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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE X , a plain - clothes police officer from the GPE police organised crime unit , approached the applicant in a nightclub . According to a report drafted on DATE , the meeting had been planned in order to verify information received by the police that the applicant might have been dealing drugs . The report mentioned that X had discussed with the applicant , who claimed that he could get drugs and promised to call with more details . In a second report drafted on DATE it was stated that the applicant had called PERSON to ask whether he was interested in buying CARDINAL ecstasy tablets at a cost of CARDINAL ( ORG ) each .

On DATE a prosecutor from the GPE department for the investigation of organised crime ( “ the organised crime department ” ) opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of drug trafficking . A request to intercept his telephone conversations and make ambient voice recordings was authorised by a judge of ORG .

On DATE the prosecutor from the organised crime department authorised the use of X as undercover police agent in order to determine the facts of the case , identify the offenders and obtain evidence . The prosecutor justified the issuing of the authorisation on the basis that there was reason to believe that the applicant was about to commit a drug trafficking offence .

In a report dated CARDINAL DATE the chief of the GPE police organised crime unit stated that PERSON had called the applicant several times in DATE and DATE in order to enquire when the transaction might take place . The report also mentioned that the applicant had replied on several occasions that he was not in possession of the drugs , which were to be brought into the country by friends of his who had not yet returned from abroad .

In TIME of DATE the applicant called NORP and set up a meeting for TIME . He and a friend , PERSON , picked up X by car . X was accompanied by Y , a colleague in plain clothes . The CARDINAL of them drove to a petrol station where a meeting had been arranged with ORG to buy drugs . The applicant and Y went inside the petrol station while X remained outside and talked to ORG As the deal got underway in the car park of the petrol station , the case prosecutor and QUANTITY police officers suddenly intervened and arrested the applicant , ORG and PERSON In the car driven by ORG the police found CARDINAL ecstasy tablets . The offence report drafted on the spot by the police was signed by everyone , including the applicant , without any objection . The police operation was recorded on video .

On DATE the applicant was indicted with ORG and PERSON for trafficking “ high risk ” drugs .

On DATE the applicant and ORG testified before ORG . The applicant averred that he had acted as an intermediary for the meeting and subsequent deal between ORG and X because the latter had asked him whether he could get drugs for him . Moreover , X had set the price for the drugs . ORG stated that the drugs found on him had been for his own personal use and that he had had no intention of selling them .

The applicant ’s lawyer argued before the court that the applicant had in fact been incited by X to act as an intermediary in the drug deal and requested that X be called to give evidence , along with CARDINAL witnesses in the applicant ’s defence . The court allowed the request .

On DATE the court heard evidence from X , PERSON and one of the witnesses proposed by the applicant who appeared in court . X stated that the applicant had called him in order to arrange the drug deal without any incitement on his part . The applicant ’s lawyer had the opportunity to cross - examine X. He asked whether the reports of DATE and DATE had been signed by him and whether the criminal investigation had already been open when he had been authorised to investigate undercover . The CARDINAL questions were disallowed by the court because they were considered an attempt to disclose X ’s identity .

The Buzău County Court gave judgment on DATE . It convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The conviction was based on the reports of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and the offence report of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , as well as on transcripts of the applicant ’s telephone conversations with X , ambient recordings of discussions between X and ORG and the in - court testimonies given by the applicant , the codefendants and X. The court considered that the applicant ’s allegations that he had been incited by X were clearly disproved by the abovementioned evidence taken as a whole .

The applicant appealed against the judgment . He alleged that X had exceeded his authority and that Y should have also been called to testify in court . He also claimed that X had incited him to commit the offence under coercion and that the first - instance court had failed to respond appropriately to his arguments on that issue .

On DATE the Ploieşti Court of Appeal rejected the appeal . In reply to the applicant ’s arguments , the court held that the authorisation and actions of the undercover police officer had been in accordance with the law . The statement of Y was irrelevant to the case since he had not directly witnessed the deal . The court considered that the applicant had not been incited by X since it was apparent from the evidence in the file that he had called the officer on several occasions and had planned the meeting of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) , reiterating his previous arguments .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG and Justice dismissed the appeal on points of law . Basing its findings on the reports of DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court considered that there had been serious reason to suspect that the applicant would commit a criminal offence at the time of authorisation of the covert operation . It further noted that it was apparent from the documents in the file that X had acted lawfully . In addition , the information collected by PERSON and the applicant ’s active participation in the crime in question were supported not only by the police reports , but also by transcripts of the telephone conversations that the applicant had with ORG and X. The court stated that it was clearly apparent from those transcripts that the applicant had initiated calls to X on CARDINAL occasions in order to act as an intermediary in the drug deal . It also noted on this point that the applicant and the other co - defendants had signed the offence report without any objection ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant ’s allegations concerning the unlawfulness of the covert operation and the police incitement were therefore considered to be ill - founded .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

NORP The applicant , the ORG PERSON foundation ( hereinafter “ the applicant organisation ” ) is a non - profit organisation registered in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by the chairperson of the organisation ’s board , PERSON .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and later PERSON .

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

NORP The applicant organisation was created in DATE with the purpose of preserving and promoting the artistic heritage of CARDINAL late NORP artists , ORG and her sister PERSON . Their complete body of work comprises over CARDINAL art pieces created using different techniques over a period of DATE . After the CARDINAL artists died the entire collection of their art works remained in a CARDINAL - room apartment located in the centre of GPE where the CARDINAL sisters had lived ( “ the contested apartment ” ) . At that time the apartment belonged to the GPE municipality and the applicant organisation ’s intention was to acquire it in order to create a memorial museum there .

On DATE the applicant organisation wrote to the Culture , Art and ORG of ORG outlining its intentions and requesting the committee ’s support for the creation of the memorial museum in the contested apartment . DATE ORG , the Minister of Culture , and GPE each wrote to ORG confirming the importance of the collection and expressing their support for the creation of the memorial museum .

On DATE the Culture , Art and ORG of ORG invited ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) – the local executive body – to investigate and determine ways of supporting the initiative to place the contested apartment at the applicant organisation ’s disposal ( atstāt rīcībā ) in order for it to create a memorial museum of the CARDINAL artists’ work . On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) also supported the same proposition .

On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers issued order no . CARDINAL whereby several apartment houses in GPE were not to be privatised but were to be retained as the property of the ORG . Possession ( valdījums ) of these apartments was to be transferred to ORG , which was then to enter them in the land register as ORG - owned property . The building in which the contested apartment was situated was listed in this order .

On DATE the manager of the contested apartmenta municipality - owned enterprise that was overseen by ORG ( hereinafter “ ORG ) that CARDINAL rooms in the contested apartment had become available for rent . On DATE ORG issued recommendation no . CARDINAL authorising the manager of the contested apartment to rent the CARDINAL rooms available to a certain V.B.S. and her family . According to the Government , ORG had been registered to receive housing aid from municipal funds since DATE . The applicant organisation denied that ORG had ever been registered for housing aid and argued that recommendation no . CARDINAL had been unlawful .

On DATE , on the basis of recommendation no . CARDINAL , the manager of the contested apartment concluded a rental agreement with ORG period of time .

On DATE Culture , Art and ORG of Riga City Council expressed its dissatisfaction with the fact that ORG had not informed ORG of the decisions adopted by the CARDINAL ORG committees . It decided that ORG ought to annul the recommendation that the contested apartment be rented out to ORG and to examine again the possibility of excluding the said apartment from the residential fund and allocating it to the applicant organisation . In addition , it decided that ORG should open an inquiry into why the decisions taken by ORG committees had not been examined .

On DATE ORG declared that recommendation no . CARDINAL had become invalid and that the declaration of ORG and her family ’s residence in the contested apartment had been annulled .

On DATE ORG , having carried out an examination , concluded that ORG had not responded to numerous letters sent by different persons and institutions ( ORG , a member of parliament , ORG of GPE , GPE , and the applicant organisation ) concerning the artistic heritage of the late artists . Despite the fact that ORG had been fully aware of the situation , the manager of the contested apartment had not informed ORG about the substantial artistic collection located in that apartment , thereby misleading it . ORG proposed to annul , under a procedure set out in law , the rental agreement concluded with V.B.S. It also suggested that the issue regarding the housing of the art collection should be resolved by ORG and ORG , acting together .

