Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani

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

On DATE the applicant and his siblings ( “ the plaintiffs ” ) instituted civil proceedings against : ( a ) the ORG , as the founder of the public broadcasting service , PERSON ( “ RTCG ” ) , and ( b ) GPE , CARDINAL of ORG ’s employees . They submitted that a television programme transmitted by the ORG had portrayed their late father in a way which was insulting to both him and his family .

On DATE , after CARDINAL remittals , ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ruled against the plaintiffs .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE overturned the judgment of the first - instance court and ruled partly in favour of the plaintiffs , ordering the ORG to pay each of them compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) with accompanying interest . The court dismissed their claim in respect of GPE and ordered them to pay him the costs of the respective proceedings . On DATE the same court issued an additional judgment ordering the ORG to make ORG judgment of DATE public via ORG and to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the proceedings in connection therewith .

On DATE ORG dismissed appeals on points of law that had been lodged by the plaintiffs .

On DATE the plaintiffs filed an enforcement request ( predlog za izvršenje ) . On DATE , after CARDINAL remittals , ORG issued an enforcement order , followed by an additional order of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant did not file a request for review while the proceedings ( both civil and enforcement ) were ongoing or an action for fair redress once they were concluded ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On an unspecified date the plaintiffs lodged a constitutional appeal . On DATE the ORG informed them that the constitutional appeal was incomplete and invited them to amend it within DATE or it would be rejected . On DATE the applicant lodged another appeal with ORG . On DATE ORG rejected ( odbacuje se ) the applicant ’s constitutional appeal for not having been amended as requested and because “ it [ did ] not contain the reasons from which it could be concluded why and in what way the applicant ’s constitutional rights and freedoms were violated ” .

Article CARDINAL provides for the right to a fair trial .

Article CARDINAL provides that ORG will rule on any constitutional appeal lodged in respect of an alleged violation of a human right or freedom guaranteed by LAW , once all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted .

The LAW entered into force on DATE .

Section CARDINAL provided that a constitutional appeal might be lodged against an individual decision of a State body , an administrative body , a local government body or a legal person exercising public authority , in respect of violations of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW , once all other effective legal remedies had been exhausted .

Sections CARDINAL provided additional details as regards the processing of constitutional appeals . In particular , section CARDINAL provided that in cases where ORG found a violation of a human right or freedom , it would quash the impugned decision , entirely or partially , and order that the case be re - examined by the same body which had delivered the quashed decision .

This Act entered into force in DATE and was repealed by LAW .

Section DATE provides that a constitutional appeal can be lodged by a physical person or legal entity , an organisation , a community ( naselje ) , a group of individuals , and other forms of organisation which do not have the status of a legal entity if they consider that one of their human rights or freedoms guaranteed by the LAW has been violated by an individual decision , action or omission of a ORG body , an administrative body , a local government body or a legal person exercising public authority , once all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted .

Sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL provide further details as regards the processing of constitutional appeals .

In particular , section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that if the complaint relates to a court ’s failure to act within a reasonable time , a constitutional appeal can be lodged only if the remedies provided for by the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time Act have already been exhausted or if an appellant can prove that these remedies were not or would not have been effective .

Section DATE provides that if in the course of proceedings before ORG , an impugned decision has ceased to be in force , and ORG finds a violation of a human right or freedom , it will allow a constitutional appeal and award the appellant just satisfaction .

Section CARDINAL provides that ORG must deliver a decision within DATE of the date on which the proceedings before that court were initiated .

This Act entered into force on DATE and thereby repealed LAW DATE .

This Act makes provision , under certain circumstances , for the possibility to have lengthy proceedings expedited by means of a request for review ( kontrolni zahtjev ) , and for the opportunity for claimants to be awarded compensation by means of an action for fair redress ( tužba za pravično zadovoljenje ) . In particular , section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that an action for fair redress can be lodged by a party who has previously made use of a request for review or who objectively was not able to do so . The action for fair redress must be filed with ORG DATE after the date of receipt of the final decision delivered in the impugned proceedings . This Act entered into force on DATE .

For ORG relevant practice see PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and FAC , § § DATE , DATE .


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

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action in ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) seeking payment of unpaid pension instalments .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the parallel administrative proceedings before ORG ( PERSON mirovinsko osiguranje ) . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings .

On DATE ORG adopted a judgement and the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku ) with ORG , complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings .

On DATE the ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time , awarded him CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation and ordered ORG to decide on the applicant ’s case within DATE of the service of its decision .

Following an appeal by the ORG Attorney , on DATE the threemember panel of ORG reduced the amount of compensation awarded to HRK CARDINAL .

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint and on DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared it inadmissible .

On DATE ORG , ORG ( PERSON mirovinsko osiguranje , Područni ured u ORG ) decided about the applicant ’s request for payment of his pension arrears .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG , ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje , ORG ured ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

Following the applicant ’s administrative action , on DATE ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) quashed the second - instance decision and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG adopted a new decision and the applicant again appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s subsequent administrative action .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with ORG ( PERSON ) complaining about the length of the above administrative proceedings .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation .

The applicant appealed and on DATE the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The first applicant was born in DATE , the second applicant was born in DATE , the third applicant was born in DATE and they all live in ORG . The fourth applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , and the fifth applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The first applicant is the husband , the second and third applicants are children , and the fourth and fifth applicants are sisters of the late M.B.B. , a lawyer who was based in ORG .

NORP M.B.B. represented ORG in divorce proceedings instituted in DATE in ORG ( PERSON ) against her husband , ORG

A first hearing in those proceedings was held on DATE , attended by the parties and the lawyer M.B.B. The court heard the parties’ arguments and decided to request a report from the local social services . It then adjourned the hearing until DATE .

According to ORG ’s police records , he had a history of alcohol abuse , violent behaviour and unlawful possession of firearms . In DATE the Slatina Police ( PERSON DATE hereinafter “ the police ” ) instituted minor offences proceedings against him for beating up his daughter and wife under the influence of alcohol and making serious threats using firearms . On that occasion , the police seized from ORG a rifle with CARDINAL bullets and a hand grenade . There is , however , no further information on the outcome of these proceedings . Furthermore , DATE ORG was reported CARDINAL times for family violence and twice for a breach of the peace and public order , and in DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint against him with the ORG Attorney ’s ORG for making serious death threats to his wife .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) found ORG guilty of the minor offence of family violence and fined him CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . During the proceedings , ORG explained that the divorce proceedings were pending before the courts and that ORG had contested them . She also explained that she had ended up in hospital after having been severely beaten by ORG

On DATE ORG found ORG guilty of the criminal offence of making serious death threats to his wife and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

According to a police report drawn up on DATE , ORG , accompanied by ORG , attended the police station on DATE , alleging that her husband had been harassing her . She made no other complaints of possible threats or violence . She further explained that ORG had previously beaten her up and had been convicted in the minor offences and criminal courts . She also pointed out that their divorce proceedings were pending and that a hearing was scheduled for DATE . On the same occasion , ORG argued that he did not want his wife to see other men . The police officer who interviewed the couple , GPE , warned ORG to stop harassing his wife and instructed them to settle all their disputes in the divorce proceedings . The report also contains a note suggesting that during the interview , ORG and ORG showed no signs of aggression , alcohol abuse or agitation .

Afterwards , police officer GPE informed his superior officer , M.Kr . , of the interview . He was told to make a short note of the event in the logbook and that it was not necessary to draft a report or take any further action .

According to further police reports , at TIME DATE , ORG went to a bank in ORG with the intention of withdrawing all his money . He told a bank employee , GPE , whom he had met before , that they would not see each other again . While speaking to the bank employee , ORG was in tears . When she asked him what was troubling him , he said that “ it will be talked about ” . He also shook hands with several other people who then told the bank manager , ORG , to contact the police . ORG followed ORG out of the bank and asked him what was troubling him . ORG responded that he was sick of everything ; his wife , who was having affairs with other men , and his son , who was a drug addict , and that he was going to do something and nobody could stop him .

At TIME PERSON informed the police of the event , saying that he was afraid that ORG could do something to himself or others .

