Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law);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 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , GPE . He is a president of ORG , a corporation which was the largest importer of crab to GPE .

On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE opened a criminal investigation into crab poaching in GPE ’s exclusive economic zone in LOC and LOC . The investigation concerned the charges of engagement in organised criminal activities , unlicensed fishing activities in GPE ’s exclusive economic zone and money laundering . The decision to open the investigation identified ORG as a major purchaser of the crab illegally harvested in the said region .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in a hotel in GPE . His passport was confiscated .

On DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE authorised the applicant ’s detention pending investigation . In particular , the court noted :

“ When deciding that [ the applicant ] should be detained [ pending investigation ] , the court notes that he is suspected of having committed a grave and serious offence , that he does not have a permanent residence in GPE , that there are reasons to believe that , if released , the applicant might abscond or continue his criminal activity , destroy the evidence or in any other way interfere with the criminal proceedings against him . Under such circumstances , application of any restrictive measure other than deprivation of liberty would not be feasible ” .

On DATE ORG formally charged the applicant with engagement in organised criminal activities , money laundering and unlicensed fishing activities in GPE ’s exclusive economic zone .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The applicant ’s lawyers attended the hearing . The applicant was unable to attend for health reasons . He asked to be released on bail or alternatively on personal surety given by the chief rabbi of GPE . He presented to the court positive character references from CARDINAL GPE senators . He further argued that he was not fit for detention for illhealth . In this respect he relied on the opinion prepared by his family doctor , which indicated that the applicant suffered from arthritis , high cholesterol , kidney stones , chronic pyelonephritis , gastritis , loss of hearing in the right ear , nasal allergies , frequent headaches and dizziness . He also submitted a guarantee signed by Mr Sh . who undertook to accommodate the applicant at his place of residence in GPE pending investigation . The court dismissed the applicant ’s arguments noting as follows :

“ The court takes into account the arguments presented by the defence , including the references concerning his character . It discerns no new material facts or circumstances justifying [ the applicant ’s ] release or application of another restrictive measure .

It follows from the materials submitted that [ the applicant ] is charged with a very serious offence , he is a national of another state . The medical documents presented do not demonstrate that [ the applicant ] is unfit for detention .

The court concludes that the grounds for the [ applicant ’s ] detention have not ceased to exist . Accordingly the restrictive measure applied can not be lifted or replaced with a less strict one , including the bail . ”

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention pending investigation until DATE . The court reiterated that the applicant ’s detention was justified due to the gravity of the charges and lack of a place of permanent residence in GPE . The application for release on bail or personal surety was dismissed . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court reiterated practically verbatim the reasoning used in the previous court order . On DATE ORG upheld the court order of DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . According to the applicant , the court referred to the gravity of the charges and his “ significant financial possibilities ” . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the court order of DATE on appeal . In particular , ORG noted :

“ It follows from the materials in the case - file that [ the court ] took into account the gravity of the charges against [ the applicant ] ... , and it is reasonable to assume that , if at large , he may abscond ... , or continue his criminal activities , or threaten the witnesses , the victims and other parties to the proceedings , or destroy the evidence ... that may be found in foreign companies or interfere with investigation in any other way . ... [ I]n view of the extreme complexity and scope of the case , there are no grounds for [ the applicant ’s ] release .

Furthermore , the grounds for the applicant ’s detention have not ceased to exist and there are no exclusive circumstances rendering the lifting or replacement of the restrictive measure ... possible . ”

On DATE ORG extended the pre - trial detention in respect of the applicant , PERSON his co - defendants , noting as follows :

“ According to the materials submitted , PERSON [ the applicant ] are charged with a number of offences , including especially serious ones for which a custodial sentence exceeding DATE can be applied in the event of conviction .

It follows from the investigator ’s motion , submitted materials and his explanation given in court , that the criminal case is very complex , CARDINAL people were indicted , a big volume of investigative activities have been carried out , including those under way in different regions in GPE ; there are complex forensic expert examinations ongoing , the responses to the inquiries sent are still pending , including the ones concerning international criminal assistance , the investigators have planned numerous activities aimed at establishment of facts to be proved and completion of the investigation .

’s arguments that the GPE detention should be extended are convincing and justified and that the grounds for extension of their detention are exceptional regard being had to the nature of the charges and pending investigative activities aimed at the completion of the investigation .

In the course of investigation the information was obtained that , should they be released , the defendants might abscond or interfere with the proceedings .

’ character , the court concludes that there are sufficient grounds to believe that , should they be released , the defendants might abscond , put pressure on witnesses and other parties to the proceedings , try to conceal or destroy evidence in order to obstruct justice .

Under such circumstances ... PERSON and [ the applicant ] should be detained pending investigation which means that the grounds and the circumstances ... taken into consideration by the court when deciding on their detention have not changed and it is still necessary to detain them .

In view of the above , it is not possible to use a less strict restrictive measure in respect of PERSON , and [ the applicant ] , including release on bail .

When deciding on the extension of the GPE detention , the court takes into account the circumstances as required by [ law ] , notably their family status , age , health condition , and character information submitted by the defence . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . The court dismissed the applicant ’s argument that ORG findings that he might abscond , continue criminal activities , obstruct justice , destroy evidence had been erroneous and unsubstantiated .

On DATE the applicant received an amended and finalised bill of indictment .

On DATE ORG extended the detention of the CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , until DATE in view of pending investigation . It noted in respect of the applicant as follows :

“ Even though ... [ the applicant ] does not have a criminal record , is married and have a child , prior to his arrest was employed and had a permanent source of income , he is charged with a number of very serious offences which entail , in case of conviction , a custodial sentence exceeding DATE and which , according to the ORG version , have been committed by an organised criminal group managed by PERSON and [ the applicant ] ... The applicant is a national of another state , he does not have a permanent place of residence in GPE ...

The above information about the applicant ’s character and the gravity of the charges are , in the court ’s opinion , sufficient to assume that he may abscond , despite his and his defence ’s declarations and assurances . Furthermore , according to the report of policemen PERSON and PERSON , the applicant ... , if released , is planning to flee abroad and continue criminal activities connected to illegal fishing in the exclusive economic zone of GPE , put pressure on witnesses , try to destroy physical evidence . In addition , [ the applicant ] repeatedly tried to bribe the officials in order to influence the investigation . Besides , PERSON [ the applicant ] have been trying to get in touch with other members of the organised criminal group who are still at large . It follows from the testimony of witness P. , that NORP companies are taking steps to secure [ the applicant ’s ] release . ”

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention pending the GPE study of the case file , which comprised CARDINAL volumes , until DATE . The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the lack of permanent residence in GPE . It further reiterated that the applicant might put pressure on witnesses , obstruct justice or abscond . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court noted that the defendants , including the applicant , and CARDINAL lawyers that represented them had not completed the study of the case file . As to need for detention pending investigation , the court reiterated the formula which it used for prior extensions . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE the applicant completed the study of the case file .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE noting that the applicant ’s co - defendants and their lawyers needed further time to complete the study of the case - file . Referring to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the lack of a permanent residence and of “ established social links ” in GPE , the court noted that the applicant might abscond , put pressure on witnesses and other parties to the proceedings in order to obstruct justice . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG received the applicant ’s casefile and on DATE it extended the GPE pre - trial detention until DATE noting as follows :

“ [ The defendants ] have been remanded in custody . This restrictive measure corresponds to the nature and seriousness of the charges against them . The circumstances underlying the [ defendants’ ] remand in custody have not ceased to exist . Notwithstanding personal surety and a possibility of bail proposed by [ the applicant ] , the fact that [ the applicant ] and PERSON have minor children , the length of their pre - trial detention , the measure of restraint earlier imposed on [ the defendants ] should remain unchanged . ”

It appears that on an unspecified date the applicant ’s case was transferred for trial to ORG .

On DATE ORG extended the defendants’ pretrial detention until DATE noting that the circumstances underlying their remand in custody had not ceased to exist .

On DATE ORG extended the defendants’ detention until DATE reiterating verbatim its reasoning of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG considered it possible to release the defendants on bail in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) . The applicants submitted that they were unable to pay such bail . The court reasoned that the bail in a lesser amount would not ensure the defendants’ appearance before it and extended their detention until DATE reiterating its earlier reasoning .