On DATE ORG ( on the grounds that the manager of the contested apartment had provided false information to ORG ) decided to annul the allocation of the apartment to ORG and her family and to place it at the applicant organisation ’s disposal . PERSON ’s family was to be allocated another apartment . It also invited the director of ORG to hold responsible those who had misinformed ORG .

The parties disagreed on the nature of the decisions taken by the CARDINAL ORG committees . The Government contended that these decisions had been of a purely recommendatory nature , as the committees were not competent to vest any rights in the applicant organisation or to adopt legally binding decisions , that being the exclusive competence of ORG . The committees had merely consultative functions and were responsible for preparing issues to be examined and decided upon by ORG . The applicant organisation disagreed . It contended that , under LAW , ORG committees had the right to instruct officials of the GPE municipality and its institutions . Hence , the decisions of the CARDINAL committees had to be complied with .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant organisation that on DATE it had taken possession ( pārņēmusi valdījumā ) of the building in which the contested apartment was situated . It drew attention to recommendation no . CARDINAL and the rental agreement that had been concluded with ORG DATE . The ORG noted that it was bound by the rental agreements in force . It advised that with regard to the issue of using the contested apartment for the foundation ’s needs the applicant organisation would need to address ORG , which had issued the recommendation .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant organisation to move the art collection from the contested apartment , noting that it had no legal grounds to use it . It also stated that it had not received a response from the applicant organisation concerning the allocation of different premises . Referring to V.B.S. , it added that a person who had “ all legal rights to said apartment ” had declared her address there . The ORG also noted that in the event of the applicant organisation ’s failure to vacate the contested apartment it would be forced to evict the applicant organisation therefrom . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG wrote further letters offering the applicant organisation different premises for the housing of the art collection and warning it that in the event of failure to vacate the apartment the property belonging to the applicant organisation contained therein would be moved to different LOC . The letter of DATE also noted that the lawful tenant wished to start renovating the apartment . On DATE there was further correspondence between ORG and the applicant organisation concerning possible rental fees of the different LOC already offered to the applicant organisation and additional LOC that could be made available to the applicant organisation .

In the light of this correspondence the Government contended that offers to move the art collection to different premises had been made to the applicant organisation repeatedly but that the applicant organisation had failed to reply . In response , the applicant organisation asserted that it had visited all the LOC offered ; however , none of them had been suitable for the needs of the art collection or a museum .

On DATE the manager of the contested apartment , on the basis of an authorisation issued by ORG , concluded a new rental agreement with V.B.S.

By virtue of amendments dated DATE to order no . CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the building in which the contested apartment was located was excluded from the list of properties that were not subject to privatisation .

On DATE , ORG of Residential Buildings transferred the ownership rights to the contested apartment to V.B.S. prior to the privatisation of the residential building ( nodot īpašumā līdz dzīvojamās mājas privatizācijai ) . On DATE ORG of Residential Buildings , on the basis of the PERSON on the Privatisation of State and ORG ( ORG valsts un pašvaldību dzīvojamo māju privatizāciju ) , sold the apartment to V.B.S.

By a judgment of DATE ORG was recognised as the inheritor of the collection of art works of ORG and PERSON .

On DATE ORG instituted civil proceedings challenging the rental agreement of CARDINAL DATE that had been concluded with ORG and requesting that the privatisation of the contested apartment be discontinued .

On DATE the Riga City Centre District Court terminated those civil proceedings on the grounds that they had been brought by a person who had had no standing . In particular , the court noted that it had received no evidence that ORG ’s civil rights had been infringed .

On DATE ORG upheld this decision . It established that prior to her death PERSON had rented the contested apartment , which had not been privatised . The apartment had been in the possession of the GPE municipality . The rental agreement concluded with ORG had not affected ORG ’s rights to her inheritance . The court considered that the arguments raised concerning the rights of other persons ( including the rights of the applicant organisation ) were not relevant as the civil claim had only been brought in the name of ORG Further , the court noted that under domestic law rental agreements could only be challenged by landlords , tenants or members of a tenant ’s family . Neither ORG , nor ORG or members of her family were contesting the tenancy agreement . Besides , no competent institution of the GPE municipality had ever concluded a rental agreement with ORG , the appeal court agreed with the conclusion that the proceedings had been brought by a person who had had no standing .

On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld this decision on the same grounds . It also noted that the question of the protection of the artistic heritage of the late artists did not fall to be decided in judicial institutions .

In DATE ORG donated the art collection to the applicant organisation .

In DATE the applicant organisation addressed the Prosecutor General ’s office requesting it to examine whether V.B.S. had acquired the right to rent the contested apartment lawfully . According to the Government , on DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) refused to lodge a civil claim contesting the rental agreement because it had concluded that there was no dispute about the applicant organisation ’s title to the collection of art works and that the fact the collection was stored in the contested apartment did not vest any right to the mentioned premises in the applicant organisation . Subsequent appeals to ORG and ORG were dismissed on DATE and DATE respectively .

In relation to this point the applicant organisation submitted to the ORG CARDINAL letters prepared by ORG . CARDINAL letter , dated DATE , stated that ORG had examined the applicant organisation ’s request and had concluded that there had been no breaches of law meriting the bringing of a civil claim . However , the other letter , dated DATE , bearing the same number and the signature of the same official , stated that ORG had examined the applicant organisation ’s request and had prepared a civil claim , to be brought before ORG . It also noted that on DATE this claim had been submitted to the relevant department of ORG for its approval . According to the applicant organisation , the existence of the CARDINAL contradictory letters and the fact that the claim was never brought proved that ORG had not acted independently and impartially and that its decision - making had been influenced by other persons with an interest in the outcome of this case . In particular , the applicant organisation noted the political influence of ORG son - in - law , who had been a member of parliament at the time in question .

On DATE V.B.S. died .

On DATE the applicant organisation lodged a claim requesting the annulment of the following : the rental agreement that had been concluded with V.B.S. on CARDINAL DATE ; the decision of DATE by ORG of Residential Buildings transferring the ownership rights to the contested apartment prior to the privatisation of the residential building in which it was located , to ORG ; the purchase agreement concluded with ORG ; and the entry in the land register concerning ORG property rights over the contested apartment . The applicant organisation also requested the recognition of its right to use the contested apartment . In subsequent submissions the applicant organisation clarified that it did not request the recognition of its own property rights over the contested apartment and indicated that ORG heir , PERSON , should be CARDINAL of the defendants in these proceedings .

On DATE ORG opened proceedings . On DATE it decided to terminate the proceedings on the grounds , inter alia , that the applicant organisation had had no standing to bring the above – mentioned claims . In particular , the applicant organisation had contested a rental agreement and a purchase agreement to which it was not a party .

The applicant organisation lodged an ancillary complaint with ORG of ORG . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . It noted that the applicant organisation had never been a party to the rental agreement in question or a beneficiary of the privatisation proceedings concerning the contested apartment .

On DATE the applicant organisation lodged a further ancillary complaint with the ORG of ORG . The applicant organisation reiterated that the privatisation of the contested apartment had been unlawful and had been carried out in bad faith . It also argued that there had been no legal grounds for the termination of the proceedings . The courts had indicated no legal basis for their conclusion that a person who was not a party to a rental agreement but whose rights to use the rented premises in question had been affected had no right to bring a claim to protect its rights . The applicant organisation , insofar as relevant , relied on DATE of the Civil Law ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ; and sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the PERSON on the Privatisation of State and ORG . The applicant organisation contended that none of these provisions prevented it from bringing its claims .

On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the decision to terminate the proceedings . It noted that section CARDINAL of ORG defined the right to bring a claim as the possibility for an interested person to bring proceedings in order to protect his or her infringed or contested rights . Accordingly , a person could benefit from court protection if his or her claim was connected with an interference with that person ’s rights . Moreover , when deciding on a person ’s right to bring proceedings , a court had to take into account the fact that nobody had the right to interfere in another person ’s civil - law relationships if those relationships did not affect them ( either legally or in practice ) . The court continued :

“ The ORG considers that the [ appeal ] court has justly found that because the ORG PERSON foundation is not a party to the rental agreement , it can not contest it . To consider that the interest of a third party DATE which the applicant is with regard to the rental agreement – in the annulment of a contract ( and hence the restoration of the previous situation ) is justified , it is necessary to establish that as a result of the annulment of that agreement an interference with that person ’s rights would be eliminated . However , in the present case , given that the contested apartment has never been in the possession ( valdījums ) of the ORG PERSON foundation one can not speak of an interference with the plaintiff ’s rights . The fact that the collection of art works is situated in the disputed LOC , which have the legal status of residential LOC , contrary to the opinion expressed in the ancillary complaint , does not grant the ORG PERSON foundation the right to acquire possession of the apartment .