At TIME an on - duty commanding officer , PERSON , sent a patrol of CARDINAL police officers , GPE and GPE , to the bank . At the same time he checked ORG ’s police records and saw that he had a violent background . He therefore informed the police chief , ORG . , who ordered a police patrol to be sent to ORG ’s home address . At TIME PERSON and GPE were sent to look for him there .

The report submitted by police officers GPE and GPE indicates that they found ORG at home . He approached them at the front of his house and said that he was sick of everything , and that he had withdrawn the money for his funeral because he was going to kill himself either that DATE or the next by jumping under a train , and that there was nothing they could do about it . He also said that he had already written a suicide note , and complained that DATE before he had been at the police station because his wife had been seeing another man . The police officers noted in their report that ORG had appeared sober and had not shown any signs of aggressiveness , and had not mentioned his wife or anybody else or that he might hurt anybody . They therefore advised him that everything was going to be fine and left .

Upon their arrival at the police station at TIME the police officers reported on the interview to the on - duty commanding officer PERSON , who had taken over from PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in the meantime .

According to a report drawn up by M.T. on DATE , GPE and ORG , the police officers who had visited ORG at his home ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had reported to him that ORG was contemplating suicide because of his family problems , and that he had mentioned his divorce and said that nobody could stop him . At TIME PERSON informed the deputy police chief for the criminal police , PERSON , of the event who instructed him to immediately inform ORG ( GPE zdravlja ORG – hereinafter “ the hospital ” ) and ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb ORG ) . He informed the hospital doctor , ORG , at TIME and ORG at TIME The doctor had said that he would see with a nearby psychiatric hospital whether they could admit ORG for treatment , while an official from ORG had said that she had known ORG ’s situation very well and told the police to contact the hospital .

Later during the investigation the police found that officer PERSON had falsified his report , as he had actually informed doctor PERSON at TIME , not TIME as indicated , and had informed ORG at CARDINAL TIME , not TIME as indicated ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .

Meanwhile , sometime after TIME , ORG returned to the bank , shouting at ORG for having called the police . He then went to a nearby bar for a drink and at TIME went to the police station . He met the on - duty commanding officer PERSON there , and demanded to know why the police had been to see him . PERSON explained that the police had had information that he had been having some problems . ORG replied that he was going to solve his problems himself and that he was going to do what he intended . He then left the police station .

A.N. then went in search of his wife , who started work in a bakery shop at TIME He waited for her in a nearby street he knew she had to pass when going to work . When PERSON saw her , he approached her and kicked her in the head , knocking her to the ground . He then fired one shot at her and went to leave , but then returned to shoot her a further CARDINAL times . She survived , despite receiving serious injuries to her head , stomach and arm .

After shooting his wife , ORG went to ORG ’s office , which was CARDINAL away . M.B.B. was in the office at the time with her secretary and a client , PERSON Immediately upon entering the office ORG fired a shot in ORG ’s direction , but hit her desk . The client attempted to talk him round , but when ORG threatened to kill him , he ran away . ORG then attempted to shoot the secretary , who was calling the police , but his pistol jammed and she managed to escape . ORG then approached M.B.B. and shot her dead by firing CARDINAL bullets at her , of which CARDINAL were fatal .

In the meantime , some onlookers had informed the police of the incidents and several police units were sent to search for the gunman .

At TIME the police arrived at ORG ’s house and ordered him to surrender and go with them to the station in connection with the investigation into the shootings . He refused , before throwing CARDINAL hand grenades at the police officers and starting to shoot at them .

When special police units stormed into ORG ’s house at around CARDINAL p.m. , they found him with a self - inflicted head wound , the type of weapon that had been used for the shootings , and a suicide note . He was immediately taken to hospital , but died DATE .

On DATE as the incidents occurred , an investigating judge of ORG ( PERSON u GPE ) and a GPE Attorney conducted crime scene investigations with the assistance of police forensic scientists . In ORG ’s house the police found another suicide note , a number of different bullets and an empty hand grenade cartridge . They also discovered that the weapon used by ORG had been reported missing and that its owner had died in DATE .

The investigating judge ordered a forensic examination of the bodies which confirmed that ORG had suffered a violent death as a result of the gunshots .

During the investigation the police interviewed a number of people who provided information concerning ORG and the course of the events in which he had killed ORG and attempted to kill his wife . The police drew up reports of the interviews but they were not signed or otherwise attested by the witnesses .

According to the police reports , ORG and ORG ’s children , ORG and PERSON , provided information about the problems in their family and the frequent violent incidents mainly caused as a result of ORG ’s alcohol abuse . The incidents were confirmed by ORG in her interview with the police . She also stated that he had been angry at her lawyer M.B.B. , but had not threatened to kill her .

M.B.B. ’s secretary described the course of events in which ORG had attempted to shoot her and killed the lawyer M.B.B. , which was also confirmed by the client PERSON who had been in the office at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Another witness , GPE , a waiter in a nearby bar , described how he had heard gunshots and later found M.B.B. dead in her office .

The police also interviewed the bank employees GPE and GPE , who provided information about ORG ’s behaviour in the bank ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and CARDINAL other witnesses , GPE and PERSON , who had also been in the bank when ORG was there . The CARDINAL bank customers stated that ORG had seemed disturbed and looked as though he had needed some help , but had not said he was going to kill anybody .

An acquaintance of GPE , GPE , told police that for DATE ORG had been saying that he was going to kill his wife . After the incidents at issue , ORG called him and said that he killed his wife and shot her lawyer . Information to that effect was also provided by another acquaintance of ORG , GPE , who said that when he got drunk ORG would say that he was going to kill somebody but without specifying whom . On TIME in question he had seen ORG , who had shown him a handful of bullets .

A.N. ’s brother - in - law , GPE , stated that ORG had complained that during a hearing in the divorce proceedings M.B.B. had prevented him from raising all his arguments before the court , and that he should do something about it but without specifying what . He had never mentioned that he was going to kill anybody . His other brother - in - law , ORG , stated that DATE before the incidents his wife PERSON had told him that she had seen ORG , who had told her that he was going to kill his wife and her lawyer , but she had not thought that he had really meant it . This was confirmed by GPE herself in her statement to the police .

During the investigation the police interviewed doctor ORG who had taken the police ’s call to the hospital on TIME of the incidents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He stated that he had received the call at around QUANTITY a.m. , not TIME as reported in the media . He also provided evidence to that effect because his telephone had the ability to record times and dates of calls . Based on the information he had received , he had attempted to contact a nearby psychiatric hospital to arrange for ORG ’s possible hospitalisation . However , he had not managed to speak to any of the doctors , as he had been told by a nurse that they had all been in a meeting which she had not been allowed to interrupt .

The results of the investigation were submitted to ORG Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državni odvjetništvo u PERSON ) to assess whether the police could be held liable for their actions in connection with the incidents at issue , particularly with regard to the application of section CARDINAL of ORG . That provision stated that an individual could be admitted to a psychiatric institution where there was a reasonable suspicion that the individual posed an immediate threat to his life or health , or the life or health of others ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG issued the following statement :

“ ORG was a violent person against whom a criminal complaint had been made for making serious death threats to his wife and on several occasions was reported for the minor offences of family violence , abusive behaviour and inappropriately addressing police officers . On DATE in question ORG , without any further elaboration , told police officers that he was going to kill himself because of his family problems . The police officer on duty , M.T. , omitted to inform the hospital and ORG of the whole situation . Had there been coordination between the doctor and social worker , who had known the situation in ORG ’s family better , measures for the prevention of suicide could perhaps have been taken . In the circumstances , at the relevant time the police officers had no reason to treat ORG as a mentally disturbed person within the meaning of section CARDINAL of ORG . ... ”

On DATE the applicants , through their lawyer , lodged a criminal complaint against police officer PERSON with the Slatina Municipal State Attorney ’s Office , alleging that he had falsified the police records indicating the exact time he had contacted the hospital and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . They also lodged a criminal complaint against police chief M.Ko . for abuse of power and authority , because he had failed to institute criminal proceedings against police officer GPE

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG rejected the criminal complaints against the police officers on the grounds that their actions did not constitute criminal offences .