On DATE the jury delivered a not - guilty verdict in the applicant ’s case . The applicant was released on the same date . On DATE ORG issued the relevant judgment advising the applicant of his right to rehabilitation .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE in an article entitled Special Protection for the Mafia ( « GPE для мафии ORG , an official national newspaper , published an interview about the criminal investigation with General PERSON . , the head of the department of ORG of ORG of GPE . In the interview Ts . referred to the applicant as the head of an international criminal organisation which had been engaged in illegal fishing activities conducted in GPE ’s territorial waters .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE General PERSON . gave CARDINAL interviews about the criminal investigation which were broadcast by ORG , the national TV channel . Ts . reiterated his previous statements alleging that the applicant had been the head of the illegal fishing business and referred to him as “ the don of the crab mafia ” .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claims for damages against ORG of GPE in part . The court awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL in respect of lost earnings and RUB CARDINAL as reimbursement of legal costs and expenses .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims for pecuniary damages resulting from criminal prosecution against ORG of GPE .


CASE OF SEMYANISTY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

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);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

In DATE ( the exact dates are listed in the appended table ) ORG delivered decisions according to which the ORG - owned coal mine “ PERSON was obliged to pay the applicants or their next of kin heating coal , to which they were entitled under the domestic law . The decisions became final and enforceable . However , the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Josep Casadevall;Síofra O’Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE . According to the most recently available information , in DATE the applicant arrived at FAC . CARDINAL , GPE , to serve a sentence . He has not informed ORG of his current whereabouts .

For DATE the applicant has been suffering from various health problems . In particular , in DATE , apparently also while serving a sentence , he was hospitalised in FAC . DATE and later transferred to a tuberculosis hospital in FAC . CARDINAL . Since DATE the applicant has been registered with ORG and ORG . It appears that in DATE the applicant had a CDCARDINAL + cell count , the result of this count being CARDINAL cells . No more detailed information about his precise diagnosis or about any further events DATE is available .

According to the applicant , on DATE he was arrested on suspicion of theft . In a letter to ORG DATE the applicant stated that at the moment of his arrest he had had the following illnesses : human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) at clinical stage CARDINAL , post - tuberculosis residual effects , oropharyngeal candidiasis , and chronic hepatitis type C.

The decision on the applicant ’s pre - trial detention was taken by a court on DATE . DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in ORG Київський слідчий ізолятор ) ( “ the GPE ” ) .

On arrival at the GPE the applicant underwent an initial medical examination . The Government submitted a copy of the applicant ’s initial medical examination card with the following information : height QUANTITY ; weight QUANTITY ; blood pressure CARDINAL ; blood type ( unclear handwriting ) ; bodily injuries none ; infectious diseases : pulmonary tuberculosis DATE , ORG ’s disease , – “ - ” , and sexually transmitted diseases – “ - ” . It was noted that the applicant had “ no health complaints ” . The applicant also submitted during the examination that he was registered with ORG and ORG .

According to the applicant , because of the deterioration of his health in DATE he was examined in the above LOC . The only document provided in support of this statement is an advisory opinion issued by the ORG “ on request ” on DATE . The opinion stated , without noting when exactly the applicant had been examined , that the applicant had been diagnosed with HIV at clinical stage CARDINAL , post - tuberculosis residual changes , oropharyngeal candidiasis , and chronic viral hepatitis type C. The opinion also cited the result of the applicant ’s MONEY cell count performed on DATE . It was recommended that the applicant take antiretroviral therapy ( “ ART ” ) for life . In their submissions of CARDINAL DATE following the applicant ’s request under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the Court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Government noted that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been diagnosed as above .

On DATE the applicant agreed to undergo an HIV test following his “ request submitted to the GPE doctors ” . According to the results of this test dated DATE , the applicant had HIV antibodies .

NORP On DATE the applicant underwent a biochemical blood analysis and a CDCARDINAL + cell count ( the result of the count was CARDINAL cells , or PERCENT ( percentage of total lymphocytes ) ) . The applicant was diagnosed with a high degree of immunological suppression and prescribed preventive anti - tuberculosis treatment .

On DATE the applicant was placed in the infectious diseases ward of the GPE . It was noted that the applicant ’s state of health was of “ medium seriousness ” . He underwent an X - ray and various other examinations and was diagnosed with a tuberculosis relapse , extra - pulmonary tuberculosis , HIV infection at clinical stage CARDINAL , chronic hepatitis of the mixed type ( toxic type and C type ) , and other diseases . The applicant was prescribed anti - tuberculosis treatment , detox and symptomatic treatment . The Government submitted that the applicant had received this treatment in full .

According to the available medical documents , DATE and DATE the applicant ’s weight dropped from QUANTITY to QUANTITY .

On DATE the applicant was examined in GPE .

According to the medical file submitted by the ORG , DATE and DATE the applicant had consultations with GPE doctors on the following dates : CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ; and DATE .

It was noted on some of those occasions that the applicant complained of general weakness but that his condition was stable . He “ bore the treatment in a satisfactory manner ” and after the applicant had started the ART ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the consistent advice was that the ART should be continued . On several occasions the applicant was also prescribed various medication .

On DATE the applicant was prescribed “ a preventive treatment ” . It was recommended that anti - tuberculosis treatment be continued in order to prepare the applicant for the ART .

In his letter of DATE the applicant submitted that the ORG had been prescribed to him in DATE . In his further observations the applicant stated that the treatment had only been prescribed to him on DATE . The exact date when the applicant started the ORG is unclear .

On some occasions in DATE and DATE the applicant refused to take the ART . According to the applicant , the prescribed drugs did not agree with him .

On DATE the applicant was prescribed the ART “ under the ORG / ORG ( tenofovir / emtricitabine + ztv ) schema ” .

On DATE the applicant consulted an infectious diseases specialist from ORG No . CARDINAL , and was prescribed a diet and various medication . It was noted that the applicant had again stopped the ART .

On DATE GPE officials , at the request of the police , informed the police that the applicant ’s state of health was of “ medium seriousness , with a tendency to deteriorate which might lead to a lethal outcome ” . They confirmed that , apart from the said diagnoses , the applicant was suffering from inflammation of the lymph nodes , dermatitis , intestinal dysbacteriosis , and other diseases . The applicant was receiving anti - tuberculosis treatment , ART and symptomatic treatment . It was stated that the applicant needed long - term medical treatment in a specialised medical facility . Consequently , they asked for the investigation to be speeded up and for the possibility of the applicant ’s release to be considered . The document was signed by the head of the GPE and the head of the GPE ’s medical department .

On DATE the criminal case against the applicant was transferred to a court for consideration on the merits .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the applicant ’s release before the national court .

DATE and DATE the applicant underwent a number of tests ( blood and urine tests and X - ray examinations ) . In particular , on DATE a biochemical blood test and CDCARDINAL + cell count were performed . The increase in the CDCARDINAL + blood cells from CARDINAL was established ( from PERCENT ) . On DATE an expert ORG / RIF diagnostic test of the applicant ’s sputum for identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis was carried out . The test was negative .

In his application form to ORG the applicant stated that he was suffering from general weakness , intestinal pain , severe headache , increase in the number and size of mycotic ulcers on his body and face , liver and chest pain , haemorrhoids , diarrhoea , pain in the lymph glands , and severe shortness of breath . He also had severe pain in his left leg , had lost QUANTITY in weight , and had difficulty sleeping . His MONEY cell count had , however increased . For the hepatitis C , ulcers and left leg problem there was no treatment at all .

On DATE the ORG administration informed the applicant ’s lawyer that the applicant was in the GPE medical ward . He was receiving anti - tuberculosis treatment , ART and symptomatic treatment . The applicant underwent an NORP - ray examination , had various tests ( complete blood count , biochemical blood test , blood sugar test , CDCARDINAL + cell count , and urine and sputum analyses ) and had a number of consultations with infectious diseases and tuberculosis specialists . It was noted that the applicant ’s condition was stable and there was a positive dynamic . He did not need hospital treatment , but required monitoring by infectious diseases and tuberculosis specialists .