As correctly indicated by the [ appeal ] court , the plaintiff ’s right to contest the privatisation and ORG property rights should be assessed within the same context . An object such as the apartment owned by ORG can only be claimed from his [ that is to say ORG ] possession by its owner [ by lodging ] a property claim ( section ORG ) , which serves as an owner ’s protection against the illegal holding of a possession ( valdījuma prettiesīgu aizturējumu ) of its immovable property . In the present case the aforementioned ground for contesting the defendant ’s property rights can not be established because the plaintiff ’s right to possess the contested object has not been established in a procedure set by law , which , in turn , precludes the reason to talk about interference with rights , as they have not been acquired . ”

Sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL with regard to different types of situations provide that all rented apartments shall be offered for privatisation to their tenants and their family members . Such persons can acquire title to a rented apartment if no proceedings have been brought requesting the termination of the rental agreement in question and the eviction of the tenants . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the relevant privatisation commission decides on whether to conclude a purchase agreement with a person who has applied for privatisation . On the basis of this decision , the privatisation commission then concludes a purchase agreement . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that only the person who is registered in the land register in respect of a particular property can be recognised as the owner of the privatised object .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , rented apartments are offered for privatisation after the privatisation of the residential building in which they are situated has commenced . Nonetheless , the PERSON also sets out the procedure whereby the ownership rights to an apartment can be transferred to tenants prior to the privatisation of the residential building . The decision on whether to transfer the ownership rights to an apartment prior to the privatisation of the residential building is taken by a privatisation commission upon a request of a tenant ( section CARDINAL ) . The name of the person who has acquired ownership rights to an apartment prior to the privatisation of the relevant residential building shall be registered in the cadastral register and from the moment of this registration that person shall be recognised as the owner of the apartment ( sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) ) . However , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , after the privatisation of a residential building has commenced , the person who acquired the ownership rights to an apartment prior to the privatisation of the relevant residential building still has to conclude a purchase agreement , as mentioned in section CARDINAL .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a court is competent to examine disputes , inter alia , concerning the rights of a beneficiary of privatisation to privatise an apartment , the registration of the privatised object in the land register , and other disputes which may arise in the course of the privatisation of residential buildings and which do not fall to be examined by local municipalities . Under section DATE , the privatisation of an apartment shall be declared unlawful in the following circumstances : the apartment has been privatised in a manner disregarding the sequence of steps set out in this PERSON ; the person concerned has privatised a previously rented apartment without having first informed his or her family members thereof ; or other requirements set out in this PERSON or rules of ORG adopted on the basis of this PERSON have been disregarded .

Section CARDINAL states that rights shall be used and obligations shall be fulfilled in good faith .

Section CARDINAL provides that possession of property is actual control over property conforming to ownership rights . It exists where tangible property is in actual fact under the total control of a person and , in addition , that person demonstrates the intention to act with the property in a similar manner as that of an owner .

NORP Under section CARDINAL , from possession arises the right to protect the existing possession and to renew a possession that has been taken away . These rights apply in respect of every possession , regardless of whether such possession is legal or illegal or is based on good faith or bad faith . Section CARDINAL expressly stipulates that every possession is protected by law .

Section CARDINAL provides that an owner may reclaim his or her property from any third person that holds possession thereof by bringing an ownership claim .

Section CARDINAL defines a legal transaction as an action , carried out in a permitted manner , which establishes , alters or terminates lawful relationships . Section CARDINAL further states that an illicit or indecent action , the purpose of which is contrary to religion , laws or moral principles , or which is intended to circumvent the law , may not be the subject matter of a legal transaction ; such a transaction shall be void .

Section CARDINAL , as worded at the relevant time , provided that if a contract was entered into between absent parties , it should be regarded as definitively concluded from the moment at which the party to whom the offer was made announced to the offering party his or her unconditional acceptance .

Section DATE stipulates that a purchase agreement shall be considered to have been entered into when both parties have agreed on the subject of the purchase and the purchase price . Under section DATE , if both parties , neither of the parties , or only the purchaser knew that it was not permitted to alienate ( atsavināt ) the object that was being sold , then the contract shall be void . However , if only the seller had that knowledge , then the contract shall remain in effect and the seller must compensate the purchaser for any losses [ incurred as a result of the sale ] .

Section CARDINAL grants every natural and legal person the right to protect in court their infringed or contested civil rights and those of their interests that are protected by law . A person who has brought a case to court has the right to have his or her case examined in accordance with the procedures laid down by law .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that any person , natural or legal , who has reached the age of majority and has capacity to act may bring a claim in court in order to protect any of their civil rights that have been infringed or contested . Section CARDINAL ) states that a prosecutor may bring a claim in order to protect the infringed or contested civil rights of other persons .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , a judge shall refuse to entertain a claim if it has been brought by a person who does not have standing . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , a court shall terminate proceedings if the claim in question has been lodged by a person who has no standing .

Section CARDINAL states that the work of the city council takes place in meetings and in the permanent committees .

Section CARDINAL provides that during its meetings the city council examines the draft decisions , which have been proposed by the chairperson , the permanent committees or the members of the city council . The draft decisions shall be submitted to the chairperson , who shall decide which permanent committee will assess the draft .

Under section CARDINAL , the permanent committees have the following functions : CARDINAL ) to prepare questions for examination in the city council meetings ; CARDINAL ) to give their opinion concerning matters that are within its competence ; CARDINAL ) in the procedure set out in the rules of the municipality , to oversee the work of municipality institutions and enterprises ; CARDINAL ) to examine the budget proposals of the municipality institutions and enterprises and to submit them to the finance committee ; CARDINAL ) to approve and control the expenditure estimates of the municipality institutions and enterprises ; CARDINAL ) to carry out other obligations in accordance with the rules of the municipality .

In accordance with LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of the Rules of GPE , as in force from DATE until DATE , ORG was to create permanent committees from amongst its members . The permanent committees were to prepare issues for examination in the ORG meetings and their work was to be coordinated by the ORG of ORG .

Rule CARDINAL stated that ORG committees should : CARDINAL ) prepare questions for examination in ORG meetings ; CARDINAL ) give opinions regarding questions falling within its competence ; CARDINAL ) oversee the relevant municipal institutions and enterprises ; CARDINAL ) examine the budget proposals of the municipal institutions and enterprises that were under its supervision and oversee the implementation of the budget ; CARDINAL ) carry out other tasks in accordance with these Rules and the decisions of ORG .

Rule CARDINAL stipulated that the Culture , Art and ORG was to oversee ORG .

Rule CARDINAL stated that ORG was to participate in the development of the programme for the construction of new apartments and oversee the distribution and exchange of apartments . It was to oversee the apartment divisions of the city districts and suburbs , as well as ORG and ORG of ORG .

Rule CARDINAL detailed the rights of the permanent committees when carrying out their supervision tasks . In particular , they had a right to : CARDINAL ) check the paperwork of the municipality officials , institutions and enterprises and receive copies of such paperwork that were necessary for deciding on issues raised in the committee meetings ; CARDINAL ) receive the necessary documents and explanations from the ORG officials , municipal institutions and enterprises with regard to questions that were within the committee ’s competence ; CARDINAL ) charge the officials of those institutions with carrying out preparatory tasks necessary for submitting draft decisions to ORG ; CARDINAL ) involve in its work , in a consultative function , experts from the relevant fields .

Under Rule CARDINAL , decisions as to how to resolve disputes between the permanent committees and the municipality officials , institutions and enterprises were to be taken by the chairperson of ORG or the Presidium of ORG .

In accordance with Rules CARDINAL and DATE , following examination by the committees each draft decision was to be examined by the ORG of ORG . If the ORG had objections to the draft decision , it could return it to the committees for another examination . The draft decisions that had been accepted by the ORG were to be included in the agenda of the next ORG meeting for their adoption .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) determines who can be a tenant or a subtenant under a rental agreement concerning residential LOC . It provides that any natural person who lives in GPE permanently or who has received a residence permit in a procedure set out in law may be a tenant or a subtenant in such agreements .


Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

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

summarised as follows .

NORP The applicant is the son of the Commander in Chief of the San Marino Police . He was a lawyer and notary by profession before being disbarred ( radiato ) as a result of criminal proceedings which were instituted in DATE against both father and son for making false declarations in public documents ( reato di falso in atto pubblico ) under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW on DATE . It was alleged that they had altered the content of the police DATE record ( foglio di servizio ) of DATE by adding that they had carried out a check - up on a specific car and person , whereas such a check - up had never been undertaken .

By a judgment of DATE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , filed in the registry on CARDINAL DATE , both the applicant and his father were found guilty . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and prohibited from holding public office for DATE .

By judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment , reducing , however , the punishment . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and prohibited from holding public office for DATE . His sentence was suspended for DATE .

More factual details about the criminal proceedings can be found in ORG v. PERSON , DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE .

In the meantime on DATE , ORG ( OAN ) ( hereinafter “ the CAN ” ) had asked the applicant to submit an explanation as to the facts surrounding the criminal proceedings . By a letter of DATE , the applicant informed the CAN that no charges had been issued against him and that any impugned conduct had not been in connection with the carrying out of his profession .

On DATE , following the issuance of a bill of indictment against the applicant , the CAN once again asked him for explanations , and the applicant submitted the relevant bill of indictment .

Following the delivery of the first - instance judgment , on DATE the CAN requested the applicant to provide a copy of the operative part of the judgment . The applicant complied with the request on DATE , also submitting a copy of his appeal application .

On DATE the applicant was notified that the CAN was instituting disciplinary proceedings against him in respect of a breach of Article CARDINAL of legislative decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , as well as LAW ) of law no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see relevant domestic law below ) .

At the hearing of DATE , as well as in his written submissions , the applicant argued that the disciplinary action against him was timebarred . In any event he requested the suspension of any sanction against him until the judgment finding him guilty had become final .

On DATE , the CAN rejected his argument concerning prescription but suspended the disciplinary proceedings until the criminal proceedings had become final .

On DATE , the applicant challenged that decision before ORG ( libere professioni ) ( CNLP ) , hereinafter “ the Commission ” .

On DATE the Commission rejected the applicant ’s challenge concerning prescription on the basis that the decision of CARDINAL DATE was not a decision on the merits , namely as to whether or not to apply the disciplinary measure , and thus was not subject to an autonomous challenge . Such a challenge could be raised in the context of an appeal in the event of the CAN ordering a disciplinary measure .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of the Commission .

Eventually , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s challenge and upheld the ORG ’s decision .

Following ORG judgment of DATE in the criminal proceedings against the applicant , on DATE the CAN informed the applicant that disciplinary proceedings were to be continued and that he was to appear at a hearing .

Hearings in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer took place on CARDINAL and DATE , and written submissions were also filed . The applicant made submissions concerning , inter alia , the invalidity of the CAN owing to its constitution ; the generic nature of the accusation ; the fact that the impugned conduct had taken place outside the ambit of his professional activities ; and the lack of proportionality of the measure . He also reiterated his argument that the disciplinary action was time - barred , and requested the suspension of the measure . Without prejudice to his arguments he claimed that in any event , the sanction should not be anything other than suspension for DATE .

By a decision of DATE the CAN disbarred the applicant . It noted that LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE provided that disbarment applied ( importa , di diritto ) in cases of a final finding of guilt under LAW ( relevant to the present case ) . Thus , the CAN had no room for evaluation , discretion or decision making , save for the determination of whether an irrevocable criminal judgment finding guilt actually existed . In the present case , that fact had been ascertained and the judgment had been submitted by the applicant himself . It followed that the CAN ’s finding applying such a sanction was simply declaratory , the legislator having prescribed mandatory disbarment in such cases . It further rejected the applicant ’s plea concerning prescription in respect of the disciplinary action and his request for suspension of the disciplinary proceedings . It also considered that the disciplinary punishments provided for by law were justified by a general principle , namely that of behaving in line with the duties of correctness , dignity and honour for the profession , even beyond the exercise of the professional activity , in so far as such behaviour may harm the common beliefs of the community . Indeed , the law ( LAW no . DATE ) could only be interpreted in the sense that actions undertaken outside the scope of one ’s activity must be subject to disciplinary action if they affected society ’s values , reflected on the professional reputation of lawyers or notaries , or compromised the image of the forensic and notarial categories . The correctness of this interpretation was evident given that , according to the law , a finding of guilt brought about disbarment mandatorily , as well as from the wording of LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE concerning the statute of ORG , and the correlation between law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL and legislative decree no . DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged this decision .

On DATE the Commission confirmed the decision of the CAN in its entirety and rejected the applicant ’s challenges concerning the prescription of the disciplinary action , and the composition and constitution of the CAN . It also rejected his allegations concerning the lack of detail about the accusation , the automatic application of the sanction and the incoherence of the CAN ’s decision , which had not followed the expert opinion . As for the applicant ’s complaint that the facts that had led to the accusation had occurred outside his professional duties , as well as the proportionality of the measure , the Commission referred back to the decision of the CAN , which had found that such arguments were irrelevant given the content of LAW no . DATE and its application in the present case .

On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG ’s decision before ORG , reiterating the arguments he had already put forward .

In his application lodged on DATE against the decision of ORG of DATE , the applicant raised a number of pleas ( in a DATE document ) . His pleas concerned issues relating to the law and its application , whether in substance or as a matter of procedure .

NORP In his requests dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant raised CARDINAL more procedural pleas . In a further request he also challenged the constitutional legitimacy of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of legislative decree no . DATE in so far as they did not provide for the possibility of requesting the withdrawal of or abstention by persons sitting on the disciplinary body . He also challenged the legitimacy of LAW no . DATE and Article CARDINAL of legislative decree no . DATE . The applicant argued that the fact that the legislation provided for an automatic sanction , without the possibility of a progressive application of sanctions depending on the specific case , subject to evaluation by the disciplinary body , was contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality .

By a decision of DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s pleas concerning the irregularity of the CAN ’s constitution . In particular , as to the constitutional legitimacy of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of legislative decree no . DATE , it considered that , in the present case , the applicant ’s inability to request the withdrawal of a member of the organ had not breached his rights . As to the constitutional legitimacy of LAW no . DATE and LAW no . DATE , the court considered that the automatic application of a sanction would be in breach of constitutional principles only if it were not preceded by disciplinary proceedings . In the present case , the applicant had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings during which he had been able to put forward all his arguments and defend himself before both the CAN and the Commission . Indeed , it transpired from the decision of the CAN that that organ had : verified the existence of the disciplinary breach ( by establishing the existence of a final criminal judgment ) ; heard the applicant various times ; established the facts and indicated the relevant provisions relating to the breach at issue ; allowed the applicant ’s legal representative full access to the disciplinary file ; and allowed the applicant to make written submissions and call witnesses as well as make any oral submissions in his defence . It followed that although the law provided for automatic application of the measure , as happened in the present case , the measure was applied only after disciplinary proceedings had been carried out in compliance with the relevant rules of procedure . In the present case the disciplinary organs had correctly interpreted and applied the law in conformity with the constitutional principles invoked . The applicant ’s complaint was therefore ill - founded .

During the proceedings before ORG , the applicant ’s request to suspend the effects of the ORG ’s decision pending a decision in the administrative proceedings was rejected on CARDINAL DATE following an oral hearing . ORG rejected the request on the grounds that the applicant had not shown what prejudice he had suffered and bearing in mind the interests of third parties and the crimes of which the applicant had been found guilty by means of a final judgment .

The applicant challenged that decision , but ORG dismissed his appeal on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant reiterated his challenges in respect of the constitutionality of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of legislative decree no . DATE as well as of LAW no . DATE , but this time in the light of ORG and the Convention .

An oral hearing took place on CARDINAL DATE . The decision on the matter was delivered in the main proceedings ( see below ) .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims ( by means of a CARDINAL - page judgment ) .