On DATE all CARDINAL applicants and GPE , the mother of ORG , took over the prosecution as subsidiary prosecutors and lodged an indictment against the police officers in ORG .

During the proceedings police officer PERSON stated that after officers GPE and GPE had returned from their interview with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , they had told him that ORG had been agitated and had mentioned problems in his family , but had not made any threats . Sometime at TIME he had therefore attempted to contact police chief M.Ko . to seek further instructions . After having failed twice to reach ORG . , who had been out of his office , he had called the deputy police chief for the criminal police , PERSON , who had instructed him to contact the hospital and ORG . He had then telephoned the hospital , but the number he had dialled had not been valid , so he had only managed to get the right number later when he had spoken to doctor ORG When he had called the hospital for the first time he had written down the exact time on a piece of paper and then later had just taken that time for his report .

Doctor PERSON also gave his oral evidence during the proceedings . He testified that after he had received the information from the police about their interview with ORG , he had told the police that he would need to examine ORG and then decide whether compulsory psychiatric treatment would be necessary . However , the police had not known where ORG was at the time , so he had told them to find him . TIME the hospital had received information about the shootings .

On DATE ORG acquitted police officer PERSON on the grounds that there had been no evidence that he had deliberately falsified his report . The court also dismissed the charges against police chief M.Ko . on the grounds that the prosecution had become time - barred .

The judgment was confirmed on appeal by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

On DATE ORG opened disciplinary proceedings against police officer M.Kr . for failing to report on the interview with ORG and his wife on DATE even though ORG ’s background and the information concerning their relationship warranted that such action be documented ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE disciplinary proceedings were also opened against police officer PERSON for failing to immediately report the situation concerning PERSON on TIME DATE to the hospital as he had been instructed to do by his superior , and for falsifying his report about the times he had contacted the hospital and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The first - instance ORG of ORG ( PERSON disciplinski sud u ORG ) found police officer PERSON . guilty on DATE and sentenced him to a PERCENT reduction of salary , to be applied for DATE .

On DATE the disciplinary panel found police officer PERSON guilty and sentenced him to a PERCENT reduction of salary , to be applied for DATE .

DATE . On DATE the CARDINAL applicants and ORG lodged a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking damages for the authorities’ failure to protect their relative ’s right to life . They relied on CARDINAL of LAW , which provides that the ORG is liable to compensate damage caused to a citizen , legal entity or other party for the unlawful or wrongful conduct of a ORG authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

A first hearing was held on DATE , at which the trial court heard evidence from bank employees ORG and GPE

F.S. testified that after he had seen ORG crying , he had asked him what had happened and ORG replied that it would be talked about . He had then called the police , who arrived soon after . When he had told them what had happened , the police had just replied that they had known ORG very well . ORG had appeared totally unstable that TIME , which had been noticeable to GPE because he worked with people . Everybody in the bank had noticed that ORG had been totally crazy , and ORG had therefore called the police because he had thought that ORG was a danger , primarily to himself , and should get medical treatment . When ORG had entered the bank for the second time he had not calmed down and had been yelling at GPE for calling the police about him . This version of events was confirmed by GPE

At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard evidence from doctor PERSON He testified that on TIME at TIME he had been informed by the police that ORG had been behaving strangely and that he might do something bad . The police officer had not however known where ORG was at the time . Doctor PERSON explained that the usual practice in such cases was to examine the person and then decide whether admission to hospital was necessary . He also specified that the police officer who had called him had said that ORG could kill somebody or do something bad . This had prompted him to believe that his and the police ’s intervention had been necessary , and that ORG should be taken to the psychiatric hospital . Had the police managed to trace ORG , he would have examined him , because that had been the practice in similar cases and also in cases where somebody had threatened suicide .

At the same hearing the trial court questioned police chief ORG . , who explained that ORG was known to him because he had once been held at the station for violent behaviour . On DATE in question he had given orders to the on - duty commanding officer to send a police patrol to ORG ’s home address and had then left the police station to attend to some other business . He had returned to the police station at TIME and had been told of the shootings .

The next hearing was held on DATE , where the trial court heard evidence from ORG She stated that ORG had previously had a rifle , a handgun and a bomb which had been , at some point , confiscated from him by the police . He would also say that he was saving money to buy a handgun to kill her and CARDINAL other people , but she had never known exactly whom . ORG had had a problem with alcohol and when he would get drunk he would be violent . She had called the police on CARDINAL occasions , but sometimes they would come and sometimes they would not . ORG had contested the divorce and DATE before the incidents had threatened to kill her . She had reported that on DATE to the police , but they had done nothing about it . At the same hearing the trial court questioned bank employee GPE , who explained the course of the events in the bank ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

A further hearing was held on DATE , at which the police officers GPE , GPE and GPE gave evidence .

PERSON testified that on TIME of the incident , he and police officer GPE had been ordered to go to the bank because ORG had been there and had been behaving strangely . In the bank , they had met someone who had called the police , who explained that ORG had gone to the bank , had withdrawn all his money and while in tears had said “ it will be talked about ” . When GPE and GPE had reported on their findings to the on - duty commanding officer , they had been instructed to find ORG at his home address . They had found him there and interviewed him . ORG had not been drunk or aggressive . He had said that he was going to kill himself because of problems with his wife and son and that he would do it either that DATE or the next , and that nobody could stop him . He had appeared normal and calm . They had not searched him because there had been no grounds to take such action , nor had there been any reason to take him to hospital in accordance with ORG . PERSON also explained ORG was known to him and that before seeing him , he had been informed by the on - duty commanding officer that he had already threatened to kill his wife .

In his statement GPE confirmed GPE ’s version of events , explaining that the police could take an individual to hospital or a police station and have a doctor examine him , but they had not considered ORG to be a danger so had not taken any such action .

Police officer PERSON stated that when officers GPE and GPE had returned from the bank they had said that ORG had not been drunk or aggressive but merely agitated , and that he had threatened suicide . PERSON had then attempted to contact his superiors and had managed to get in touch with the deputy chief for the criminal police PERSON , who had instructed him to inform the hospital and ORG . He had attempted to contact the hospital several times and at some point had managed to reach doctor ORG , who had said that he would try to find a place for ORG in a psychiatric hospital . He had also asked where ORG was , but at the time PERSON had not known . PERSON further explained that he had been familiar with ORG , which enabled the police to take a mentally disturbed individual to a psychiatric hospital , but he had considered the police to have done everything they could , although with hindsight , it would have been possible to do more , but the police could not have predicted what would happen . He had known that ORG had a violent background but stressed that he had not been registered as insane .

At a hearing on DATE the deputy chief for the criminal police PERSON gave his oral evidence . He explained that he had been informed that PERSON had gone to the bank where he had been behaving strangely . Later , he had been informed that the police had interviewed him and that he had appeared calm and normal but had threatened suicide . At CARDINAL to TIME had instructed the on - duty commanding officer , PERSON , to inform the hospital and ORG . He considered the police to have done everything they could , but there had been no grounds to take any further measures given the findings of the police patrol that had interviewed ORG at his home . He also explained that the usual practice in similar cases was to inform the hospital , who could call the police if they needed assistance .

A further hearing was held on DATE at which police officers GPE and GPE and a customer from the bank , GPE , gave evidence .

PERSON stated that the day before the incidents ORG had arrived at the police station followed by her husband ORG officer GPE had interviewed them but had found no grounds for the police to take further action , so he had told them to resolve their marital problems in their court proceedings . ORG had also mentioned that after ORG had been handed a suspended sentence , he had stopped making threats and beating her up . PERSON had not reported on the interview because his superior officer M.Kr . had not requested it .

Police officer PERSON had no specific knowledge about the incident . He had been off - duty at the time although he had , TIME , just before leaving the police station , sent a police patrol to the bank to check what had happened there and why ORG had been behaving strangely .

The bank customer NORP testified that he had seen ORG in the bank on TIME in question , who had told him that he had been having some problems and that it would be talked about . He had been behaving strangely , as he had been walking around the bank in circles . He had looked nervous , and GPE had thought that he had been ill and in need of medical attention .