On DATE ORG , GPE , extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention for DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer ’s request for release on medical grounds was rejected by the court as not substantiated by appropriate documents . It also rejected the applicant ’s lawyer ’s request for a medical examination for him .

The applicant stated that on DATE an ambulance had been called for him . He was given painkillers on that occasion .

In a letter of DATE to this ORG the applicant stated that there had been no change in his medical treatment DATE and DATE . According to him , the current treatment was not improving his health .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist , who concluded that the applicant ’s condition was stable .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG No . CARDINAL to serve a sentence ( the parties did not submit to the ORG the details of the applicant ’s conviction ) . He was provided with ART medication for CARDINAL months’ treatment . On arrival at the ORG the applicant was examined by a doctor and diagnosed with HIV infection ( IV clinical stage ) , hepatitis in the stage of remission , and post - tuberculosis residual changes ( category CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant complained of fever , cough and abdominal pain . He was diagnosed with aggravation of his hepatitis , gastroduodenitis , and bronchitis , and was placed in a medical ward .

According to the applicant , on DATE and DATE he was subjected to psychological pressure by the ORG authorities and their medical staff , who shouted at the applicant , called him names and told him to sign a paper stating that he had refused LAW treatment of his own volition and that he had no complaints . The material in the case file includes a copy of a handwritten note dated DATE and signed by the applicant . The note says the following :

“ Despite the worsening of my state of health , the personnel of the GPE medical ward are doing everything possible and I have no complaints about them ” .

On DATE the applicant had a meeting with his lawyer . On the same date the applicant complained about the alleged pressure to the prosecutor ’s office . He stated that GPE doctors and an unknown police officer had forced him to sign a paper “ that he refused ( or had refused ) ” the ART and had no complaints . According to the applicant , he was threatened with being beaten , with being removed from the medical ward , with being placed in a disciplinary cell , and that other detainees would suffer because of him . The applicant stated that he had signed a paper stating that he had no complaints against the GPE doctors .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG sent the applicant ’s lawyer ’s complaint to ORG of ORG “ for consideration ” .

On an unknown date a ORG official informed the Head of ORG of ORG that there had been “ no breaches of law by the staff on the medical ward or by the GPE authorities ” . On DATE this information was submitted to the prosecutor and to the applicant .

On DATE the head of the GPE medical ward informed the head of the GPE that there had been no incidence of pressure being put on the applicant during the latter ’s stay there .

On DATE inmates PERSON and PERSON testified to the head of the GPE that there had been no incidence of any kind of pressure being put on the applicant , and that he had always been provided with medical assistance when he requested it .


Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

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

s , may be summarised as follows .

NORP In DATE the applicants purchased a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m in GPE , in LOC of GPE , which had been registered in the land register as parcel no . DATE .

On DATE , following a claim submitted by the forest administration , ORG ordered that the applicants’ title deed be annulled and the land entered in the land register as belonging to the ORG , holding that the land was part of the public forest . An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants were subsequently rejected by ORG and the decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicants brought a case before ORG . They sought compensation for pecuniary damage from the ORG under LAW , which prescribed that the ORG was responsible for any damage resulting from the keeping of the land registry records .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicants’ compensation claim . ORG rejected an appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants , and the decision became final on DATE .

Under LAW of DATE , ownership of public forests may not be transferred to others ; public forests will be managed and exploited by the ORG in accordance with the law . Ownership of such forests can not be acquired through adverse possession , nor may forests be subject to any easement , unless it is considered to be in the public interest .

Under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , the cadastral commissions decide whether an area will be categorized as a public forest or a private forest . The same law governs the way in which the cadastral commissions operate ( sections CARDINAL ) .

A full description of the relevant domestic law and practice regarding the designation of land as public forest may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The object of PERSON no . DATE was to provide for the settlement , by means of compensation , of applications lodged with the ORG concerning length of judicial proceedings , and non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions . A Compensation Commission was set up for that purposes . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The competence ratione materiae of ORG was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended the competence of ORG to the examination of other complaints , such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than NORP and the prison authorities’ refusal , on different grounds , to hand over periodicals . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

ORG issued a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of ORG .

ORG is now entitled to examine the following subjects under LAW decree , which reads as follows :

“ a ) ORG concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant ’s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area , or as a result of the application of section CARDINAL/B of Law no . CARDINAL , or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys ;

b ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant ’s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area ;

c ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans ;

d ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant ’s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities ;

e ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration ’s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence drafted in NORP . ”


Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE in GPE and lives in PERSON . His nationality is stated to be unknown . He was represented before ORG by ORG , a lawyer practising in LOC .

NORP The applicant was detained for the purpose of deportation in the GPE detention centre , a remand centre accommodating persons in immigration detention .

On DATE the governor of the detention centre gave a disciplinary decision placing the applicant in solitary confinement for DATE . The written confirmation of the decision , handed to the applicant on QUANTITY DATE , states the following grounds :

“ You have displayed seriously inflammatory behaviour and incited your fellow detainees to an uprising . You have incited them to disobey the instructions of staff . You have refused , with a number of fellow detainees , to return to your cell . You have tried to prevent your fellow detainees from obeying the instructions of staff . You have seriously intimidated staff and forced them to open the door of the cell to let out one of the detainees who was already locked in . ”

The term of solitary confinement was to end on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted a complaint form stating that he had incited no one to rise against the prison staff and requesting the hearing of witnesses to prove it .

On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , lodged a formal complaint ( beklag ) against the solitary confinement decision with the supervisory board ( GPE PERSON ) of the institution .

Also on CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a request for the suspension of the solitary confinement measure with ORG ( beroepscommissie ) of ORG ( PERSON GPE ) ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE , immediately after the end of his term of solitary confinement , the applicant was transferred to the remand centre ( huis van bewaring ) within the penal institution “ PERSON ” in GPE , a regular prison , on the orders of the governor of the GPE detention centre . The decision ordering the transfer was not given in writing .

Also on DATE the applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaar ) against the decision to place him in the remand centre within “ PERSON ” , together with a request for its suspension , with ORG .

On DATE the Chairman of ORG ordered the suspension of the applicant ’s placement in the remand centre within “ PERSON ” on the formal ground that the transfer decision had been given irregularly by the governor of the GPE detention centre instead of by the selection officer ( selectiefunctionaris ) of ORG and ORG .

Also on DATE an official signing in the joint capacity of selection officer and head of ORG ( ORG ) gave an order , effective on DATE , for the applicant to be transferred to the remand centre within “ FAC ” . The decision stated the following reasons :

“ During your stay in the GPE detention centre you have endangered order , peace and quiet and security by inciting to an uprising and by particularly intimidating conduct towards staff . ”

NORP On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , lodged an objection against this decision also . As relevant to the case before the ORG , he alleged a violation of LAW in that he had not been heard before this decision was taken .

It is noted in the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that on DATE the governor of the GPE detention centre wrote to the applicant recognising that his detention in the remand centre within “ FAC ” DATE and DATE had not been based on a decision in proper form and that he was entitled to monetary compensation on that account .

On DATE the selection officer cum head of ORG and ORG gave a decision on the applicant ’s objection of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This decision stated that the governor of the detention centre had decided on CARDINAL DATE that the applicant should be transferred to the remand centre within “ PERSON ” in GPE on DATE , immediately after the end of his term of solitary confinement . However , since the governor had not the competence to give such a decision , a formal decision to this effect DATE dated , or backdated , DATE but not committed in DATE was taken by the selection officer cum head of ORG instead .

The applicant ’s objection was declared inadmissible as out of time , the decision in issue having been taken on CARDINAL DATE and the time - limit for lodging an objection being DATE . It was added that the objection would have been dismissed as unfounded even if it had been admissible : the applicant had been transferred to a regular remand centre for legitimate operational reasons ( om beheersmatige redenen ) in view of his misbehaviour .

