nationality , found employment in GPE and settled there in DATE . They married in GPE in DATE . Their child , also a NORP citizen , was born in GPE , GPE , in DATE .

As their marriage deteriorated , the wife lodged a divorce action and a custody claim with the NORP ORG on DATE .

The applicant filed an objection contesting the jurisdiction of the NORP courts . ORG held a hearing and dismissed the case , accepting the applicant ’s argument . Furthermore , the court noted that the applicant had filed a divorce action before the NORP Rimavská Sobota ORG .

On appeal , the NORP ORG quashed the first - instance decision on DATE , for further circumstances to be clarified , namely the exact date of filing the action before the NORP court . ORG noted that the law applicable by ORG was the NORP one .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG ascertained that the action before the NORP court had been filed on DATE , that is , DATE than the one before the NORP court . During the procedure the court obtained the necessary translation of the NORP law .

ORG rejected the applicant ’s jurisdictional objection on DATE , holding that the NORP case had been pre - empted by the NORP one . On his appeal , the second - instance court upheld the decision on DATE .

Meanwhile , the applicant filed a complaint about the protraction of the proceedings . The objection was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court held that there was no unreasonable delay or omission to be observed during the proceedings .

The first hearing on the merits was held by ORG on DATE in the absence of the applicant . Although CARDINAL more hearings were held on DATE and DATE , the applicant , properly summoned , failed to appear .

Meanwhile , the applicant had brought several actions against his former spouse before the NORP Rimavská Sobota ORG . The applicant ’s contact with his child was also regulated with provisional measure by that court on DATE .

On DATE the ORG dissolved the applicant ’s marriage and ordered him to pay child maintenance .

The applicant appealed but the NORP ORG upheld the first - instance decision on DATE . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

The applicant lodged a petition for review . On DATE the GPE rejected the request since it was excluded by law in such cases .


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

On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken by ORG authorities in their favour . However , the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time .