On DATE the trial court obtained a psychiatric report certifying that the first , second and third applicant and M.B.B. ’s mother had all experienced mental suffering after the events . The report was confirmed by the expert at a hearing held on DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed the civil action and ordered the ORG to pay damages for failing to protect the life of the applicants’ relative . The trial court held that the ORG ’s responsibility under LAW of LAW was objective , and that it was only necessary to establish whether the death had been a result of the unlawful or wrongful conduct of the ORG authorities . The relevant part of the judgment reads :

“ ... It is not disputed between the parties that ORG called the police a little after CARDINAL a.m. PERSON informed the police of what had happened in the bank and about PERSON ’s appearance . This court fully accepts the statements of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE as credible when they testified about ORG ’s state of mind [ in the bank ] . They stated that ORG had appeared totally unstable . The conclusion of the police officers GPE and GPE that ORG had been normal and calm and had not been a danger can not be accepted as logical . They reached such a conclusion after being informed by ORG that he had withdrawn the money for [ his ] funeral , and that he was going to kill himself and nobody could stop him . Taking this into account , [ this court considers that ] the average person could have reached the conclusion about ORG ’s state of mind referred to by witnesses [ F.]S. , GPE , GPE and GPE The police officers who needed to act with particular diligence should have also reached [ this ] conclusion about ORG ’s state of mind , which they failed to do . They thus failed to act in accordance with sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of ORG ... The defendant considers that there is no connection between the failures of the police and [ M.B.B. ’s death ] and that there is therefore no liability on GPE . This court considers differently . Had police officer PERSON complied with the order of the deputy chief for the criminal police PERSON , and informed the hospital and ORG at TIME , as noted in the report , it is highly probable that the outcome would have been avoided , particularly taking into account the statement of witness I.F ... As the liability of the ORG is objective ; it was for it to prove that the damage occurred as a result of a cause which could not have been avoided ( vis major ) , or that the damage resulted exclusively from the actions of the aggrieved party or CARDINAL party which could not have been predicted and where the outcome could not have been avoided ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . Nothing of [ the sort ] has been proven by the defendant . ... ”

The Slatina Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG , representing the ORG in the proceedings , lodged an appeal with ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered a retrial on the grounds that the first - instance court had erred in its findings that the liability of the ORG was objective as it was based on the existence of a fault , namely unlawfulness . That court further found that , irrespective of the fact that ORG had threatened suicide , there had been nothing requiring police officers GPE and GPE to treat the case as particularly urgent and to take ORG to a psychiatric hospital . It also accepted the police ORG statements that ORG had appeared calm during the interview . ORG instructed the first - instance court to question witnesses ORG and PERSON again to establish what actions doctor ORG had intended to take , since it was not clear whether he had intended to examine ORG or just to see whether he could be placed in a psychiatric hospital , as could be inferred from the statement of police officer PERSON

DATE . In the resumed proceedings , at a hearing held on DATE , ORG heard doctor ORG and police officer M.T.

Doctor PERSON testified that the usual practice in similar cases was to immediately respond at the scene and to examine the person if he or she was available . The medical response team consisted of a doctor , a driver and medical technician and a nurse . They first had to examine the person and then the doctor could decide whether hospitalisation in a psychiatric hospital was necessary . Police intervention was only sought if the person could not be apprehended for the examination . As regards the case at issue , doctor PERSON explained that he had been called by a police officer who had told him that ORG had been behaving strangely and that he could do something bad . The police officer had not known where ORG was . Had he known , he would have immediately responded at the scene and examined him . Doctor PERSON also explained that he had to first examine the person and only then he could make a prescription for that person ’s admission to hospital . There had been no reason for him to check whether there had been a place in the hospital because it was for the hospital to decide what they wanted to do with his prescription and the person in question . In the present case , the information he had received from the police suggested that it had been necessary to examine ORG at the scene .

Police officer PERSON stated that on DATE in question he had informed doctor ORG that the police had had a person who was seriously disturbed and who should be given an injection in order to calm down . As to his further conversations with the doctor , PERSON stated :

“ I can not remember any more what doctor [ PERSON told me when I contacted him .

I do n’t remember exactly , but I think he told me that he would see whether [ ORG ] could be placed in the psychiatric hospital and then would ask for police intervention if he needed it .

I would like to change my statement in the part where I said that doctor [ I.]F. was going to first find a place in [ the psychiatric hospital ] and that he would then consult the police chief .

Doctor PERSON actually told me that he would first examine [ A.]N. and that he would call the police if necessary .

In reply to the question from the defendant ’s representative , I can not explain why I changed my statement as regards what doctor [ I.]F. had told me . ”

On DATE ORG obtained a police report describing the course of events later on DATE of the shooting , and on DATE concluded the trial .

On DATE ORG dismissed the civil action as ill - founded , and ordered the applicants to pay HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL in costs and expenses . The relevant part of the judgment reads :

“ ... The liability of the defendant is based on the principle of fault ( section LANGUAGE of LAW ) . Unlawful conduct is conduct which is contrary to the law or an omission in the application of the law , which is committed deliberately or by accepting that it might cause damage to a third party . ... The purpose of section CARDINAL of LAW is to provide for the liability of the State where there is a wilful act contrary to the law with the intent of causing damage ... Acceptance [ of that outcome ] is conduct or an omission of a ORG official in the performance of his or her official duties where he or she was able to , according to his or her individual capability , take into account the objective requirements with due diligence , and which he or she failed to do . In the particular circumstances , there is no causal link between the damage and the omissions of police officer M.Kr . , in his capacity as on - duty commanding officer , to report DATE before [ the shootings ] about ORG ’s complaint that she had been followed by ORG This court finds nothing to suggest that the police officers who intervened at the bank , and who had had no knowledge of this , would have acted differently even if they had had such information . The plaintiffs also refer to the omissions of police officers GPE and GPE ... Under LAW of ORG the police may , in particularly urgent cases , take a mentally disturbed individual to a psychiatric hospital without prior medical examination , provided there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual poses an immediate threat to his life or health , or the life or health of others ... The events [ in the bank ] suggest that the police had an obligation to act under section CARDINAL of ORG and to secure ORG ’s medical examination , after which the doctor could decide whether to take to a psychiatric hospital . But in the particular circumstances police officers GPE and GPE could not have been expected to recognise that there was any particular urgency or that ORG should be taken to a psychiatric hospital without prior medical examination ... The omission of police officer [ M.T. ] to inform the hospital about ORG ’s behaviour is an irregularity in the performance of his official duties . However , the dispute between the parties is whether there is a causal link between this irregularity and the event ... Even if PERSON had informed the hospital at TIME , it is doubtful whether the doctor would have carried out an examination because at that time he had not known where ORG was . It follows that at the time ORG was no longer available to the police and according to the evidence [ submitted by ] ORG was in the bank sometime between TIME and TIME There is therefore no causal link between the incidents and the omissions of police officer M.T ... “

The first , second and third applicants and ORG lodged an appeal against the above judgment with ORG , arguing that the ORG authorities had failed to prevent the killing of their relative , and that in accordance with the relevant domestic law they should have been awarded damages .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . It held , however , that the first - instance court had erred in concluding that at TIME the police had not known ORG ’s whereabouts , because around that time the police had interviewed him at his home . In any event , the police could have informed the hospital immediately after TIME when they had received the call from the bank . Nevertheless , the court held that the police had done everything they could and that it could not be concluded that only intervention by the doctor in TIME after the information had been received from the bank would have prevented the incidents . The court also found that , irrespective of ORG ’s violent background and the indications that he was mentally disturbed , he had not acted violently on DATE of the incidents or DATE . It was true that police officers GPE and GPE had omitted to examine ORG under LAW of LAW , but he had not been behaving violently , so that omission could not be characterised as an irregularity in their work . Moreover , it was not certain whether ORG had a gun at the time and therefore it was in doubt whether such a police search could have prevented the incidents .

On DATE the first , second and third applicants and ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against the above judgment before ORG ( PERSON ) .

DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law as ill - founded and upheld ORG judgment . It found that the lower courts had misinterpreted the relevant domestic law by holding that the liability of the ORG was based on the principle of fault because it was in fact based on the objective principle . It was thus sufficient to establish that there was unlawful or irregular conduct on the part of the ORG administration and the causal link to the damage thereby caused . In the case at issue , ORG held that there had been no causal link between the irregular work of the police officers and the killing of the applicants’ relative .

On DATE the applicants ( including the fourth and fifth applicants , who had taken over the proceedings from ORG following her death on DATE ) lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) challenging the decisions of the lower courts .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . The decision of ORG was served on the ORG representative on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE in LOC . Before his arrest he lived in GPE .

The applicant was arrested on DATE . He remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial .

On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE found him guilty of aggravated fraud and money laundering committed within an organised criminal group and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . That judgment was upheld on appeal by GPE on DATE .

On DATE , in another set of criminal proceedings , ORG , found the applicant guilty of CARDINAL counts of aggravated extortion committed within an organised criminal group and imposed a cumulative prison sentence of DATE . The judgment became final on DATE when endorsed by ORG .

In DATE the applicant lost his right arm . He suffered heart attacks in DATE and DATE and a kidney affected by cancer was removed in DATE . At the time of his arrest the applicant ’s diagnoses listed : ischemic disease , exertional angina of the second functional group , atherosclerotic and post infarction cardiosclerosis , third - stage hypertension with a high risk of vascular complications ; cardiac failure of the second functional group ; chronic post - traumatic pericarditis with effusion ; remote cancer metastases requiring permanent supervision ; kidney stones ; concretion of the right kidney ; chronic pyelonephritis ; chronic kidney failure of the first degree ; adenocarcinoma of the prostate gland ; chronic prostatitis ; chronic cystitis , and constantly recurrent multidrug - resistant infection of the urinary tract . To keep his medical condition under control , the applicant followed a DATE complex drug regimen comprising up to CARDINAL medicaments and underwent an in - depth medical examination DATE in a hospital where he received necessary treatment in respect of his oncological illnesses .

On DATE upon his admission to remand prison no . IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE the applicant informed the prison medical authorities of his condition , submitting the full list of his diagnoses .

NORP In DATE he started complaining about a number of symptoms such as a heart pain , fatigue , difficulty in breathing , and frequent urination . He received basic treatment which alleviated a part of his health problems , but the urinary condition worsened . In DATE he complained of a pain in the low abdomen and inability to urinate . On DATE a surgeon recommended urinary catheterisation , that is to say the insertion of a tube into the patient ’s bladder via the urethra . That procedure was performed CARDINAL times during DATE of detention . In the meantime the urinary condition became more acute .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a urologist for the first time whilst in detention . The doctor recommended treatment with antibiotics , regular urological supervision and to avoid catheterisation in so far as possible .

NORP Throughout DATE the applicant ’s urinary condition persisted . He urinated up to CARDINAL times per day and his nocturnal sleep was interrupted TIME or two . He had to continue resorting to urinary cauterisation . On several occasions he had a consultation with a urologist .

On DATE , at the request of the applicant ’s lawyer , CARDINAL medical experts prepared a report assessing the capability of the custodial authorities to properly treat the applicant . Having examined the medical file on the applicant compiled in the civilian hospital , submissions by the custodial authorities and the applicant ’s own comments , the experts concluded that he required systematic treatment with amendments to the chemotherapy regimen and periodic admissions to a specialised cardiology hospital for instrumental examinations and necessary amendments to drug regimen . Given the absence of proper medical supervision , the experts also warned of a possible deterioration of the applicant ’s urinary and oncological problems and a risk of those illnesses advancing to a stage requiring surgery , or to a stage with no prospects of the applicant being cured or even his life being saved . The experts observed that the medical unit of the detention facility where the applicant was kept was not equipped for treating patients in such a medical condition .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined in ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , having been diagnosed with neurogenic bladder dysfunction . The treatment provided slightly improved his condition .

On DATE the doctors from ORG performed a surgery on the applicant . A suprapubic catheter was inserted into his bladder through a cut in the abdomen . The applicant was discharged from the hospital to a remand prison under the supervision of the resident doctor .

DATE the applicant complained of continuous bleeding from the abdominal incision . DATE , having lost QUANTITY of blood , he was sent back to the Institute , where his condition was brought under control .

In DATE , in the remand prison , the applicant developed an acute inflammation of the urethra , which was successfully treated in the ORG .

DATE the applicant ’s urinary condition remained stable . He continued using the suprapubic catheter to remove the urine .

In the meantime , in DATE the applicant brought a court claim against the detention authorities , seeking that the lack of appropriate medical treatment be declared unlawful .

On DATE the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of GPE dismissed his claim . The court found as follows :

“ From the [ applicant ’s ] medical file submitted by the [ remand prison ] it is apparent that ... [ the authorities ] provided him with medical aid , subjected him to medical testing , and prescribed treatment . In particular , on DATE , DATE and DATE he was seen by a urologist ... On DATE he was examined in the [ ORG ] . It is not apparent from the medical file that the authorities refused to provide [ the applicant ] with the medical assistance or that he was deprived of the requisite medication ” .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband was injured in a car accident and he received insurance benefits from an insurance company . However , on DATE the insurance company refused his applications for compensation for rehabilitation . On DATE and DATE the husband appealed against these decisions to ORG ( vakuutusoikeus , försäkringsdomstolen ) . The husband died on DATE but the applicant and the estate decided to continue the appeals .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeals . No appeal lies against these decisions . The judgment of ORG was sent to the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( eduskunnan oikeusasiamies , riksdagens justitieombudsman ) complaining , inter alia , about the excessive length of the proceedings in ORG .

On DATE the ORG gave a reply , after having requested a statement from ORG which included reports from the referendary and the judges responsible for examining the applicant ’s case . The ORG considered that the proceedings in the applicant ’s case had taken , in total , a long time . However , the ORG accepted the reasons given by ORG , namely that the case had been exceptionally extensive , complex and time - consuming . ORG examined the case as a first instance , which required more preparation than when it examined appeals as a second instance . Also the case file had been incomplete and several requests for information had been made . The applicant , on her part , had sent a considerable number of documents during the course of the proceedings , which had also contributed to the length . The ORG considered that there had been no particular inactivity in ORG . Hence it considered that , despite the lengthy proceedings , there had not been unjustified delays in the course of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant initiated extraordinary proceedings before ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , requesting that the decisions of ORG be quashed because the referendary in ORG had been biased .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application for being outside its competence . As the proceedings before ORG were administrative , it was ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) that was competent to examine an extraordinary appeal concerning an alleged procedural flaw .

On DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG , claiming that the proceedings before ORG had been flawed due to the partiality of the referendary and the wrong application of law .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint concerning the wrong application of law without examining the merits and rejected the partiality complaint after having examined it . ORG considered that the applicant had reasoned her complaint about the referendary ’s partiality only with the fact that she had complained about the referendary to ORG . The court was of the opinion that the mere fact that the applicant had complained about the referendary to the ORG did not put the impartiality of the referendary into question .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

On DATE the applicant married PERSON

On DATE GPE gave birth to their son PERSON

NORP In DATE GPE , together with their son , moved out of the flat in which she had lived with the applicant and went to live with her parents . After that she started avoiding contact with the applicant . Prior to the institution of the divorce and custody proceedings in DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) the applicant saw his son only twice , in DATE and in DATE during GPE holidays . The applicant and GPE officially divorced by a court judgment to that effect on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE GPE brought a civil action against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking divorce , custody of , and the maintenance for their son .

On DATE the court asked ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb GPE , hereafter “ the local social welfare centre ” ) to prepare a report on the family situation in the PERSON family and submit its recommendation as to whom of the parents custody of their son should be awarded .

The Government submitted that the applicant had ignored the local social welfare centre ’s calls to attend interviews necessary for the preparation of the report by not collecting the centre ’s letters to that effect from the post office . The applicant denied that allegation , noted that the Government had not substantiated it by relevant documents and invited them to do so . He further submitted that while it was true that in the period DATE he had worked in GPE ( GPE ) on DATE , he had been staying in GPE DATE . If there had been any problem with the service of the local social welfare centre ’s correspondence to him , the centre should have contacted the advocate who had represented him in the civil proceedings in question .