On DATE the selection officer cum head of ORG and ORG gave a decision dismissing the applicant ’s objection of DATE as unfounded . As relevant to the case before the ORG , it included the following reasoning :

“ I have been informed by the governor of ORG that the person concerned has played an active part in the uprising on DATE in FAC . The person concerned ( was among those who ) created the uprising . He displayed inflammatory behaviour and repeatedly incited other detainees to rise up . He has refused to follow instructions given by staff and has encouraged others to do the same . He has forced the staff in a threatening way to release detainees who had been already locked in . The staff has complied in order to prevent further escalation . The person concerned has seriously intimidated the staff and seriously endangered order and security . The person has been placed in a regular remand centre for operational reasons in view of the disturbance he has caused in the GPE detention centre , his prison history ( which has also led to his being declared an undesirable alien ( ongewenste vreemdeling ) ) , and because he escaped from the GPE detention centre on DATE .

In taking a placement or transfer decision I may reasonably trust the relevant information given me by the governor of the institution . My competence to transfer the person concerned to a different institution is not affected by the fact that the lawfulness of the governor ’s decision , i.e. the disciplinary measure , is not yet established in law . ”

On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , appealed against the latter decision to ORG . As relevant to the case before the ORG , he denied any wrongdoing ; he complained of failures to hear staff of the GPE detention centre and fellow detainees as witnesses and of the failure to make videotaped recordings of the incident available for viewing .

ORG gave its decision on DATE . It dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . As to the fact that the applicant ’s placement in the remand centre within “ PERSON ” DATE had not been based on any decision , ORG took note of the governor ’s letter of DATE recognising that fact ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and referred the applicant to the governor of the GPE detention centre himself for the compensation to which he was entitled . As relevant to the case before the ORG , its decision further read as follows :


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 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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 .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Release pending trial;Trial within a reasonable time);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Legal assistance of own choosing;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the NORP regional prosecutor ’s office initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant , who was suspected of leadership of a criminal armed gang . According to the authorities , the applicant , as the leader of the gang , had planned and committed several offences , namely aggravated kidnapping , assault , aggravated robbery and extortion , in GPE and GPE .

On DATE ORG authorised the interception and recording of the applicant ’s telephone communications on his mobile telephone , number ... -CARDINAL . The surveillance authorisation read in its entirety as follows :

“ [ The police ] are investigating [ a case ] against a criminal gang involved in robberies and the extortion of money and personal belongings from citizens in GPE and other NORP regions . [ The applicant ] is the leader of the gang . [ M. ] and [ Z. ] are members of that gang . According to intelligence information , these people are planning to commit aggravated extortion from GPE businessmen . Operational - search measures have revealed that [ the applicant ] uses mobile phone number ... -CARDINAL , registered as belonging to [ M. ] .

In view of the above and given that it seems impossible to obtain the information necessary to expose [ the applicant ’s ] unlawful activities by overt investigation , the court , on the basis of LAW and LAW of [ LAW ]

decides to authorise for DATE the interception of [ the applicant ’s ] telephone communications on his mobile telephone number ... -CARDINAL . ”

On DATE and DATE the police intercepted the applicant ’s conversations with an accomplice , PERSON

On DATE of the applicant ’s accomplices , PERSON , were arrested . The applicant went into hiding .

On DATE , DATE , at the applicant ’s request his brother retained PERSON as the applicant ’s legal representative . The legal services agreement stated that PERSON was to consult and defend the applicant while his name was on the police ’s wanted persons list in connection with charges that were not yet known to him . If the applicant were to be arrested by the police , an additional agreement would be signed between PERSON and the applicant . There is no evidence that the police or the investigator were informed about that agreement .

On DATE ORG authorised the interception and recording of the applicant ’s telephone communications on his mobile telephone number ... -CARDINAL . The surveillance authorisation read in its entirety as follows :

“ [ The police ] have intelligence information about a criminal gang involved in robberies and the extortion of money and personal belongings from citizens in GPE and other NORP regions . [ The applicant ] is the leader of the gang . Operational - search measures have revealed that [ the applicant ] uses mobile phone number ... -CARDINAL .

NORP On DATE and DATE the police intercepted conversations between the applicant and PERSON

On DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE PERSON informed the investigator that he was the applicant ’s defence counsel by virtue of instruction no . CARDINAL of ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) . He was formally admitted ( допущен ) as counsel for the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated robbery , assault , kidnapping and extortion , committed by an organised criminal group . PERSON also charged with the same criminal offences .

At DATE the investigator informed PERSON that his presence was required during investigative procedures involving the applicant . On DATE the investigator was informed by ORG that PERSON was on DATE leave until DATE .

On DATE the investigator appointed legal aid counsel for the applicant , noting that he had refused to choose replacement counsel and had insisted on being represented by PERSON

On DATE the investigator decided to remove PERSON as counsel for the applicant , finding that it was necessary to question him about his telephone conversations with the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE . He noted that at the time , PERSON had not yet been the applicant ’s counsel . However , well aware that the applicant had committed serious criminal offences , PERSON had advised him what to do . In particular , he had told the applicant that money was needed , which could possibly mean that PERSON had intended to bribe a police official . He had also informed him about the course of the criminal proceedings , which had become known to him as at the time he had been representing the applicant ’s accomplices , PERSON When the police had tried to force the applicant ’s door , the applicant had summoned PERSON , who had said that he could not come and offered to send another lawyer . He had then advised the applicant to try to avoid arrest and , if that was not possible , to destroy his telephone and the ORG card , and to remain silent when questioned . In the investigator ’s opinion , by giving such advice , PERSON had been trying to hide his connections with the applicant and his knowledge of the criminal offences committed by him . Given that at the material time PERSON had not been formally admitted as the applicant ’s counsel , he should be considered as having advised him in his capacity as a simple citizen . He should therefore be called as a witness in the criminal proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE the criminal case against the applicant and his accomplices was transferred to ORG for trial . The criminal case file comprised CARDINAL volumes ; CARDINAL criminal cases were joined into CARDINAL criminal case against the applicant and his accomplices .

A preliminary hearing was held on DATE and DATE .

The trial started on DATE . The applicant asked the court for permission for his brother , a civil lawyer working at a company which sold car spare parts , to act as his defence counsel . The court rejected his request , stating that the applicant ’s brother was not qualified to participate as defence counsel in criminal proceedings , that he did not have the relevant practical experience , and that the applicant was already represented by legal aid counsel .

On DATE the applicant requested that legal aid counsel assigned to his case be removed for failure to provide adequate legal assistance . The court rejected his request . The applicant then requested that AM . be admitted as his defence counsel instead of the legal aid lawyer . The judge granted that request and AM . represented the applicant throughout the remainder of the criminal proceedings . The trial was adjourned until DATE to let AM . study the case file .

On DATE the hearing was again postponed , until DATE , owing to the failure of CARDINAL of the co - accused to appear due to illness .

Further hearings were held DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the admissibility as evidence of transcripts of his telephone conversations with PERSON on CARDINAL and DATE . He argued that PERSON had been his counsel as from DATE , as confirmed by the legal services agreement of that date and by relevant payment invoices . The conversations in question were therefore protected by legal professional privilege and their transcripts could not be used in evidence in criminal proceedings .

On DATE the ORG found that the legal services agreement of CARDINAL DATE stated that PERSON was to provide the applicant with legal assistance in the framework of criminal proceedings , without clearly identifying the criminal proceedings to which it related . The investigator had not been informed about that agreement . PERSON had not been formally admitted as the applicant ’s counsel in the present criminal proceedings until DATE when he had shown the investigator the relevant instruction by ORG . ORG found it relevant that during the conversations intercepted by the police , PERSON had advised the applicant to remain in hiding and to destroy the evidence . Moreover , having been present , as their counsel , at S. ’s and PERSON ’s questioning after their arrest , PERSON had informed the applicant about their statements to the investigator . When summoned by the applicant to assist him at the time of his arrest , he had refused to come and had offered to send another lawyer . That gave reasons to doubt that PERSON had been representing the applicant at the time in the present criminal proceedings . The investigator had subsequently removed PERSON as counsel for the applicant . PERSON had not , however , been called to testify against the applicant in breach of legal professional privilege . Given that the applicant ’s conversations with PERSON intercepted by the police contained information about the applicant ’s criminal activities , they were not subject to legal professional privilege and their transcripts were admissible as evidence .