The court held that as it had already stated in various decisions in the present case , its jurisdiction in the instant case was that provided for under law no . CARDINAL of DATE , as set out in LAW no . DATE , namely judicial review of administrative action ( giurisdizione di legittimita ` ) . Thus the impugned acts could only be challenged on the basis that the decision in the disciplinary proceedings was not in accordance with the law , had been delivered by a body that did not have the requisite jurisdiction or had been delivered in abuse of power . It was not for the administrative court to assess the facts or conduct leading to the decisions , which was the responsibility of the disciplinary body in accordance with the law . According to jurisprudence , in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers the establishment of the misconduct leading to the disciplinary breach was the exclusive competence of the disciplinary organs . However , the decision was subject to a control concerning its reasonableness , in judicial review proceedings . This was also confirmed by the disciplinary bodies’ statements . Other jurisprudence had confirmed that the factual assessment made by the disciplinary organ would be irreproachable as long as it was backed up by sufficient and appropriate reasons , and that judicial review should not extend to an assessment of the evidence or of the gravity of the offence , or the appropriateness of the sanction imposed . The court further noted that those were administrative proceedings and as such were not subject to the guarantees of criminal proceedings .

Bearing in mind the above , the court found that the applicant ’s complaints were ill - founded . Concerning constitutional legitimacy , the court confirmed the decision it had delivered on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and noted that the applicant had again reiterated those complaints .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG judgment of DATE . He once again reiterated his claims concerning constitutional legitimacy ( mentioned above ) and the lack of adequate reasoning given in this respect by the previous organs . He also challenged the first - instance court ’s findings in so far as they had repeatedly relied on previous decisions given in his case . They had also relied on NORP jurisprudence without considering the fact that GPE law was different from NORP law . He further considered that the first - instance court had wrongly interpreted and applied relevant laws in relation to each and every one of his claims .

On DATE the applicant submitted further written submissions on his grounds of appeal . On DATE the parties agreed that no oral pleadings were necessary since the arguments had already been exhaustively made .

The applicant ’s appeal was dismissed and the judgment of ORG was upheld on appeal on DATE .

ORG noted that the issues of constitutional legitimacy had once again been reiterated . It considered that the CAN and the Commission were disciplinary organs to which ORG and CARDINAL of the LAW , or the equivalent articles of the San Marino ( human rights ) Declaration did not apply . Furthermore , ORG highlighted that the law distinguished between minor crimes and more grave crimes when regulating the application of the various applicable sanctions , including disbarment from a profession . The application of such a serious sanction , which only applied to more serious crimes , in the applicant ’s case had been wilfully and consciously decided by the legislator , leaving no discretion to ORG . It was worth noting that in GPE , lawyers also carried out the functions of notaries , and a criminal conviction for making false declarations in public documents was objectively incompatible with the function of a public official which was , by definition , the guarantor of truthfulness and the veracity of documents . Thus , the fact that the law provided an automatic application of the sanction in such cases could not be considered unreasonable or disproportionate , and was thus in conformity with LAW .

As to the applicant ’s complaints concerning the first - instance administrative decision , the court found that the first - instance court had given relevant and sufficient reasons in its decision and that its findings were valid . The mere fact that in some instances that decision had relied on NORP jurisprudence only served to further the reasoning in relation to the arguments raised . As to each of the remaining grounds of appeal , ORG entered into each and every one and reached the conclusion that they were all manifestly ill - founded .

The decision to disbar the second applicant was communicated to ORG , which in turn and in accordance with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of law no . DATE , namely the legal framework concerning the exercise of the liberal professions , struck him off its list of liberal professionals . That entailed the automatic cancelling of his LOC number ( codice operatore economico ) as from DATE .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , concerning the offence of making false declarations in public documents , reads as follows :

“ A public official who , in the exercise of his duties , counterfeits or alters a public deed shall be liable to imprisonment and interdiction from public office of the third degree . The same actions carried out by an individual attract a sanction of imprisonment of CARDINAL lesser degree . ”

Article CARDINAL of legislative decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , concerning the professional ethics of lawyers and notaries , and in particular their general duties , reads as follows :

“ The conduct of anyone registered with ORG must be irreprehensible and characterised by the decorum , dignity and morality associated with his functions , even beyond the exercise of his or her profession as a lawyer or notary . ”

Article CARDINAL , concerning sanctions , reads as follows :

“ ORG may institute ( dar corso ) disciplinary proceedings against an advocate or notary registered with the Bar , who , in the exercise of the profession , has by any means tarnished the dignity of the profession and the decorum and independence of the forensic and notarial sector , or has been lacking in the performance of his or her professional duties . Having established responsibility in accordance with the gravity of the violation and applying the principle of progressive application of sanctions ( principio di gradualità ) , the ORG shall apply one of the following sanctions :

( a ) - private reprimand ( il richiamo ) to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE

- formal reprimand ( la censura ) to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE

- temporary suspension from the exercise of the profession to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE

- removal from the Bar ( la cancellazione dall’albo ) to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE

- disbarment from the profession ( la radiazione dalla professione ) to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE .

Article CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ Decisions of ... ORG may be appealed against by means of a challenge ( opposizione ) and an application before the administrative courts as provided for by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . ”

Under LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( concerning discipline in the liberal professions – libere professioni ) , decisions of ORG may be challenged before ORG , and the latter ’s decisions may be challenged under LAW ( see below ) .

In so far as relevant , the pertinent articles of law no . CARDINAL of DATE read as follows :

“ ORG has the following functions :

ORG to decide by administrative means challenges to decisions made by ORG on disciplinary matters ” .

“ The decisions of ORG may be challenged before ORG established by LAW . CARDINAL of DATE . ”

“ Disciplinary action may be taken in respect of any conduct by a professional , both during the exercise of his functions and beyond such exercise , in so far as such conduct may be detrimental to his own professional dignity , as well as to the decorum and independence of the category of professionals to which he belongs . ”

ORG , may , if it considers it appropriate in view of the nature and gravity of the impugned conduct , and applying in so far as possible the principle of progressive application of sanctions ( principio di gradualità ) , apply the following sanctions

- private reprimand ( il richiamo )

- formal reprimand ( la censura )

- temporary suspension from the exercise of a profession

- removal from the Bar ( la cancellazione dall’albo )

- disbarment from the profession ( la radiazione dalla professione ) .

“ The sanction of disbarment from the profession is provided for in cases in which the professional has been punished for committing an offence , by means of a final judgment , to imprisonment , interdiction from public office , or to disbarment from the profession , for a term of DATE . Disbarment from the profession is mandatory in cases where a guilty verdict has been passed by means of final judgment for the offences referred to in Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , irrespective of the punishment handed down in the specific case .

Decisions in respect of the preceding Articles nos . DATE , CARDINAL DATE can be adopted only following disciplinary proceedings .

The rules relevant to each respective profession shall determine the method and form of disciplinary proceedings , ensuring in every case the principle of proportionality of the sanction to the infraction committed , the obligation to notify the accused of the accusation , as well as to the latter ’s right of defence .

“ ... A professional who has been disbarred may be reinstated only if he or she has been rehabilitated and it has been shown that his or her conduct has been irreprehensible . ”

Administrative proceedings are provided for by law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE concerning jurisdiction in administrative matters , the review of legitimacy and administrative sanctions . The relevant provisions , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ Whosoever has a direct and immediate interest in respect of an act on the part of the public administration , social security institution or autonomous ORG agencies or entities which is deemed to be detrimental to his interests may seek a judicial remedy ( può ricorrere in via giurisdizionale ) before a first - instance administrative judge . ” ...

“ The first - instance administrative judge is competent to decide in the first instance . If the request is upheld , the impugned act is annulled . ” ( The judge may also award costs and give instructions as to the enforcement of the decision . )

“ The decisions of the first - instance administrative judge may be appealed against before the administrative appeal judge within DATE of the notification given by the registry . ... The appeal does not suspend the enforcement of the measure . ”

Other relevant provisions of domestic law can be found in ORG , ( dec . ) , cited above .


CASE OF MANSUR YALÇIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Respect for parents' philosophical convictions;Respect for parents' religious convictions)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicants live in GPE . They are followers of the Alevi faith . Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON all had school - age children . More specifically , PERSON ( GPE PERSON ’s daughter ) , who completed her secondary schooling in DATE , PERSON ( PERSON son ) , who completed his secondary schooling in DATE , and PERSON ( PERSON daughter ) , who completed her secondary schooling in DATE , were attending a secondary educational establishment at the relevant time .