On DATE the applicant ’s and PERSON legal representatives agreed to temporarily suspend the proceedings ( mirovanje postupka ) for DATE with a view to reaching an amicable solution , which however did not materialise .

Thus , in the further course of the proceedings , on DATE , the court decided to obtain information on the parties’ income , and scheduled the next hearing for DATE with a view to hearing the parties .

NORP However , the hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the applicant did not attend it .

At the hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the court again decided to hear the parties and invited GPE to provide information on her income , something the applicant had already done .

At that hearing and in his written submission of DATE the applicant asked the court to issue a provisional measure whereby it would provisionally regulate his contacts with his son . According to the information submitted by the parties , the court did not decide on the applicant ’s motion , apparently because under the legislation in force at the material time interim contact orders were in the exclusive jurisdiction of the social welfare centres as administrative authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the parties and decided to obtain an opinion from an expert in psychiatry with a view to deciding on custody and access rights . However , since the applicant and GPE did not advance the costs of the expert opinion until DATE , the case - file was not sent to the appointed expert institution before DATE .

In the course of the preparation of the expert opinion , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant met with his son , for the first time since GPE of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the applicant and GPE signed an agreement regarding the contact schedule they would propose to the court . In particular , it was agreed to propose to the court that the contacts between the applicant and his son take place in the presence of both parents for TIME on the premises specified by the local social welfare centre and in the presence of a child - welfare professional designated by the centre . In DATE , the contacts were to take place DATE , and thereafter DATE . After DATE the local social welfare centre were to assess the situation and propose further arrangements .

By DATE the designated expert institution had finalised the expert opinion , which was received by the court DATE . The experts’ recommendation was in line with the parties’ agreement of DATE , which they endorsed . The experts particularly emphasised the need for the contacts between the applicant and his son to take place in the presence of GPE and a child - welfare professional designated by the local social welfare centre .

NORP Since both parties objected to the expert opinion , the court held CARDINAL more hearings , on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE during which the court heard the psychiatrist who had prepared it . The court also obtained fresh information on the parties’ income with a view to deciding on the maintenance for their son .

On DATE ORG pronounced judgment whereby it : ( a ) dissolved the marriage between the applicant and GPE , ( b ) awarded custody of their son to GPE , ( c ) granted the applicant access ( contact ) rights , and ( d ) ordered the applicant to regularly pay a certain amount of money as maintenance for his son . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :

“ Contacts between ORG and his father PERSON shall take place DATE on DATE for TIME for DATE , and after that once a week on DATE in the child ’s home in the presence of the mother and a psychologist or social worker . After DATE the local social welfare centre may propose changes in the frequency [ of contacts ] .

Since both parties repeatedly , by their non - attendance and their failure to advance the costs of the expert opinion , caused hearings to be postponed and thereby protracted the proceedings for DATE ... each party should bear their own [ litigation ] costs . ”

Following an appeal by both parties , on DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) quashed the first - instance judgment in so far as it concerned access rights and maintenance and remitted the case . It upheld the contested judgment in so far as it concerned divorce and custody , which part thereby became final .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG held hearings on DATE , and on DATE , DATE and DATE .

NORP In addition , on DATE the court invited the local social welfare centre to prepare a report and submit its recommendation on the applicant ’s contact with his son . In the course of their preparation the expert team of the centre , consisting of a social worker and a psychologist , conducted several joint and separate interviews with the parties . The centre ’s experts also contacted the applicant ’s son ’s school and obtained an opinion on his school performance .

On DATE the local social welfare centre submitted its report and recommendation to the court . Its expert team recommended that the contacts between the applicant and his son take place every second DATE for TIME for DATE , and after that every Saturday , in the presence of the mother and a child - welfare professional . However , the centre ’s experts suggested that the contacts should not take place in the child ’s home as it was not a neutral ground and could give rise to conflicts between the applicant on the CARDINAL side and GPE and her parents on the other . Their report indicated that the applicant ’s son was very emotionally attached to his mother , that he did not know his father but wanted to meet him . The expert ’s opinion also suggested that the centre impose a child - protection measure of supervision of exercise of parental authority focusing on contacts between the applicant and his son , with a view to facilitating those contacts and assisting the parents in improving communication between them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the parties .

On DATE the court rendered a partial judgment whereby it decided on the maintenance for the applicant ’s son . At the same time it decided to stay the proceedings in so far they concerned the applicant ’s access rights pending the outcome of the concurrent civil proceedings his former wife had instituted against him with a view to depriving him of parental responsibility ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the partial judgment on maintenance and upheld it . At the same time it quashed the first - instance decision to stay the proceedings and remitted the case . It held that the applicant had the right to maintain contact with his son as long as he was not deprived of parental responsibility .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG adopted a judgment whereby it again granted the applicant access rights and issued a detailed contact schedule . In particular , the court decided that in DATE the contacts between the applicant and his son were to take place TIME for TIME on the premises of the local social welfare centre and in the presence of the mother and either a psychologist or social worker designated by the centre . In DATE the contacts were to be arranged in the same manner but every DATE , and , after DATE , in the same way but in the absence of the mother . After DATE the applicant were to exercise his access rights for TIME every Tuesday and DATE in DATE when the applicant ’s son had school in the morning , DATE , DATE of DATE and DATE , as well as every second official or church holiday .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by GPE and upheld the first - instance judgment . The first - instance judgment of DATE became final when the second - instance judgment of DATE was served on both parties on DATE .

As GPE refused to comply with the above judgment of DATE and obstructed the exercise of the applicant ’s access rights , on CARDINAL DATE he applied for enforcement of that judgment before ORG .

On DATE that court issued a writ of execution ( rješenje o ovrsi ) whereby it ordered GPE , at the risk of fine of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) , to allow the applicant to exercise his access rights .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by GPE and upheld the writ .

On DATE the local social welfare centre informed the court that GPE was not complying with judgment of DATE as she had not been bringing the applicant ’s son to the scheduled meetings on the centre ’s premises where the contacts between him and the applicant were to be arranged . The centre thus asked to court to enforce the judgment through a judicial enforcement officer .

On DATE ORG issued a decision whereby it fined ORG for non - compliance with the judgment of DATE , and again ordered her , at the risk of further fine of HRK CARDINAL , to do so within DATE . GPE appealed but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal .

In the meantime , on DATE , GPE asked for postponement of enforcement but ORG dismissed her motion .

Since GPE had paid the fine but nevertheless did not comply with the judgment , on DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s motion of DATE and issued a new writ of execution whereby it ordered a judicial enforcement officer , with the assistance of a pedagogue or a social worker employed with local social welfare centre , and a police officer , to take the applicant ’s son from GPE , or any other person each time the applicant was entitled pursuant to the contact schedule to exercise his access rights , and to return him to her afterwards . Even though the court ordered that the costs of that intervention by the enforcement officer were to be borne by GPE , it invited the applicant to advance those costs within DATE of the service of the writ .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the applicant had not advanced the costs . The applicant then first on DATE appealed against that decision but , on CARDINAL DATE withdrew that appeal and , eventually , on DATE withdrew his application for enforcement of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Accordingly , on DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant again applied for enforcement of the above judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) before ORG .

On DATE that court issued a writ of execution identical to the CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE GPE appealed against the writ and on DATE sought that the enforcement be postponed .

On DATE ORG dismissed GPE ’s motion for postponement of the enforcement . On DATE PERSON appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG forwarded ORG appeals of DATE and DATE to ORG for a decision .

By a letter of DATE ORG returned the case file to ORG asking it to correct certain errors in the first - instance proceedings .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku ) with ORG ( PERSON ) , complaining about the length of the second set of the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and : ( a ) awarded him HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation , ( b ) ordered ORG to correct the errors indicated in ORG letter of DATE within DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and ( c ) ordered ORG to decide on GPE ’s appeals of DATE and DATE within DATE upon receiving the case file again from ORG .

By decisions of DATE ORG dismissed GPE ’s appeals of DATE and DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant ’s son turned DATE and became an adult . Accordingly , the above enforcement proceedings became obsolete . Consequently , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings .

Parallel to the above civil proceedings concerning inter alia custody and access , the local social welfare centre acted in various ways in order to solve the family conflicts .

On DATE the local social welfare centre issued a decision whereby it provisionally granted the applicant access rights until the judgment in the above civil proceedings became final , and issued a contact schedule . In particular , the centre decided that the contacts between the applicant and his son were to take place every second DATE for TIME on its premises in the presence of a child - welfare professional for DATE . The decision specified that an appeal against it did not suspend its enforcement . On DATE PERSON appealed against that decision .

On DATE the centre informed GPE of the need to cooperate with it and enable the contacts between the applicant and his son . It warned her that the failure to do so may be considered as dereliction of her duties as a parent calling for more stringent child - protection measures .

On DATE the applicant applied to the centre for enforcement of its decision of DATE .

However , acting on the appeal by GPE of DATE , on DATE the relevant ORG , as the second - instance administrative authority , quashed the centre ’s decision of DATE and remitted the case . Accordingly , on DATE the centre discontinued the administrative enforcement proceedings instituted by the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to the centre to issue a new decision on his access rights .

On DATE the local social welfare centre issued a new decision whereby it again provisionally granted the applicant access rights until the judgment in the above civil proceedings became final , and issued a new contact schedule . The decision specified that an appeal against it did not suspend its enforcement . On DATE PERSON appealed .

On DATE the relevant Ministry dismissed that appeal and upheld the centre ’s decision . GPE then brought an action in ORG against the ORG ’s decision , which that court dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant applied for enforcement of the local social welfare centre ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , it would appear that before DATE , that is , the date on which the judgment of ORG of DATE in the above civil proceedings became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and thus superseded the decision the applicant sought to enforce , the local social welfare centre did not issue an enforcement order or undertake other steps to enforce its decision .

Concurrently with the administrative proceedings described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) , the local social welfare centre conducted other administrative proceedings . In particular , by a decision of DATE the local social welfare centre imposed a child - protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for a period of DATE , appointed a supervising officer and drafted a supervision programme .

On DATE the supervision officer informed the centre that GPE ignored her calls to arrange the first meeting between the applicant and his son in the execution of the centre ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) granting him provisional access rights . On DATE the centre adopted the opinion that the supervision measure should be discontinued as ineffective and that criminal - law measures should be set in motion instead ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

On DATE the supervising officer submitted her report to the centre stating that no contacts between the applicant and his son had taken place since the adoption of the centre ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At the same time she proposed that the contacts between the applicant and his son be arranged on school premises in the presence of a pedagogue .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the centre discontinued the application of the child - protection measure of supervision of the exercise of the parental authority imposed by its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It stated that the measure was ineffective given GPE ’s lack of cooperation and that other , more stringent , child - protection measures were warranted . On DATE Z.J. appealed against that decision .

On DATE the relevant Ministry quashed the centre ’s decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) and remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , after having heard the applicant and GPE on DATE , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the centre again imposed the child - protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority for DATE , appointed a supervising officer and prepared a programme of supervision . GPE appealed .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the supervising officer informed the centre that contacts between the applicant and his son had not taken place due to GPE ’s lack of cooperation .

On DATE the relevant Ministry dismissed an appeal by GPE and upheld the centre ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The child - protection measure imposed by the centre in its decision of CARDINAL DATE expired on CARDINAL DATE . DATE reports submitted by the supervising officer suggest that in that DATE period the applicant had not met his son .

DATE . On DATE the local social welfare centre invited the GPE State Attorney ’s Office to bring criminal charges against GPE for her failure to cooperate with the centre and the supervising officer , obstruction of measures issued by the centre and dereliction of her duties as a parent regarding her son ’s contacts with his father .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s Office informed the social welfare centre that , for the time being , there were no grounds to prosecute GPE for the criminal offence of obstruction of the child - protection measures defined in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) because the decisions whose execution GPE allegedly obstructed had not become final .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint against GPE with the same State Attorney ’s Office accusing her of the same criminal offence .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG dismissed his criminal complaint . In so doing , it advanced the same reasons as those stated in its letter to the social welfare centre of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the local social welfare centre informed the State Attorney ’s Office that decisions whose execution GPE had been obstructing had become final and invited the State Attorney ’s Office to criminally prosecute her .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s Office indicted GPE before ORG for having been obstructing the court - ordered contacts between the applicant and his son . In particular , she was charged with the criminal offence of obstruction of child - protection measures laid down in CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By a judgment of DATE ORG found GPE guilty as charged and convicted her but the judgment was subsequently quashed by ORG following her appeal and the case was remitted .

In the resumed proceedings , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG again found GPE guilty as charged and sentenced her to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment but imposed a suspended sentence with supervision ( uvjetna osuda sa zaštitnim nadzorom ) for DATE provided that in that ( probation ) period she did not commit a further offence . In its judgment the court noted , inter alia , the following :

“ This court is deeply aware that all decisions and judgments including this one can no longer remedy the harm and evil caused by the conduct of the accused , primarily to her child , who grew up without a father ... However , it can at least emphasise that such behaviour is unacceptable and punishable ... When determining the penalty the court took into account , as aggravating circumstances , the fact that for DATE the accused deliberately , perfidiously and deceitfully obstructed enforcement of any court decision or decision of the social welfare centre and in so doing behaved arrogantly and acted as if she was untouchable and in that way hindered a healthy and undisturbed development of her son . The court did not find any special mitigating circumstances . ”

DATE . By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by GPE and upheld the first - instance judgment .

In DATE GPE instituted non - contentious proceedings against the applicant before ORG with a view to depriving him of parental responsibility for his son .

By a judgment of DATE the court dismissed GPE ’s petition . It held that her claims that the applicant had abandoned his son , grossly neglected his duties as a parent and failed to pay ( regularly ) for his maintenance were unfounded . In so doing it relied on the report of the local social welfare centre suggesting that it was GPE who had obstructed the applicant ’s contacts with his son .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

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

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

On DATE the applicant , a ORG employee , signed a lease with ORG , an organisation attached to ORG , for CARDINAL of the accommodation units located in a building owned by the said ORG .

On DATE Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the sale of dwellings and spaces for other purposes built by the ORG and ORG - owned companies entered into force .

On an unspecified date ORG and ORG split into CARDINAL distinct organisations . While the applicant remained a post office employee , the ORG remained the owner of the building in which the applicant was a tenant .

By a decision of DATE the board of ORG decided that for the purposes of PERSON no . CARDINAL the apartments located in the building the applicant was living in constituted standby personnel accommodation ( locuințe de intervenție ) , that they were intended exclusively for employees of the ORG , and that they could not be sold .

On an unspecified date , the tenants’ association of the building in which the applicant lived asked ORG board to allow its members to purchase the apartments they were leasing . The request addressed to the ORG ’s board was personally signed by the applicant and CARDINAL other tenants and bore the seal of the association .

On DATE ORG notified the applicant that his lease would be terminated and asked him to vacate the apartment he was leasing because DATE amongst other things – he was not an employee of the ORG and the apartment in question was classified as standby personnel accommodation .

On DATE the applicant dismissed ORG request of DATE on the grounds that the lease was still valid .

On DATE the ORG brought proceedings against the applicant seeking the termination of his lease and his eviction . It argued , inter alia , that the applicant was not an employee of the organisation which owned the building , and the apartment in question was classified as standby personnel accommodation .

On DATE , the applicant lodged a counterclaim against ORG before the domestic courts seeking DATE on the basis of PERSON no . DATE an injunction ordering the company to sell to him the apartment he was leasing . He argued that the apartment in question could not be classified as standby personnel accommodation and that , although over DATE he had repeatedly asked the ORG to sell him the apartment , he had received contradictory and evasive verbal answers .

By a judgment of DATE the Timişoara ORG dismissed ORG action and allowed the applicant ’s counterclaim and ordered the ORG to sell him the apartment he was leasing . It held that the applicant held a valid lease which he had signed before the ORG ’s board decided to change the main purpose of the building in which the apartment was located .