On DATE the court ordered a graphological expert report and for that reason adjourned the trial until DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action before ORG of PERSON , challenging the investigator ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE to remove PERSON as his counsel . On DATE ORG dismissed that complaint as inadmissible , finding that it could not be examined once the investigation had been completed . The applicant could raise the complaint before the trial court .

Meanwhile , further hearings were held on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the court ordered a complex psychological expert examination of CARDINAL of the co - accused and adjourned the trial pending the expert examination report . A further complex psychological examination was ordered on DATE and the trial was again adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the trial was adjourned because the court ordered that CARDINAL prosecution witnesses who had testified against PERSON and who were detained in GPE be transported to GPE for a crossexamination .

The trial remained adjourned DATE and DATE while awaiting the transfer of the prosecution witnesses , who at the time were on trial in a criminal case in GPE . They were transferred to GPE on DATE , after their conviction of CARDINAL DATE had been upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the admissibility as evidence of the transcripts of his telephone conversations with PERSON on DATE and DATE and with PERSON on DATE and DATE . He claimed , in particular , that the transcripts had been obtained unlawfully .

The trial was resumed on DATE . Hearings were held on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

During the trial the court examined numerous pieces of evidence , including CARDINAL expert reports and the statements of CARDINAL victims and twentyfour witnesses from GPE and GPE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It relied on the transcripts of the applicant ’s telephone conversations with PERSON and PERSON , among other evidence , observing that the interception of the applicant ’s telephone communications had been authorised by a court . Having analysed the transcripts of the applicant ’s telephone conversations with PERSON , it held as follows :

“ The lawyer had not been formally admitted to provide legal assistance to [ the applicant ] at the time [ when the interception had taken place ] . His actions were considered by the investigator to be unlawful and served as a basis for the decision to remove [ PERSON ] as counsel for [ the applicant ] and for considering the question of opening criminal proceedings [ against PERSON ] . The court does not have any reason to believe that the information obtained as a result of [ intercepting the applicant ’s ] telephone communications with [ PERSON ] can not be used as evidence , given that the information in question has not become known to [ PERSON ] as a result of providing legal assistance to [ the applicant ] . ”

The applicant appealed against the conviction , claiming that ORG had erred in its assessment of the evidence , that the transcripts of his telephone conversations with his co - defendant PERSON and counsel PERSON had been unlawfully used as evidence in the criminal proceedings , that PERSON had been unlawfully removed as counsel from his case , and that the authorities had refused to allow his brother to act as his legal representative .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the conviction . It held , in particular , that the transcripts of the applicant ’s telephone conversations with PERSON and PERSON had been correctly admitted as evidence . It further observed that the applicant ’s allegations of violations of his right to defence during the preliminary investigation had been examined by the first - instance court and had been rejected as unsubstantiated .

The applicant was arrested on DATE .

NORP On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody . It held that he was suspected of particularly serious offences , did not have a permanent job , and that his assertions that he owned a family business were unconvincing . There were therefore sufficient reasons to believe that he might abscond , obstruct the course of justice , and continue his criminal activities .

On DATE and DATE ORG ordered extensions of the applicant ’s detention , citing the need for further investigation , the gravity of the charges and the risks of the applicant absconding , putting pressure on witnesses and obstructing the course of justice . There were no factors relating to the applicant ’s character , state of health , family or other circumstances which would warrant release . The applicant did not appeal against those extension orders .

On DATE the criminal case file was transferred to ORG for trial . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s and his co - defendants’ detention during trial , referring to the gravity of the charges and the lack of permanent employment “ at the time of the commission of the crimes ” . It considered that the grounds which had served as the basis for the preventive measure remained valid . The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s and his codefendants’ detention , finding that the grounds which had served as the basis for the preventive measure remained valid and that there were therefore no reasons to change it . The trial could not proceed for objective reasons as it was necessary to wait for the results of a psychological expert examination of S. and for the transfer for questioning of CARDINAL prosecution witnesses against S.

The applicant appealed against the above extension orders to ORG . He submitted that he had been permanently residing in GPE , that he had been working in the family business , that he had no previous convictions and that he had no intention of absconding from the authorities . The authorities had failed to substantiate their allegations that he might abscond or continue with his criminal activity . As regards the risk that he might put pressure on witnesses , it was no longer relevant as all the witnesses had already been questioned by the trial court . According to the applicant , the extension of his detention had been based solely on the gravity of the charges against him . The trial had been adjourned for reasons which were not related to his personal situation , but in order to carry out expert psychological examinations of CARDINAL of the co - accused and to ensure the transfer from GPE of CARDINAL prosecution witnesses who were to give evidence against that same co - accused . He asked to be released on bail or on his father ’s personal guarantee .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE ORG upheld the above extension orders on appeal , referring to the gravity of the charges and the risks of the applicant absconding or putting pressure on witnesses . The fact that the witnesses had already been questioned was irrelevant because the applicant might still put pressure on them or otherwise obstruct the trial .

The applicant was held as follows : in remand prison no . GPE ( SIZO-CARDINAL ) in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; in correctional facility no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE , GPE , in a special wing with the material conditions of detention of a remand prison ( ORG – помещение , функционирующее в режиме следственного изолятора ) from CARDINAL May to DATE ; in remand prison no . PERSON in GPE from DATE ; and in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE from DATE to DATE .

The Government submitted that it was impossible to provide original documentation concerning the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in remand prison no . GPE ( SIZO-CARDINAL ) in GPE because all the official records had been destroyed after the expiry of the statutory period for their storage . In respect of that detention facility they submitted only statements and reports prepared by the prison authorities in DATE . They also submitted copies of the prison population register for the entire periods of the applicant ’s detention in correctional facility no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE and in remand prison no . GPE in GPE , and selected pages from the prison population register for the period of detention in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

The Government submitted the following information about the applicant ’s detention , which was based on the above - mentioned documents :

The Government asserted that in all the cells where the applicant had been detained DATE , the number of inmates had not exceeded the number of beds and that at all times while in detention the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place . At the same time , the ORG submitted as follows :

“ ... during the applicant ’s detention the sanitary norm for space per inmate was not always complied with . However , it happened only occasionally ... and the prosecutor ’s office demanded that these infractions be eliminated ... ”

Relying on the statements and reports prepared by the prison authorities in DATE , the ORG further submitted that the applicant had been provided with bed sheets and cutlery . The cells were cleaned DATE by the inmates and the administration of the penal institutions carried out a sanitary treatment of the LOC DATE .

All cells were equipped with wash basins supplying cold water ; hot water was available for personal and household needs . In addition , the inmates were allowed to use their own kettles and water heaters .

At all times in all the remand prisons , the applicant and the other inmates were allowed to take a TIME shower once a week ; their linen was changed DATE .

The applicant and other inmates were allowed to take TIME DATE exercise in specially equipped yards .

According to the applicant , remand prison no . GPE ( SIZO-CARDINAL ) in PERSON had been severely overcrowded and the space available to him had been below the domestic standards . The applicant contested the accuracy of the data submitted by the Government about the designated number of bunk beds within the cells . For instance , in cell no . CARDINAL the actual number of bunk beds had been CARDINAL and not CARDINAL as submitted by the Government , as could be seen from the photographs he had submitted to the ORG . Cell no . CARDINAL had CARDINAL sleeping bunks and housed CARDINAL inmates .

NORP In reply to the applicant ’s complaints about poor conditions of detention , the NORP regional prosecutor ’s office stated , on DATE , as follows :

“ ... the applicant ’s complaints ... that the conditions of detention in SIZO-CARDINAL were not fully compatible with the sanitary regulations prescribed by LAW on pretrial detention ... that the minimum individual space prescribed by LAW ( CARDINAL sq . m per person ) was not always complied with , that the LOC needed repair , that the walls in some of the cells were stained with mould and crumbling , that the plumbing was often out of order , that not all the cells were equipped with a sufficient number of shelves and TV sets , that broken glass in the windows was not replaced promptly and that there were no refrigerators – [ all these complaints ] reflect the reality .