Mr ORG stated that , at the time the domestic proceedings were instituted , his son and daughter had completed the second cycle of secondary education and were in higher education .

PERSON and PERSON , meanwhile , stated that they had attended “ compulsory religious culture and ethics classes ” at school and that their young children DATE whose ages they did not specify – would likewise have to attend those classes when they went to school .

In GPE , school attendance is compulsory for all children DATE . For DATE , children attend primary school ( DATE ) . The following DATE are spent in the first cycle of secondary school ( DATE to CARDINAL) . After that , pupils spend a further DATE in school , depending on the subjects chosen , in an upper secondary school ( lise ) .

On DATE the applicants asked ORG to initiate a consultation process with Alevi faith leaders with a view to overhauling the syllabus for religious culture and ethics classes and including Alevi culture and philosophy .

They also requested the introduction of compulsory training for teachers of these classes and the setting - up of a monitoring and supervisory mechanism . They cited in that regard extracts from monitoring reports prepared by ORG which were critical of the content and the compulsory nature of the religious culture and ethics classes .

In its reply of DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) stated that , in the textbooks used in religious culture and ethics lessons in the primary cycle , priority was given to the teaching of ethical and religious values common to society as a whole . As to the content of the classes at secondary level , the ORG stated that , while respecting the same principles , the syllabus took a supradenominational approach ( mezhepler üstü ) and that the religious culture and ethics textbooks also presented other understandings of ORG . It added that the syllabus for the DATE had been drawn up on the basis of this supra - denominational approach , which according to the ORG was centred on the Koran , did not favour any particular branch of ORG and respected the principle of secularism . ORG also mentioned that the syllabus for DATE ( DATE of upper secondary school ) featured public figures who had been important in shaping the NORP understanding of NORP , while the syllabus for DATE explained the different interpretations of ORG , and the Year CARDINAL syllabus contained a wealth of information on PERSON ( bektaşi ) culture . In the same letter , the ORG further specified that teacher training had been introduced ahead of the entry into effect of the new syllabus . Lastly , it observed that topics relating to the Alevi faith had been included in the religious culture and ethics syllabus for secondary schools for DATE .

After receiving the letter from ORG rejecting their proposal , the applicants and CARDINAL other people challenged the ORG ’s decision in ORG . Referring to the ORG ’s caselaw on the subject , they argued that the teaching provided in religious culture and ethics lessons could not be said to satisfy the criteria of objectivity and pluralism . In support of their argument they presented CARDINAL reports drawn up by various experts who had studied the textbooks used for the subject . Referring to the findings of those reports , they maintained that the textbooks in question provided instruction based on a “ NORP ” interpretation of ORG and could by no means be regarded as neutral visàvis other interpretations of ORG . They relied in particular on LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .

ORG appointed of its own motion a committee of CARDINAL experts tasked with drawing up a report on the teaching provided in the context of religious culture and ethics classes .

On an unspecified date a CARDINAL - page report written by a professor of PERSON ( NORP religious studies ) , a professor of education and a professor of religious sociology was added to the case file and sent to the applicants . The report stated in substance as follows .

( i ) For the purposes of the study the experts had examined the religious culture and ethics textbooks used in schools by DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE as authorised by ORG . The religious culture and ethics syllabus for primary schools had been adopted by a decision of DATE of ORG attached to ORG and had been introduced in DATE to replace the previous syllabus of DATE . The new secondary syllabus had come into effect following a decision of DATE . The textbooks criticised by the applicants had therefore been prepared under the earlier syllabus .

( ii ) The textbooks were structured around CARDINAL main themes : religious culture , ethics and national and spiritual values . The parts concerning ethics and national and spiritual values covered topics common to all citizens . The part concerning religious culture had been drafted using a supradenominational approach centred on fundamental concepts such as the Koran and the LANGUAGE ( PERSON ) , and did not favour any particular branch of ORG .

( iii ) The syllabus did not give precedence to any particular faith . On the contrary , the textbooks reflected a supra - denominational approach . The syllabus observed the principle of objectivity and did not give priority to any faith or any religious group . The textbooks and the syllabus were designed to deliver information on ORG using pedagogical methods .

( iv ) The use of the religious culture and ethics textbooks written by PERSON and PERSON for DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE had been discontinued in DATE following the changes to the syllabus . They had been replaced by new textbooks written by ORG committees . The same was true of the textbooks for upper secondary schools , which had been replaced in the DATE . In drawing up the new syllabus implemented in the DATE , ORG had taken full account of the points raised by the applicants .

( v ) Unlike the former syllabus , the new syllabus covered topics such as the principles of the Alevi faith , the worship , mystical philosophy , ethical understanding , prayers ( niyaz ) and collective prayer ( cem ) of followers of the Alevi faith , and also Alevi principles and rites such as the CARDINAL religious services ( CARDINAL hizmet ) , the path to God , the GPE and DATE ( Hızır ve GPE orucu ) , the CARDINAL gates ( CARDINAL kapɪ ) and CARDINAL levels ( CARDINAL makam ) , the CARDINAL GPE ( CARDINAL sünnet ) and the CARDINAL obligations ( QUANTITY ) . In the course of preparing the school textbooks and choosing the topics relating to the Alevi faith , worship and ethics , extensive recourse had been had to publications written by prominent PERSON .

( vi ) While the teaching of religion as such took account of the precepts of the Koran and the life of the prophet PERSON , the other interpretations of ORG were covered in the context of cultural information . Hence , the textbooks provided information on ORG , NORP ( caferilik ) , PERSON ( hanefilik ) , Shafism ( şafilik ) , Shiism ( şiilik ) and the NORP movements . They also provided teaching on the foundations of NORP and in particular the CARDINAL prayers , pilgrimage , charity and sacrifice . CARDINAL pages were devoted to the Alevi faith .

( vii ) In conclusion , the report recommended the addition of references to certain aspects of the Alevi faith , for instance festivals , and specified that the cemevi was a place of cultural exchange for ORG rather than a place of worship .

On DATE the applicants contested the expert report and filed additional pleadings . They submitted that the teaching that was provided focused on the NORP interpretation of NORP and that the Alevi faith was presented in summary fashion . Providing examples , they argued that much of the information presented contained errors . In particular , they claimed that the symbols linked to their faith had been ignored and that the mosque was presented as the NORP place of worship . They asserted that certain NORP rituals , namely the prayers or Salat ( namaz ) and ablutions ( abdest ) were imposed and were presented according to the NORP interpretation of NORP . They also complained that the experts had denied that the cemevi was the LOC place of worship . They criticised the Year CARDINAL textbook , in which the main rituals of ORG were reportedly listed as Salat , fasting , pilgrimage and charity , arguing that the information provided was confined to the NORP interpretation of ORG , whereas , in their view , a theological debate was under way as to how Salat should be performed . Lastly , they alleged that the textbooks in question treated the Alevi faith as a tradition or culture rather than as a fully - fledged faith .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicants’ claims on the ground that the refusal of their request by the respondent authorities had conformed to the relevant legislation . The court referred to the findings of the report on the teaching of religious culture and ethics ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , taking the view that religious subjects were dealt with using a supra - denominational approach in the textbooks for both the old and the new syllabus . The court considered that the principle of State neutrality had thus been respected and that the new topics had been chosen taking into account the country ’s educational needs .

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the firstinstance judgment .

In a judgment of DATE , which was served on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law and upheld the first - instance judgment , which it considered to be in conformity with both the procedure and the law .

The Government provided the following additional information .

DATE a large number of workshops ( çalıştay ) had been held in GPE , attended by leaders of the ORG and other faiths , with the aim of examining issues concerning the NORP community . The topics covered included the teaching of religious culture and ethics in primary and secondary schools . Following these workshops it was decided that ORG would overhaul the existing syllabus . A special meeting was organised , chaired by the Secretary of ORG and attended by the leaders of different faith groups in GPE and ORG experts . It was decided at the meeting that the process of overhauling the syllabus would be overseen by ORG .

A series of meetings was held within ORG , designed to allow an exchange of views and to identify the wishes of the different faiths . The meetings were attended by ORG , PERSON and PERSON ( nusayri ) leaders and examined the current syllabus and textbooks . In addition , on the basis of the findings of a report prepared by ORG , ORG and PERSON representatives , the syllabus and the textbooks were amended in order to respond – in large part , in the Government ’s submission – to the concerns expressed by the leaders of those communities . The new religious culture and ethics textbooks were introduced at the start of the DATE . After overhauling the syllabus the national authorities organised training seminars throughout the country for teachers of the subject .

In GPE , pupils belonging to the NORP and NORP faiths are exempted from religious culture and ethics classes in accordance with decision no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG . The latter decided on DATE and CARDINAL DATE to draw up a religious instruction syllabus specifically designed for NORP and NORP pupils in primary and secondary schools . To that end , a meeting was held in GPE on DATE with NORP spiritual leaders . The national authorities also appointed a university - based coordinator to oversee preparation of the syllabus . At the meetings concerning the new syllabus it was made clear that the spiritual leaders of the faiths concerned were free to design the programme of religious instruction in accordance with their own beliefs , lifestyles and traditions . Accordingly , the NORP representatives sent a draft syllabus to ORG and the NORP representatives informed the ORG that their syllabus was being finalised . The draft syllabuses will be discussed at a meeting to be attended by representatives of the faiths concerned with a view to adoption of a final version .

The Government produced before the ORG a document drawn up by ORG of ORG . According to this document , those responsible for preparing the syllabus had taken care in drawing it up not to favour a particular faith but instead to adopt a supra - denominational approach . The document also stated that the wishes of the different religious groups had been taken into account and that the children of Alevi citizens were not forced to follow a particular religious teaching or practice . It further specified that the new syllabus had been adopted on DATE and had been introduced at the start of the DATE .

The document was accompanied by a summary of the new course content and extracts from the textbooks dealing with the various interpretations of ORG . It explained , among other things , that topics relating to the Alevi - Bektashi , PERSON and PERSON communities had been incorporated in the syllabus and textbooks in question . Those topics are set out below .

The textbooks for DATE and CARDINAL proposed activities related to the sayings of PERSON ( son - in - law of the Prophet PERSON ) . They also contained passages concerning the importance attached to cleanliness by PERSON ( a leading NORP and founder of the GPE brotherhood in DATE ) . Under the heading “ Different examples of prayers in our culture ” , they dealt with the various interpretations of certain surahs and PERSON prayers . They also referred to the significance of certain DATE and TIME in that faith .

The Year CARDINAL textbook dealt with the CARDINAL compulsory prayers ( namaz ) and the call to prayer ( ezan ) and also took ORG practice into account . It further referred to the role and importance of PERSON in GPE . Lastly , it presented leading figures like PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who had contributed to the adoption of ORG in GPE .

In the textbook for DATE , an item concerning the Muharram fast had been added to the chapter on fasting , which also contained an account of the Battle of Karbala . The chapter entitled “ Different interpretations within NORP ” explored the PERSON faith . This last section addressed the following topics : the different types of cem , the CARDINAL religious services , the semah , the spiritual brotherhood ( musahiplik ) , prayers and the GPE fast . These topics were also covered in the Year CARDINAL textbook .

Lastly , the textbooks for DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL presented important figures in the Alevi - Bektashi faith and , in different passages , highlighted the role and importance of PERSON in GPE .

The applicants submitted CARDINAL documents in particular to the ORG . The first was a research report compiled for the “ Educational reform initiative ” ( Eğitim Reformu Girişimi ) by PERSON , an expert on religious freedom and director of the “ Initiative for freedom of religion and beliefs in GPE ” . The report is entitled “ An assessment of the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the DATE ” ( DATE Öğretim Yılında Uygulanan Din Kültürü ve Ahlak PERSON ) .

After analysing the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the DATE , the expert went on to state as follows :

“ Syllabus for DATE

If we compare the new syllabus for religious culture and ethics with the previous one , we can see that the changes made do not amount to a thorough overhaul based on principles such as impartiality and objectivity . The changes consisted mainly in adding some new information and moving a few chapters . Among the additions , a long chapter is now devoted to the different interpretations of ORG and certain traditions within ORG ( primarily the PERSON and PERSON traditions ) , including terminology , practices and references .

As to the overall content in terms of the teaching goals and the areas covered , the values and concepts dealt with in the syllabus remain close to those in the previous syllabus and no major changes have been made . Reading materials have been added at the end of each chapter in order to reinforce what has been learnt . In addition , certain principles are spelled out , for instance ‘ Pupils shall not be compelled to follow religious practices’ and ‘ Pupils shall not be required to learn verses or hadiths by heart or to copy out prayers and surahs other than those contained in the textbooks’ ...


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev

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

The applicant was charged with several counts of organising , inciting and aiding various crimes against persons and property . CARDINAL of his CARDINAL co - accused , GPE and GPE , had given evidence against him when questioned by the police DATE ; when giving that evidence they stated that the applicant had incited them to engage in certain criminal activities . They also gave evidence as regards the alleged involvement of their co - accused , PERSON , in some of those criminal activities . According to the records of the police questioning , on all but CARDINAL occasion GPE and GPE were questioned by GPE , a police officer , and they did not ask for a lawyer . Subsequently , when questioned by a prosecutor on DATE , DATE stated that police officers had coerced him into incriminating his co - accused , including the applicant ; PERSON told the prosecutor that he would testify in court .

The trial commenced before ORG ( ORG apgabaltiesa ) on DATE and lasted until DATE . During that period CARDINAL court hearings were held in the presence of the applicant and his defence council .

At the trial , GPE and GPE testified that they had never before met the applicant , and that ORG , who had died in the meantime , had been the instigator of some of the crimes . The court read out the pre - trial statements of GPE and GPE When invited to explain the discrepancies between those initial pre - trial statements and their subsequent evidence , they claimed that they had been forced to sign the initial pre - trial statements . DATE submitted that the statements had been illegible and that he had not been given the opportunity to engage a lawyer . PERSON stated that police officer GPE had been writing a record of his questioning while another police officer had questioned him . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON lodged with the first - instance court a written request for the court to take into account his submission that the police had coerced him into incriminating the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE GPE appeared before the first - instance court . She testified that she had taken statements from the accused . She stated that it was possible that another police officer , ORG , had participated in their questioning . On DATE , ORG appeared before the first - instance court . He testified that while he had questioned GPE and GPE , GPE had been keeping a record of their respective questioning . GPE and GPE denied the allegations of physical or psychological coercion . The applicant ’s lawyer , GPE , was given an opportunity to put questions to them .

On DATE submitted a written request to the first - instance court for it to disregard his pre - trial statements as he had been ill - treated and tortured during the pre - trial investigation in order to force him to incriminate his co - accused , including the applicant . Specifically , he had been constantly beaten and ridiculed : electric currents had been applied to his body through his handcuffs , and narcotic substances had been forcibly injected into his veins . Nobody had offered to assign him a lawyer . He had not complained about these incidents at the time because he had been afraid of retribution . However , after the completion of the pre - trial investigation he had complained to the prosecutor , who had ignored his complaint .

In his closing statement , the prosecutor denied the allegations of GPE and PERSON , emphasising that they had not lodged any complaints prior to the first - instance proceedings . During their initial questioning GPE and GPE had given evidence in respect of facts which at that stage had not been known to the police . The credibility of their allegations of coercion was further diminished by the fact that following the death of ORG they had stated that he had been the instigator of some of the criminal activities in question .

On DATE ORG delivered judgment . The court cited the initial pre - trial statements of GPE and GPE incriminating the applicant . It did not regard as credible their submissions that police officers had pressured them into giving those statements . The police officers had also questioned another co - accused , GPE , who , unlike GPE and GPE , had not incriminated the applicant . Furthermore , had the police officers pressurised them into giving their statements , they would have contained more details as regards the applicant ’s involvement . A.D. and GPE had signed the statements . The court did not find that their right to legal assistance had been restricted . No complaints as regards the alleged ill - treatment had been submitted or noted down in procedural documents by DATE or GPE , or their lawyers . DATE and GPE had made the allegations of coercion in an attempt to explain why they had subsequently given evidence in favour of their other co - accused , including the applicant , and against their late co - accused , ORG

ORG found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment . It also ordered his detention . As the applicant was not present at the delivery of judgment , he could not be arrested in the courtroom . He was subsequently declared wanted by the police and arrested DATE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , GPE , lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment . He argued that the police officers had pressurised DATE and GPE into incriminating the applicant .

On DATE the appeal hearing was held before ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu palāta ) . The applicant did not attend the hearing . GPE submitted that he did not know his whereabouts . The court adjourned the hearing . At the following hearing , held on DATE , the applicant was represented by a different lawyer , PERSON , who had been retained by the applicant ’s wife .

On DATE ORG of ORG , referring to Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( GPE kodekss ) , declined to examine the appeal lodged by GPE It noted that the applicant , even though he had been summoned , had failed to appear at the CARDINAL appeal hearings without a valid reason . Similarly , he had failed to attend the closing hearing before the first - instance court . He had been declared wanted and was at large . Given that the applicant had retained ORG to represent him , he had been aware of the proceedings and had intentionally failed to attend , thereby showing disrespect towards the court . In the applicant ’s absence the court was unable to ascertain whether he wished to maintain the appeal lodged by his lawyer . Lastly , proceedings in the case DATE which required the examination of voluminous material DATE could not be delayed simply because of the applicant ’s unjustified absence .

On DATE PERSON appealed against the aforementioned decision to ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG departaments ) . He argued that he had not been retained by the applicant but by his wife , on the applicant ’s instructions ( uzdevumā ) . The applicant had not received any summons and his family had no information about his whereabouts or the reasons for his absence . PERSON relied on LAW and complained of an infringement of the applicant ’s defence rights .

On DATE the ORG of ORG by a final decision refused to examine the appeal lodged by GPE It noted that the applicant had repeatedly failed to attend the appeal hearings and that “ in the criminal case at hand only the accused could maintain the appeals lodged by their lawyers ” . This decision was sent to the applicant ’s address and to PERSON on DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG delivered judgment with respect to the appeals lodged by the applicant ’s co - accused . It found that the first - instance court had correctly assessed the allegations of GPE and GPE as regards coercion . It also found that they had made those allegations in an attempt to explain why they had subsequently given evidence in favour of their co - accused , including the applicant .

On DATE the aforementioned judgment was upheld by the ORG of ORG .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

From DATE armed groups started to seize official buildings in the GPE and GPE regions and announced the creation of self - proclaimed entities known as the “ GPE ” and “ GPE ” ( the “ ORG ” and “ LPR ” ) .

NORP In response , on DATE the Government , who consider the armed groups to be terrorist organisations , authorised the use of force against them in the legal form of an “ anti - terrorist operation ” .

NORP In DATE the armed groups started to seize offices of ORG and other regional financial institutions in the GPE and GPE regions .

On DATE the NORP postal service GPE suspended its operations on the territories of the GPE and GPE regions that were outside the control of the Government , because of frequent attacks on its vehicles and employees by armed groups .

On DATE ORG suspended all financial transactions on the territories outside the control of the Government ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Government forces recaptured some territories in the GPE and GPE regions , but certain parts of the regions have remained outside the ORG ’s control since that time . CARDINAL part of the GPE region not under the ORG ’s control is the city of GPE .

On DATE , following changes in the law , jurisdiction of the courts in the non - controlled areas was transferred to the relevant courts in the neighbouring regions on the territory controlled by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE all social benefit payments in the settlements of the GPE and GPE regions that were outside the control of the Government were suspended ( see paragraph CARDINAL below )

NORP In DATE ORG and ORG were relocated to the cities of GPE and GPE , territory controlled by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

The applicants were registered as recipients of social benefits with different departments of ORG GPE in GPE . Some applicants had been receiving their social benefits until DATE , others until DATE .

On DATE the first and second applicants registered themselves with ORG of LOC of GPE ( currently the city of GPE ) , controlled by the Government . On DATE their social benefits was reinstated , including social benefits due to them for DATE to DATE .

The sixth applicant was registered with ORG of LOC in GPE on DATE . However , she did not apply for reinstatement of her social benefits .

The other applicants did not apply to the relevant social authorities on the territory controlled by the Government for reinstatement of their social benefits .

According to the Government , the sixth and seventh applicants travelled from GPE to the territory controlled by the Government after their social benefits had been suspended . The Government provided a certificate from ORG stating that the sixth and seventh applicants had entered the territory controlled by the ORG on DATE , through an authorised checkpoint near the frontline between NORP forces and “ ORG ” armed groups in the town of GPE .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and is of NORP ethnic origin . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .

The applicant appears to have arrived in GPE in DATE . In DATE he was arrested while attempting to illegally cross the border from GPE to GPE together with several other individuals .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant , together with a number of other accused , of a number of serious criminal offences committed in GPE in DATE , including : creation of an illegal organised armed unit ; illegal border crossing ; illegal possession of firearms , explosives and other weapons ; and creation of a network of clandestine flats in GPE as temporary accommodation for members of illegal armed units operating in GPE . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . His conviction was upheld by the higher courts . The applicant is currently serving his sentence in Prison No . CARDINAL in GPE .

By a decision of DATE , an investigator of the GPE district department of the interior of GPE ( “ the LOC ” ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under LAW of LAW ( participation in an armed unit not envisaged by federal law ) , on suspicion that during DATE , he had been an active member of an illegal armed unit operating in LOC of GPE under the command of PERSON , and that he was still a member of that unit at the time of institution of the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the Vedeno ROVD issued a search warrant in respect of the applicant as a suspect .

On DATE it formally charged him as an accused person under LAW of LAW Criminal Code .

On DATE it issued an international search warrant in respect of him .

By a decision of DATE , ORG of GPE remanded him in custody in absentia .

In the meantime , in DATE the applicant applied to ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) with a request for asylum . It appears that , since DATE , by mutual agreement and understanding between the ORG and ORG , the processing of asylum applications by people originating from GPE was separated from the ordinary government procedure , with applications by members of this group being dealt with directly by the ORG . In DATE the applicant was interviewed by ORG representatives but his application was rejected .

On DATE the NORP Deputy Prosecutor General formally requested ORG to extradite the applicant under LAW ( “ the GPE Convention ” ) . As an alternative , in the event the extradition was subject to postponement under LAW owing to the fact that the applicant was serving a prison sentence in GPE , he requested the applicant ’s “ temporary extradition ” for a period of DATE for the purposes of carrying out necessary procedural steps in the framework of the criminal proceedings pending in GPE .

The extradition request contained a number of assurances : that the applicant would only be prosecuted in connection with the criminal offence he was charged with ; that he would not be subjected to torture or illtreatment ; and that in the event of “ temporary extradition ” he would be returned to GPE DATE after being handed over to the NORP law - enforcement authorities .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the NORP First Deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant ’s “ temporary extradition ” to GPE for DATE .

The applicant , who had a lawyer , lodged an appeal against that temporary extradition order with ORG , arguing that there was a serious risk that he would be tortured or ill - treated by the NORP law - enforcement authorities if he was extradited .

By an inquiry letter of CARDINAL DATE , the judge of the NORP ORG dealing with the case requested ORG the ORG to provide information about the grounds on which the applicant had requested refugee status , and whether any decision had been taken by the ORG in this respect .

By a letter of DATE , ORG of the ORG informed the judge that the applicant ’s asylum application had been rejected by the ORG “ at first instance ” , but that he had lodged an appeal against the decision which was awaiting consideration . The ORG therefore “ strongly requested ” that the applicant ’s forced return to GPE should be “ prevented ” until a final decision had been taken by the ORG in respect of his application for refugee status .

By a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the temporary extradition order of CARDINAL DATE . The court noted the following : that there were no grounds in the domestic law or relevant international instruments for precluding his temporary extradition to GPE ; that his request for refugee status had been rejected by the ORG , therefore he did not have refugee status at the time of examination of his appeal ; and that the NORP authorities’ extradition request provided the necessary assurances . The court refused to examine the applicant ’s complaints concerning an alleged risk of torture or ill - treatment , noting that he had failed to submit any evidence in that regard .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision , reiterating his complaint that he would be subjected to a risk of illtreatment if extradited to GPE , and GPE in particular .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that ORG had reached the correct decision . ORG decision was silent as to the pending examination by the ORG of the applicant ’s asylum request and as to his allegations concerning a risk of torture or ill - treatment in the receiving country .

NORP In accordance with the procedural rules concerning appeals against the prosecution authorities’ decisions concerning extradition , no further appeal lay against ORG decision .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was interviewed again by the ORG in Prison No . CARDINAL . In his latest communication to ORG ( DATE ) , he provided no update concerning his pending appeal with the ORG .