On DATE a bailiff notified ORG on the applicant ’s behalf that , according to the judgment of DATE , it had a duty to sell the apartment to the applicant . In addition , it asked the ORG to inform the applicant in DATE within DATE of the date on which it received the notification DATE and place where the contract of sale would be signed .

NORP ORG appealed against the aforementioned judgment . It argued that although the applicant contended that he had repeatedly asked to purchase the apartment , he had failed to submit any written documents to support his claim .

By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted ORG application and asked the applicant to submit evidence that he had asked the ORG to sell him the apartment .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed ORG appeal on the basis of the available evidence . It held that the applicant fulfilled the conditions laid down in PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL for purchasing the apartment . Moreover , the applicant ’s right to purchase the apartment could not be considered time - barred because PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL did not lay down a timelimit for the applicant to exercise his right to purchase the apartment . Furthermore , the lease could not be considered terminated as long as the applicant had exercised his right of purchase .

ORG appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment . It argued that the applicant had not submitted any evidence in support of his claim that he had asked to purchase the apartment prior to the notification sent to him by the ORG that his lease had been terminated .

On DATE a bailiff notified ORG for the second time on the applicant ’s behalf that according to the judgment of DATE , it had a duty to sell the apartment to the applicant .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed in part ORG appeal on points of law in so far as it concerned the applicant ’s counterclaim . It held that the building containing the apartment leased by the applicant had been constructed during the communist regime using ORG funds . According to the expert report available on file , the apartment leased by the applicant was not standby personnel accommodation because some of the tenants leasing apartments in the building were not employees of the ORG . The applicant remained an employee of ORG and the leased apartment was owned by the ORG . At the time , the ORG did not wish to sell the apartment leased by the applicant and wanted to keep it in its possession . The court took the view that it could not usurp the will of the owner by its judgment and order the sale of the apartment in circumstances other than those desired by the owner . If the applicant asked the board of the ORG to sell him the apartment and his request was approved , a consensus between the wishes of the parties could be achieved and the contract desired by the parties concluded . However , in the present case the lower courts had misapplied the provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In so far as the ORG ’s application seeking the termination of the applicant ’s lease and his eviction was concerned , the court considered that it had been correctly rejected by the lower courts , that the validity of the applicant ’s lease had been extended , and that he occupied the apartment on the basis of valid title .

NORP The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal seeking a review of the judgment ( revizuire ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s extraordinary appeal as being time - barred .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provides that apartments other than standby personnel accommodation built by ORG - owned companies before the date on which the law entered into force are to be sold to the lease - holders at their request . The provisions of subsection CARDINAL apply also to tenants who are not employees of the companies that own the properties .

Section CARDINAL ( e ) provides that standby personnel accommodation denotes apartments designated as housing for employees of the companies who under the terms of their employment contracts perform activities and functions which require their constant or urgent presence on company LOC .

The parties submitted CARDINAL court judgments delivered DATE and DATE concerning the interpretation of the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . These court judgments had been delivered by various domestic courts ranging from ORG to ORG , and were final . They included a judgment on an extraordinary appeal in the interests of the law ( recurs ȋn interesul legii ) delivered by ORG on DATE with a view to harmonising the domestic courts’ practice in interpreting the aforementioned legal provisions with regard to leases concluded after the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . According to those judgments , Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL impose a legal obligation on the companies owning the apartments to sell them . The creation of the legal relationship ( raport juridic ) is left to the discretion of the lease - holder who has the right to purchase the apartment . A legal obligation to sell exists only when CARDINAL cumulative conditions are met : the apartment was built by ORG - owned companies before DATE the law entered into force ; the person asking to purchase it was the holder of the lease , regardless of whether or not he was an employee of the company which owned the apartment ; and the apartment was not classified as standby personnel accommodation within the meaning of the law .

According to the judgment on extraordinary appeal in the interests of the law , delivered by ORG on DATE with a view to harmonising the domestic courts’ practice in interpreting the provisions of Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning the sale of apartments by privately owned companies which had become owners of the apartments as a result of the privatisation process , the legal obligation to sell also applies in respect of the aforementioned privately owned companies .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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 .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);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 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and has lived in GPE since DATE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on the basis of an arrest warrant that had been issued on DATE by a criminal court in the NORP city of PERSON . The applicant was charged with participation in banned religious organisations , including ORG , dissemination of ideas of religious extremism , and organisation of illegal departure of persons to foreign countries , including for training in terrorist camps in GPE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE approved the applicant ’s detention pending extradition . Following the receipt of extradition request , the applicant ’s detention was extended until DATE .

On DATE ORG granted the request of his NORP counterpart for the applicant ’s extradition . The extradition decision read in particular as follows :

“ Mr PERSON is accused of ... having committed the following crimes in the period from DATE in the territory of GPE :

- undermining the constitutional foundations of GPE by means of public calls to extremist activities ... calls for forcible removal of the ORG leaders of GPE ... incitement to undergoing training in the special sabotage and terrorism training facilities of the international terrorist organisation ORG ...

- used the money from his accomplices to purchase videos of the international terrorist organisation ORG ... propagating the ideas of religious extremism , separatism and fundamentalism , calls to pogroms and extermination of unfaithful , and distributed those videos among NORP nationals ...

The fact that Mr PERSON committed crimes ... in the territory of GPE is not an obstacle to his being extradited , since the NORP competent authorities did not institute any criminal proceedings in connection with these crimes ... ”

On DATE the maximum DATE period of the applicant ’s detention pending extradition expired . From the remand prison he was taken to the LOC district police station where an assistant prosecutor communicated the release order to him . On his way out of the police station , the applicant was arrested for an infringement of migration rules .

On DATE counsel for the applicant submitted an appeal against the extradition decision to ORG , complaining that the Prosecutor General gave no assessment to the risk of torture .

NORP By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected their challenge to the extradition decision , finding that there was no evidence that the applicant would be subject to unlawful prosecution or torture in GPE , and noting the assurances provided by ORG to ORG . It refused to examine the reports by international human rights NGOs and ORG bodies about the situation in GPE which the defence prayed in aid , finding that those documents had no direct bearing on the issues considered .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined and rejected the final appeal against the extradition order . It refused likewise to take into consideration translations of the ORG ’s judgments in similar cases or the documents from NGOs and ORG bodies .

Following the applicant ’s release from custody , by judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of GPE found him guilty of having been unlawfully resident in GPE from DATE and until his arrest on DATE . ORG sentenced the applicant to a fine and administrative expulsion from GPE . Pending expulsion , he was to be detained in GPE ORG no . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . It refused to take into account the arguments by the defence about the risk of ill - treatment that the applicant would face in GPE , stating that such arguments were “ based on conjectures ” and were not supported with the materials in the case file . In ORG view , the information on GPE concerned the general situation in the country and was not indicative of a violation of the rights of the specific individuals . As regards the alleged violation of LAW , ORG simply stated that there was no violation and that the ORG ’s findings in the PERSON v. GPE case were irrelevant .

On DATE the applicant applied for asylum ; the NORP ORG rejected his application on DATE . On DATE he asked for a judicial review of the refusal .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , finding that the applicant had not produced sufficient evidence of the risk of persecution . It held that the “ reason why [ the applicant ] does not wish to return to GPE is his fear of the real danger of criminal prosecution ” . The court found no political motives in the charges levelled against the applicant and observed that the acts he was charged with were also criminal under NORP criminal law . ORG observed that the applicant had applied for asylum only after his arrest in GPE rather than immediately after he had arrived to GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG . ORG considered and rejected his appeal on DATE . On the alleged risk of ill - treatment , it held as follows :

“ ... The claimant ’s assertion that ‘ his cousins are serving sentences in GPE for their religion’ ... can not be taken into consideration because he has not produced any evidence to substantiate his claim . Making a global assessment of the submissions , the first - instance court correctly considered that there were no grounds to assume that the claimant would face a real risk of inhuman treatment . Applying the standards for the assessment of the allegation of ill - treatment in case of his return to GPE ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALI ) , the court considers that the ill - treatment which the claimant may allegedly face in GPE would not reach the minimum threshold of severity attracting the protection of LAW . ”