These deficiencies were noted by the prosecutor ’s office during their inspection of SIZO-CARDINAL . ”

On DATE the NORP regional prosecutor ’s office stated :

“ ... in DATE the number of detainees in SIZO-CARDINAL frequently exceeded the prescribed limits . For these reasons it was not always possible to comply with the sanitary regulations ( QUANTITY m per inmate ) . For the same reasons the requirements concerning the separate detention of different categories of detainees were sometimes not complied with ... ”

As regards correctional facility no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE , the applicant stated that during his stay there he had been detained in inadequate conditions . The cells had been overcrowded . The space available to him throughout the detention period had been below the domestic standards . In particular , he had shared a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL other detainees .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG for the Execution of Sentences of inadequate conditions of detention in IK-CARDINAL . In particular , he complained of poor nutrition , overcrowding , a lack of newspapers and television sets , and of the authorities’ refusal to make copies of documents at DATE requests . He received no reply .

Furthermore , as regards remand prison no . PERSON in GPE , the applicant stated that the quality of the food in the prison had been extremely poor . He had been detained with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell measuring CARDINAL sq . MONEY The cell had been infested with cockroaches , bedbugs and rats . The detainees had slept on bunk beds .

Lastly , as regards remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE , according to the applicant , he had been held in cell CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m , with CARDINAL other detainees . The inmates had slept on bunk beds . There had been a table measuring QUANTITY but no benches or chairs to sit on . The cell had been swarming with insects . The inmates had been allowed to take exercise only in groups .

DATE the applicant was transferred by train from GPE to GPE . He was given no food . He received his first meal on DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was transferred by train from GPE to GPE .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE , on the way from GPE to GPE , between GPE and GPE , the applicant was transported in cramped conditions in a compartment with CARDINAL other inmates , some of whom were suffering from tuberculosis .

As regards the conditions of the applicant ’s transportation between GPE and GPE from DATE , the applicant was transported in a compartment with other inmates , none of whom were suffering from tuberculosis . He was transferred from GPE railway station to the local remand prison GPE in a special vehicle separately from other inmates .

When the applicant was transferred from GPE railway station to GPE on DATE and DATE , he was not transported with inmates who were suffering from tuberculosis .

When the applicant was transferred from GPE to GPE DATE and CARDINAL DATE , he was transported first alone in the railway compartment , then from GPE DATE he was transported with other inmates , none of whom were suffering from tuberculosis .

During the transfers the applicant was duly provided with dry food rations ; he was given permission to use hot water and the toilet .

DATE . The applicant did not lodge any complaints about the conditions of his transportation between GPE and GPE . He did not apply for medical assistance , nor did he complain about the state of his health .

In their submission the Government neither specified the number of inmates transported with the applicant , nor the size of the compartments in which they had travelled . Nor did they submit any copies of documents regarding that part of the applicant ’s complaints , including the distribution of dry rations for the trip .


RITCHIE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The CARDINAL applicants are the widows and children of CARDINAL fishermen who died at sea in DATE whilst fishing in NORP waters in their trawler called the Trident . A list of the applicants is set out in the attached appendix .


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

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE . When lodging his application he was detained in PERSON prison , GPE ( GPE ) .

By a judgment of DATE ( file no . CARDINAL PERSON ) ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of aggravated robbery in conjunction with aggravated extortion by means of coercion , committed jointly with further perpetrators ( gemeinschaftlicher schwerer ORG in GPE schwerer räuberischer PERSON ) , and imposed an accumulated prison sentence ( Gesamtfreiheitsstrafe ) of DATE .

The crimes were committed in GPE on DATE and in PERSON on DATE respectively .

ORG found it established that in TIME of DATE the applicant , acting jointly with an unidentified accomplice and according to a previously agreed plan , entered by force into an apartment in GPE and robbed its occupants . The men were aware that the apartment was used for prostitution and expected its CARDINAL female occupants to keep valuables and cash in there . They had passed by the apartment in TIME in order to make sure that no clients were present . Shortly afterwards they rang at the door of the apartment which was attended by its tenant PERSON After having overpowered PERSON by force the applicant threatened her with a gas pistol that resembled a real gun ordering her to keep silent . He then went to the kitchen where he found the further occupant of the apartment PERSON , a NORP national who lived and worked there as a prostitute . Pointing his gas pistol at ORG he forced her to hand over her mobile phone . While his accomplice was watching over the QUANTITY women , the applicant searched the apartment for valuables and found CARDINAL further mobile phones as well as CARDINAL ( ORG ) in ORG ’s purse . The applicant then threatened to shoot the women should they not disclose where they were keeping any additional money . As a result of his threat PERSON handed over a further LAW which she had kept in the pocket of her jacket . The men then left the apartment with their loot . TIME an acquaintance of PERSON whom she had told about the incident called the police which came to the apartment .

As regards the events on DATE , ORG established that the applicant , acting jointly with several accomplices , CARDINAL of whom were the applicant ’s co - accused in the proceedings before the court , robbed another apartment located in PERSON . The men acted according to a plan previously set up among the gang . At the relevant time the apartment was occupied by PERSON and PERSON , CARDINAL NORP nationals who were illegally staying in GPE and working in the apartment as prostitutes . O. and P. were friends of PERSON , one of the victims of the crime committed in GPE on DATE , and they had both worked for some time as prostitutes in the GPE apartment rented by PERSON before moving to PERSON .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE , DATE before the crime , CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - accused together with accomplice NORP passed by O. and P. ’s apartment in PERSON with a view to verifying whether the CARDINAL women were its only occupants and whether it contained any valuables . NORP was an acquaintance of NORP and PERSON whom they got to know through their friend PERSON when they had stayed in her apartment in GPE . Hence , the unsuspecting women did not object to the men entering the apartment . Following their visit the CARDINAL men reported to the residual members of the criminal gang that they had spotted a safe in the apartment ’s kitchen .

On DATE at TIME the applicant and a further accomplice , PERSON , gained access to O. and P. ’s apartment pretending to be potential clients while CARDINAL of the co - accused was waiting in a car parked close to the apartment building and the other co - accused in front of the house . Once inside the apartment B. produced a knife that he had carried along in his jacket . P. , trying to escape from the perpetrators , jumped from the apartment ’s balcony located QUANTITY off the ground and ran away . The applicant jumped after her but abandoned the chase after TIME when passers - by appeared nearby on the street . He then called the co - accused waiting in front of the women ’s apartment on his mobile phone and gave him an account of the events . He agreed with the latter on a meeting point where the co - accused were supposed to pick him up with the car once accomplice PERSON would have left the crime scene and have joined them . In the meantime inside the apartment , PERSON after having overpowered O. threatened to kill her with his knife should she not disclose where the women kept their money or should she refuse to open the safe for him . Fearing for her life O. opened the safe from which PERSON removed ORG CARDINAL and also handed over the contents of her wallet in the amount of LAW . B. left the apartment at TIME taking the money and P. ’s mobile phone as well as the ORG landline phone with him and joined the coaccused . The co - accused and PERSON then picked up the applicant at the agreed meeting point with their car .

At TIME O. at the apartment . The women called their friend PERSON in GPE and gave her a brief account of the events . The next day they also told their neighbour PERSON about the crime . DATE the women , afraid of remaining alone in the PERSON apartment , drove to GPE where they stayed DATE with their friend PERSON Following short subsequent stays in GPE am PERSON and back in PERSON they returned to GPE in DATE .

ORG based its finding of facts regarding the first crime committed in GPE on DATE on the statements made by the victims NORP and NORP on the occasion of their police interrogations as well as in the course of the subsequent trial . Both witnesses had identified the applicant without any hesitation as the perpetrator who had carried the gun when presented with his photo on the occasion of their police interviews and later when confronted with him personally at trial . ORG found PERSON and ORG ’s testimonies to be consistent and credible and noted that they were supported by the statements of the police officers who had attended the crime scene and had interviewed PERSON and NORP in the course of the preliminary investigations and who had all been heard as witnesses during the trial .

As regards the establishment of facts in relation to the second crime committed in PERSON ORG relied in particular on pre - trial statements made by the victims O. and P. in the course of police interrogations in the period from DATE and before an investigating judge on DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , dismissing a related objection by the defence , ordered that the records of O. and P. ’s interrogations by the police and the investigating judge be read out at the trial and be admitted as evidence in the proceedings in accordance with LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) . The said article provides for such possibility in the event insurmountable impediments make it impossible to hear a witness in the foreseeable future . ORG pointed out in this context that it had not been possible to hear the witnesses in the course of the trial since they had returned to their home country GPE shortly after their interrogations at the investigative stage and all attempts to enable their examination at the main hearing had been to no avail .

ORG specified that O. and P. had been summoned to appear before ORG on DATE , DATE of the trial . However , they both had refused to attend the hearing relying on medical certificates dated DATE that indicated their unstable posttraumatic emotional and psychological condition . Consequently , on CARDINAL DATE the court had sent letters to both witnesses asking under what conditions they would be ready to testify at trial . While an acknowledgement of receipt had been returned for both letters , no response had been obtained from PERSON for her part had informed ORG in writing that due to the fact that she was still traumatised by the crime , she would neither accept to appear at the trial in person nor would she agree to be examined by means of an audio - visual transmission . O. had further mentioned that she had nothing to add to her statements made in the course of the interviews before the police and the investigating judge in DATE .

ORG nevertheless requested legal assistance from the NORP authorities and asked for the witnesses to be heard by a court in GPE and the hearing to be transmitted by voice and image ( audiovisuelle GPE ) . However , a witness hearing scheduled by the competent NORP court for DATE was cancelled shortly before by the presiding NORP judge on the ground that the witnesses , again relying on medical certificates , had demonstrated that they were still suffering from post - traumatic disorders as a consequence of the crime and that a further confrontation with the events in PERSON would risk aggravating their condition . The witnesses had further claimed that following threats by the accused they feared possible acts of revenge .

ORG informed their NORP counterpart by a letter dated DATE that according to the standards of NORP law of criminal procedure the reasons advanced by the witnesses were not sufficiently substantiated to justify their refusal to testify . The court suggested to the competent NORP judge to have the witnesses examined by a public medical officer ( ORG ) and , alternatively , to coerce them to attend the hearing .

As the letter remained unanswered , ORG considered that it did not dispose of any further legal means to enforce a hearing of O. and P. Having further regard to the fact that the recently renewed medical certificates indicated that the ORG state of health would not change any time soon , ORG concluded that it was impossible to have the witnesses examined in the foreseeable future . Pointing out that courts were under an obligation to conduct proceedings involving the deprivation of liberty expeditiously and in view of the fact that the accused had already been held in custody for a considerable period of time , the court was of the opinion that it could not be justified to further delay the proceedings .

Consequently , a further objection against the introduction of the ORG pre - trial statements by counsel of CARDINAL of the co - accused was rejected by ORG and the records of the witnesses’ police interrogations and interviews with the investigative judge were read out during a hearing on DATE .

In its judgment running to CARDINAL pages , ORG pointed out that in assessing the available evidence it had been aware of the reduced evidentiary value of the records of O. and P. ’s pre - trial testimonies . It had further taken into account that neither the applicant nor counsel for the defence had been provided with an opportunity to examine the only direct witnesses of the crime in PERSON at any stage of the proceedings . At the time of the last pre - trial interrogation of NORP and P. on DATE , the applicant had not been informed about the preliminary criminal proceedings initiated against him with a view to not putting the investigations at risk . No warrant for his arrest had yet been issued and he had not been represented by counsel . The investigating judge had excluded the applicant from the hearing in accordance with LAW since he had been concerned that the witnesses would be afraid of telling the truth in the presence of the accused . ORG further emphasised that at the investigative stage there had been no indication that O. and PERSON who had testified on several occasions before the police and then before the investigating judge would refuse to repeat their statements at a subsequent trial .

ORG held that notwithstanding the resulting restrictions for the defence , the trial as a whole had been fair and had complied with the requirements of LAW ( d ) of the LAW . The court was thus not prevented from admitting O. and P. ’s pre - trial statements as evidence in the proceedings . It had made considerable efforts to enable a direct examination of O. and P. by the accused and counsel for the defence at trial . Moreover , once the witnesses had proved to be unavailable ORG had ensured that a maximum of further witnesses who had been in contact with O. and P. in relation to the events at issue could be heard at trial . Finally , the court had taken several items of evidence as corroborating PERSON and P. ’s pre - trial testimonies into account when assessing their evidentiary value .

In ORG opinion the records of O. and P. ’s interrogations at the investigative stage showed that they had given detailed and coherent descriptions of the circumstances of the crime . Minor contradictions in their statements could be explained by their concern not to disclose their illegal residence status and activities to the authorities and by the psychological strain they had been subject to during and following the incident . The witnesses had feared problems with the police and acts of revenge by the perpetrators . This explained why the witnesses had not pressed charges immediately after the events and why the police had only been informed of the crime on DATE by their friend PERSON As regards O. and P.’s’ failure to identify the applicant when confronted with several photos of potential suspects during the police interrogations , the court observed that the ORG attention during the incident had been focussed on the further perpetrator carrying the knife and that the applicant himself had only stayed a short period of time in the apartment . Their inability to identify the applicant also showed that the witnesses , as opposed to the defence ’s allegations , had not testified with a view to incriminating him .

In the court ’s opinion the fact that the detailed description of the events in the ORG pre - trial statements were consistent with the account they had given the TIME after the crime to their neighbour PERSON , who had been heard as a witness during the trial , was a further strong indication for their credibility and the veracity of their statements . This witness had further testified that on TIME of CARDINAL DATE at TIME another neighbour , an elderly woman who got scared when she heard noise coming from O. and P. ’s apartment , had called on her and asked her to accompany her to the women ’s flat to investigate what had happened . O. and PERSON had , however , not answered the door when the neighbours were ringing the bell .

ORG further observed that O. and P. ’s description of the events also coincided with their friend PERSON ’s recollection of her conversations with NORP and PERSON following the crime as reproduced during PERSON ’s witness hearing at trial . In addition , the police officers and the investigating judge who had examined ORG and PERSON at the pre - trial stage had all testified at trial that they had found the witnesses to be credible .

ORG noted that since neither the defence nor the court itself had had an opportunity to observe the main witnesses’ demeanour at trial or by means of an audio - visual examination , it had to exercise particular diligence in assessing the evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility by the police officers and the investigating judge . The court further emphasised that when taking into account the testimonies given by the ORG neighbour PERSON and their friend PERSON it had paid special attention to the fact that their statements constituted hearsay evidence and had to be assessed particularly carefully .

In this context it had been of relevance that O. and P. ’s testimonies as well as the statements of the further witnesses at trial had been supported by further significant and admissible evidence such as data obtained through tapping of the applicant ’s and the co - accused ’s mobile phones and by means of a satellite - based global positioning system ( “ GPS ” ) . Such information had been gathered within the scope of police surveillance measures carried out at the relevant time in relation to preliminary criminal proceedings initiated against the accused on suspicion of racketeering and extortion ( ORG ) in the PERSON drug scene . The link between the evidence obtained in the course of such separate investigations and the crime at issue could only be made after NORP and PERSON had reported the incident of CARDINAL DATE to the police . It followed from the recordings of CARDINAL mobile phone conversations between CARDINAL of the co - accused and the applicant in the evening of CARDINAL DATE at TIME and TIME that the latter had been present in the GPE apartment accompanied by PERSON and that he had jumped from the balcony in order to chase one of the escaping victims whom he failed to capture , while PERSON had stayed in the apartment . Furthermore , an analysis of the GPS data showed that the car of CARDINAL of the co - accused had been parked near the crime scene from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. on TIME of CARDINAL DATE , a period that coincided with the time - frame in which the robbery in issue had occurred .

Finally , while the applicant and the co - accused had denied any participation in the robbery as such or any premeditated criminal activity in this respect , their own statements at trial had at least confirmed that CARDINAL of the co - accused together with NORP had visited the apartment at PERSON on TIME before the crime and that the applicant and PERSON had been present in the apartment at the time of the incident the following day . The applicant had testified that he and PERSON had come to the apartment with a view to making use of the women ’s services as prostitutes . He further had conceded that he had followed PERSON when she escaped over the balcony and explained that he had done so in order to prevent her from calling the neighbours or the police since he had been afraid of getting problems in view of his criminal record and the problems he had previously had with prostitutes on a similar occasion in GPE .

In the court ’s view the body of evidence taken together gave a coherent and complete overall picture of the events that supported the version provided by witnesses NORP and PERSON and refuted the contradictory statements made by the applicant and the co - accused in the course of the trial .

Counsel for the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of ORG in which he complained that the applicant had not been able to examine the only direct witnesses of the crime committed in PERSON at any stage of the proceedings in breach of LAW and CARDINAL ( d ) of the Convention . He argued that such inability had been imputable to the domestic authorities . According to ORG case - law counsel had to be appointed for an unrepresented accused if the key witnesses for the prosecution were to testify before an investigating judge and the accused was excluded from this hearing . However , at the time of the witness hearing the applicant had not even been informed about the preliminary proceedings instituted against him and the public prosecution authorities had not requested that defence counsel be appointed for him . Consequently , ORG and P. ’s testimonies ought to have been excluded from the trial .

By written submissions dated DATE ORG ( ORG ) moved that the applicant ’s appeal on points of law be dismissed by ORG as manifestly ill - founded in written proceedings pursuant to LAW below ) . ORG argued that while it was true that the proceedings had been characterised by a “ complete loss ” of the applicant ’s right to examine O. and PERSON ( “ GPE des Fragerechts ” ) , they had as a whole been fair and there had been no reason to exclude the witness statements of ORG and P. as evidence . ORG had assessed the contents of the records of the witnesses’ testimonies read out at trial particularly carefully and critically . Furthermore , it had not made their statements the sole or decisive basis of the applicant ’s conviction but had taken further significant evidence into account . In view of the various layers of corroborating evidence the applicant had had ample opportunities to put into question the credibility of the CARDINAL main witnesses and to effectively defend himself . ORG , endorsing ORG related arguments , further pointed out that there was nothing to demonstrate that the restrictions to the defence ’s right to examine the witnesses had been imputable to the domestic authorities .

By written submissions of DATE the applicant replied to ORG observations and requested ORG to hold a hearing in the appeal proceedings .

By a decision of DATE ORG , referring to CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as manifestly ill - founded .

By written submissions of CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained of a violation of his right to be heard ( Anhörungsrüge ) on the ground that no hearing had been held in the appeal proceedings and that ORG decision rejecting his appeal did not provide any reasons .

In its decision of DATE rejecting the applicant ’s complaint ORG pointed out that any decision dismissing an appeal on the basis of LAW implied a reference to the respective reasoning provided by ORG .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint against the decisions of ORG dated DATE and DATE for examination without providing reasons .

It follows from the applicant ’s submissions that he has meanwhile left prison and returned to his native country GPE .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

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 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Egidijus Kūris;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE , the applicant had cardiac surgery in ORG in GPE and her heart valve was replaced by a mechanical valve . The applicant was insured by ORG ( emekli sandığı ) and all her medical expenses were covered by the insurance .

Following the operation , the applicant ’s heart condition did not improve and she suffered physiologically as a result of a disturbing noise coming from the mechanical heart valve .

In DATE , the applicant found out from the press that the type of mechanical valve used in her operation was banned by ORG because of serious production defects .

Being convinced that she was subjected to negligence , the applicant decided to bring compensation proceedings against ORG , the ORG , ORG and the doctors who operated on her .

NORP In DATE , the applicant applied to ORG and requested MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant requested legal aid for the court fees and submitted a certificate attesting to her indigence . On DATE ORG , without giving any specific reason , decided that the applicant did not fulfil the prerequisite to be eligible for legal aid which was required under LAW ORG ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the applicant was notified that she had to pay GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) in court fees within DATE in order for the proceedings to continue , and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings .

The applicant failed to pay the court fees . On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings .


CASE OF LISOVAIA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for home)

At the material time , the applicant was a student and was undertaking an unpaid internship at a law firm .

On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against ORG , a lawyer with whom the applicant worked , on charges of trading in influence . In particular , PERSON was accused of receiving QUANTITY ( ORG ) from NORP to pass on to the judges examining a criminal case against a relative of NORP ’s in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient sentence . The applicant had no procedural standing in those proceedings .

On DATE the police lodged with an investigating judge a request for a warrant to search the applicant ’s apartment . The request was granted ; the decision to issue the warrant read as follows :

“ The criminal investigation against ORG was initiated on DATE ... In the course of the investigation it has been established that from DATE until DATE , T. extorted and received from NORP in several instalments the amount of ORG CARDINAL , [ to be given to ] the judges who examined NORP ’s relative ’s case , in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient sentence .

On DATE T. was caught in flagrante receiving MONEY ( ORG ) from NORP , allegedly for influencing the prosecutor not to appeal against the [ subsequent ] judgment [ acquitting the accused ] .

The evidence in the file and the material obtained through the operational investigation allow the well - founded assumption that at [ the applicant ’s ] home , situated at [ address ] , can be found LAW received from NORP and relevant documents ,

Decides

To order a search of [ the applicant ’s ] residence , situated at [ address ] , with the aim of finding and seizing LAW received from NORP and documents concerning the criminal case . ”

On DATE , a prosecutor lodged a request with ORG for a warrant to be issued for the search of the applicant ’s apartment . His request took the form of a verbatim copy of the police decision . Also on DATE the GPE district investigating judge issued a decision authorising the search . The decision read as follows :

“ The present criminal proceedings were initiated on DATE ... against T.

After hearing the prosecutor and examining the material , and taking in consideration the fact that that material had been obtained in [ a manner ] in compliance with the law , the court finds that the request for the authorisation of the search is well founded and should be upheld .

On the basis of ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the court :

Grants the prosecutor ’s request .

Authorises a search of [ the applicant ’s ] residence , situated at [ address ] .

NORP [ Declares that ] the decision is final . ”

On DATE the police searched the applicant ’s apartment in the presence of her elderly mother [ but not the applicant ] . They did not find anything .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for access to the evidence which had been presented to the judge to justify the search . On DATE the ORG district investigating judge replied that the case file was held at the [ premises of ] the investigating authority and that access could only be granted pursuant to the law .

It appears from the material in the case file that the criminal proceedings against T. ended with the latter ’s acquittal .


Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant ’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a solicitor advocate practising in GPE . The Government were represented by their agent , Ms NORP PERSON , of ORG . Observations on the merits were received from the respondent Government and the applicant and third party observations were received from FAC and ORG .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having murdered Mr S. earlier the same day .

On DATE the investigating judge of ORG of LOC ordered the applicant ’s pre - trial detention until DATE .

On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention until DATE .

On DATE the indictment in the applicant ’s case was approved .

On DATE the indictment and the criminal case file were forwarded by the prosecutor to the court .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the Head of the Izmail SIZO to release the applicant immediately given that the period of detention ordered by the court had expired on DATE . By a letter of DATE , the Head of the PERSON replied to the applicant ’s lawyer that , under LAW , after the forwarding of the criminal case file to the trial court it was for that court to decide on the applicant ’s continued detention .

DATE the lawyer complained to the prosecutor about the failure of the prison authorities to release the applicant . In reply to that letter , ORG informed the applicant ’s lawyer that the applicant ’s pre - trial detention had been extended in DATE until DATE and that on the latter date the criminal case file against the applicant had been forwarded to the trial court ; the prosecutor ’s office therefore considered that the applicant ’s rights and interests had not been violated .

On DATE the lawyer submitted a request to the investigating judge for the applicant ’s release . He noted that the applicant ’s pre - trial detention ordered by the judge had expired on DATE and that no decision had been taken on the applicant ’s continued detention .

On DATE the investigating judge rejected the above request . With reference to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , the judge noted that on DATE of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention , that is , on DATE , his criminal case had been referred to the trial court , which had DATE to decide on his continued detention . The judge concluded that there had been no grounds for the applicant ’s release on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the NORP ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG of LOC held a preliminary hearing in which it ordered the applicant ’s continued detention .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .