Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Positive obligations)

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

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE . He currently lives in GPE .

DATE the applicant lived mainly in LOC . He claimed to have been involved in the activities of ORG , the NORP political organisation .

In DATE the applicant went to GPE to study . DATE he entered ORG . In DATE the applicant finished his studies at the ORG and obtained a master ’s degree in biomedical electronics . In DATE the applicant enrolled in a postgraduate course at the same ORG . In DATE he withdrew from the course as he had no money to pursue his studies . The applicant claims that since DATE he has been working as a freelance translator / interpreter for ORG in GPE and for various private companies ( the applicant speaks fluent LANGUAGE , LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE , and understands NORP ) .

In DATE the applicant married a NORP national . In DATE they divorced . In DATE the applicant married another NORP national ; their marriage lasted for DATE . In DATE the applicant entered into a relationship with another NORP national . In DATE they married and currently live together as a family .

The applicant visited GPE twice in DATE . According to the applicant , one of the visits was due to his father ’s death . Since DATE the applicant has remained in GPE without leaving its territory .

In DATE the applicant was issued with a registration card by LAW in LOC ( “ ORG ” ) . The card bears the name “ PERSON Hmeid ” . The applicant attributes the difference in the spelling of his name to varying transliterations of NORP names . Similar cards were issued to the applicant ’s mother and sister , who currently reside in LOC .

Prior to DATE the applicant was staying in GPE on the basis of passports of limited duration , issued by ORG , and temporary residence permits , which were regularly extended by the NORP police . In DATE an extension of the applicant ’s residence permit was requested by ORG and granted by the NORP authorities , as at the time access to the NORP territories was problematic .

In DATE the applicant started preparing documents to apply for a permanent residence permit on the basis of his marriage to a NORP national . He could not complete his application because his then brother - in - law was opposed to the applicant being registered as resident in the flat in which the applicant , his then wife and brother - in - law resided at the time .

On DATE the applicant applied to the migration unit within ORG in GPE for an extension of his residence permit . The police noted that the applicant ’s residence permit had expired in DATE and that since then the applicant had been in GPE in violation of migration regulations .

On DATE , at the request of the police , ORG in GPE , relying on Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code on Administrative Offences , ordered the applicant to pay a fine for violating migration regulations .

The applicant ’s identification documents were kept by LOC pending the outcome of the applicant ’s request for an extension of his residence permit .

According to the applicant , DATE his residence permit was extended until DATE . The Government contested that submission , stating that no extension had been granted .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was stopped by officers of ORG in GPE for an identity check . As he had no identification documents , the applicant was arrested and taken to the police station . The applicant stated that his explanation that his documents were being kept at another police department had not been taken into account . On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG in GPE , which , having examined the material submitted by the police , fined the applicant for failure to carry identification and foreigner ’s registration documents .

On DATE the applicant was stopped by officers of ORG in GPE for an identity check . Having noted that the applicant was living in a flat in GPE without a rent contract or official registration , the officers asked ORG in GPE to fine the applicant . By a decision of DATE , the court ordered the applicant to pay a fine for violating migration regulations .

The applicant did not appeal against the court decisions convicting him of administrative offences , as he had no legal representation and took the view that those decisions would not have any consequences for his stay in GPE .

On DATE the applicant went to the migration unit of ORG in GPE to apply for an extension of his residence permit . On the way he was stopped by officers of the migration unit of ORG in GPE , who informed the applicant that there had been an order deporting him from GPE . The officers seized the documents the applicant had with him for his application for an extension of his residence permit , including his passport and marriage certificate . The documents have not been returned to the applicant . The applicant claimed that for that reason he could not provide a copy of his most recent residence permit .

Subsequently the applicant contacted a lawyer , who helped him to obtain copies of the decisions concerning his expulsion and to lodge an appeal against them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the Solomyanskyy ORG in GPE issued a decision stating that the applicant should be removed from GPE for violation of migration regulations and banning him from entry to the country until DATE under section CARDINAL of ORG see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In the decision , it was noted that the applicant had come to GPE in DATE for a private visit ; that after the expiry of his residence permit he had remained in GPE illegally ; that he had not requested an extension of his residence permit ; that he had no relatives in GPE ; that he had no work permit ; that he had earned his life working at a market in GPE ; and that he was “ known to the police ” .

According to the ORG , the applicant was informed of the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE and asked for a court hearing on his expulsion case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in his absence . In support , they provided copies of written statements allegedly signed by the applicant and by a translator .

The applicant claimed that he had not been informed of that decision and that the written statements in that regard had been forged by the police . The applicant also argued that he had not been aware that subsequently , in DATE , the police had initiated court proceedings for him to be forcibly removed from GPE .

In their written submissions made in the course of those proceedings , the police reiterated the findings in the decision of CARDINAL DATE and requested ORG to order the applicant ’s immediate forcible removal and his placement in a facility for temporary detention of foreigners and stateless persons for the period necessary to prepare the removal . In the latter regard , the police argued that there were reasons to believe that the applicant would try to remain illegally in GPE .

On DATE ORG heard the case in the absence of the parties , having noted that the applicant had submitted a written statement that he did not wish to be present and that he agreed with the expulsion decision , and also that the police were not able to attend the hearing because of their high workload . The court relied on the findings in the decision of CARDINAL DATE and allowed the claims of the police . In its decision , the court noted that its ruling was to be enforced immediately and that it could be appealed against within DATE under ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW . If no appeal was lodged against the decision it would enter into force after the expiry of the DATE period .

According to the applicant , he was informed of the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE a lawyer submitted an appeal on the applicant ’s behalf , together with a request for renewal of the DATE time - limit , to ORG for further transfer to ORG .

In the appeal , the applicant argued that he had been studying in GPE DATE . In DATE he had returned from GPE to GPE fearing persecution by the NORP authorities . Without providing any further details , the applicant stated that he had been arrested and tortured by the NORP authorities with the aim of obtaining his confession of cooperation with ORG . The applicant further noted that he was married to a NORP national , that he had been officially allowed to stay in GPE until DATE , and that on DATE the police had seized his identification documents and ordered him to leave GPE . The applicant also expressed the wish to apply for asylum once ORG started accepting asylum applications according to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant complained that the first - instance court had failed to examine all the facts pertinent to the case and to hear him . According to the appeal , the applicant had not been informed of the decision of DATE and had not asked the court to hear the case in his absence .

He also argued that the first - instance court had not checked whether it was safe for the applicant to return to GPE and had not been informed of the circumstances essential for the outcome of his case . In particular , the applicant argued that the NORP police had withheld the information that he had a valid residence permit and that he had used to be married to a NORP national . The applicant complained that the expulsion decision of CARDINAL DATE had been taken in violation of ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , given the human rights situation in GPE , and in violation of the domestic procedure .

On DATE ORG heard the case in the absence of the parties . It is unknown whether the applicant or his lawyer intended to take part in the hearing and , if so , whether they informed ORG accordingly .

The appeal was rejected as unsubstantiated . In particular , ORG relied fully on the findings of the first - instance court and noted that “ the claimant , having been removed from GPE , had crossed the NORP border despite the existing entry ban ” . The decision entered into force immediately .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a cassation appeal challenging the factual and legal findings of the lower courts . The applicant also complained that his expulsion from GPE would be contrary to LAW given his personal and family ties with that country .

On DATE ORG overturned the lower courts’ decisions on the ground that they had failed to examine whether there were grounds preventing the applicant ’s expulsion under NORP law . ORG also noted that the lower courts had not given due consideration to the applicant ’s private and family life interests in GPE . The case was thus sent for re - examination to the first - instance court .

After another round of examination by the courts at the first and appeal levels of jurisdiction resulting in a decision ordering the applicant ’s forcible removal from GPE , in DATE the case was sent back to the start again by ORG , for the same reasons as in its decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG , to which the case was eventually remitted , refused the application for the applicant ’s forcible expulsion .

The court held that the applicant ’s forcible removal from GPE would be in violation of his right to respect of family life as guaranteed by LAW , having regard in particular to the fact that the applicant was married to a NORP national . It also found that , in the event of his removal to GPE , the applicant ’s life and security would be endangered , given the armed conflict on that territory , which would entail a violation of GPE ’s commitments under Articles DATE of the Convention . The court took the view that the applicant had grounds to be given the status of refugee or of a person in need of complementary protection . The court also noted that , by operation of the statutory DATE time - limit ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant could no longer be considered as having committed the administrative offences of which he had been convicted in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .

That decision was not appealed against and became final .

On DATE the applicant lodged an asylum application with ORG . According to the applicant , in his application he stated that he feared persecution by ORG if returned to GPE , as he had been a member of ORG .

According to the applicant , during the assessment of his asylum case migration officers questioned him on CARDINAL occasions . They asked formal questions not related to the substance of his allegations .

On DATE the applicant received a written notice dated DATE that his asylum application had been refused by a decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE and that he could challenge it before the courts . No copy of the decision was given to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant challenged the refusal of his asylum application before ORG . In particular , the applicant argued that he had not been informed of the reasons for that decision , and that this prevented him from effectively appealing against it . The applicant also argued that the examination of his application had not been thorough and objective , as his questioning had been formalistic and no additional information had been sought concerning the general situation in GPE or the applicant ’s personal circumstances from other ORG authorities , such as ORG , or from the applicant himself , to check the reliability of his submissions . The applicant stated that he had not been given access to the evidence in the inquiry . He maintained his allegation that he was at risk of persecution by ORG , and also argued that if returned to GPE , as a male NORP he ran a real risk of ill - treatment by the NORP authorities , even though he did not support ORG . In that regard , he referred to the reports of ORG concerning the human rights situation in GPE in DATE . The applicant also contended that ORG had disregarded that , as a NORP refugee registered with ORG and outside its field of operation he was entitled to the same protection in GPE as refugees under LAW to LAW .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s case , finding that ORG had examined the matter thoroughly and fully and that the applicant ’s arguments were unsubstantiated . In particular , the court noted that the material relating to the applicant ’s asylum proceedings demonstrated that he did not run an individual and real risk of persecution by the NORP authorities , as ORG and ORG had entered into negotiations concerning a transitional government for NORP territories ; he had not been subjected to such persecution at any time ; the applicant had not provided any evidence that he would not be able to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin ; he had travelled freely to and from GPE ; all his family lived there ; and he did not face criminal prosecution there . The court also noted that the applicant had left his country of origin voluntarily for economic and personal reasons ; he had had his residence permit in GPE repeatedly extended for personal reasons ; and he had requested asylum only after he had not been able to legalise his further stay in GPE . Relying on the latter ground , the court found that the applicant had missed the time - limit for lodging an asylum application pursuant to LAW of DATE . On the whole , the court found that it had been for the applicant to provide documents or persuasive arguments demonstrating that he had run a real and personal risk of persecution , which he had failed to do .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . In particular , he stated that his allegations of risk of persecution by ORG and by the NORP authorities were , inter alia , supported by the fact that his passport had been issued by ORG associated with ORG , by his registration card issued by the ORG , and by various international reports , which neither ORG nor the court of first instance had sought to obtain or examine . According to the applicant , the court ’s review of his case had not been full or thorough , thus falling short of the requirements of ORG in Need of Complementary or LAW of DATE , as interpreted by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal , having agreed with the first - instance court in that the applicant had failed to substantiate his asylum application as required by the national law and pertinent international documents , including ORG Directive of DATE on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status and the Guidelines on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status under LAW , issued by the ORG in DATE .

The applicant appealed in cassation , stating that the lower courts had not fully examined the material pertinent to his case , which had resulted in a wrong dismissal of his asylum request , in violation of Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention . As to Article CARDINAL , the applicant noted that he had studied in GPE DATE , that since DATE he was permanently resident on its territory , and that he was married to a NORP national .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s cassation appeal , having found no elements demonstrating that the lower courts had erred in the application of substantive or procedural law or that review of the evidence in the case was required .

In DATE the applicant lodged a new asylum application with ORG .

On DATE ORG of ORG refused to examine the application , finding that it was wholly unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG overturned that decision , having found that ORG had failed to thoroughly examine the matter . The court in particular found that , although the arguments on which the applicant ’s new application for asylum had been based were the same as in the applicant ’s initial application , the new application needed to be reconsidered in the light of the decision of ORG of DATE and on the basis of the new LAW , which had entered into force on DATE . It therefore ordered ORG to reconsider the applicant ’s new asylum application .

The reconsideration of the applicant ’s new asylum application is currently pending . According to the Government , by operation of section CARDINAL of the Refugees and Persons in Need of Complementary or Temporary Protection Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , this gives the applicant a lawful ground to stay in GPE for the duration of the said reconsideration .

As he could not obtain asylum in GPE and in order to use all possible opportunities to legalise his stay in GPE in order to evade expulsion , in DATE the applicant applied for leave to immigrate , principally relying on the fact that he was married to a NORP citizen . ORG refused to examine his application as there were inconsistences in the spelling of his name in the applicant ’s asylum seeker ’s certificate and in his passport and marriage certificate . The applicant ’s requests for the relevant changes to be made in the documents were allegedly ignored by the authorities .

The applicant further claimed that an official from ORG told him that he would have to leave GPE and to apply for leave to immigrate from abroad in order to obtain leave to enter GPE lawfully .

According to the applicant , he could not leave GPE as he had nowhere to go . In GPE his life and health would be endangered and he had not maintained close links with the place where he lived before he had moved to GPE . In his view , he could not apply for leave to immigrate into GPE , as he could not be considered as staying on its territory “ on lawful grounds ” , which was required by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the Government , the applicant could not apply for leave to immigrate while his asylum application was being examined . Furthermore , pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW leave to immigrate could be granted to an alien who had been married to a NORP citizen for DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . At the time , the applicant ’s marriage had lasted for DATE . Thus , no leave to immigrate could be granted to him on that ground .

The parties did not inform the ORG of any further developments in that regard .


Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

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

The applicant was subject to a tax inspection during DATE and DATE due to an unexplained increase in her income . The tax inspection report was completed on DATE . At the same time the applicant ’s husband was also subject to a tax inspection . He has lodged a separate application with ORG ( no . CARDINAL PERSON v. GPE ) .

On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional taxes and tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skatteförhöjning ) on the applicant for DATE . The amount of evaded taxes DATE totalled CARDINAL . The amount of tax surcharges varied CARDINAL .

On an unspecified date the applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden ) , requesting it to quash the decisions of DATE . Also ORG ( veroasiamies , skatteombudet ) sought rectification in respect of DATE , requesting that the taxable income be increased .

On DATE ORG reduced the amount of additional taxes as well as tax surcharges in respect of DATE .

On an unspecified date ORG accepted ORG application and increased the taxable income for DATE . However , on DATE ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) quashed that decision .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s applications in respect of DATE .

By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that the additional taxes and tax surcharges be quashed or at least reduced .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s appeal in respect of DATE and quashed the additional tax and the tax surcharges in that respect . The remainder of the applicant ’s appeal was rejected . This decision became final on DATE as the applicant did not appeal against it .

On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant on CARDINAL count of aiding and abetting aggravated dishonesty by a debtor ( törkeä velallisen epärehellisyys , grovt oredlighet som gäldenär ) and on CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud ( törkeä veropetos , grovt skattebedrägeri ) , all concerning DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of aiding and abetting aggravated dishonesty by a debtor as she had received unexplained income from her husband DATE . She was accused of aggravated tax fraud , inter alia , as she had given false information to the tax authorities and tax had therefore been incompletely levied DATE . The amount of evaded taxes had been QUANTITY . The taxation authorities joined the charges and presented a compensation claim totalling exactly the amount of avoided taxes .

On DATE the GPE - GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting aggravated dishonesty by a debtor and imposed a CARDINAL suspended sentence . The charges of aggravated tax fraud were dismissed , as well as the tax authorities’ compensation claim .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , requesting that ORG judgment be quashed and the charge on aiding and abetting aggravated dishonesty by a debtor be rejected or dismissed without examining the merits . She referred to the ne bis in idem principle and to the ORG ’s caselaw in that respect .

On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld ORG judgment . The court found that the mere fact that the same issues had been assessed in the administrative proceedings did not necessary prevent the examination of the charges pressed . In the administrative proceedings , the unexplained increase in the applicant ’s wealth had been considered to be income , thus that case concerned only taxes . The criminal proceedings , however , concerned the fact that the applicant had received income from her husband to the detriment of his creditors . As the proceedings did not concern the same matter , there was no impediment to the examination of the charges .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . She emphasised that the income received from her husband was exactly the same income for which additional taxes and tax surcharges had been imposed . All the imposed additional taxes and tax surcharges had been paid .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal but granted the applicant ’s husband leave to appeal .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( laki verotusmenettelystä , lagen om beskattningsförfarande , Act no . DATE , as amended by Act no . DATE ) provides that if a person has failed to make the required tax returns or has given incomplete , misleading or false information to the tax authorities and tax has therefore been incompletely or partially levied , the taxpayer shall be ordered to pay unpaid taxes together with additional tax and a tax surcharge .

According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , as amended by Acts no . DATE and no . DATE ) , a person who ( CARDINAL ) gives a tax authority false information on a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) files a tax return concealing a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) for the purpose of avoiding tax , fails to observe a duty pertaining to taxation , influencing the assessment of tax , or ( CARDINAL ) acts otherwise fraudulently and thereby causes or attempts to cause a tax not to be assessed , or too low a tax to be assessed or a tax to be unduly refunded , shall be sentenced for tax fraud to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of DATE . If by the tax fraud ( CARDINAL ) considerable financial benefit is sought or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud is aggravated when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated tax fraud to imprisonment for a period DATE .

According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( as amended by Acts no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a debtor who ( CARDINAL ) destroys his or her property , ( CARDINAL ) gives away or otherwise surrenders his or her property without acceptable reason , ( CARDINAL ) transfers his or her property abroad in order to place it beyond the reach of his or her creditors or ( CARDINAL ) increases his or her liabilities without basis and thus causes his or her insolvency or essentially worsens his or her state of insolvency , shall be sentenced for dishonesty by a debtor to a fine or to imprisonment for DATE . If by the dishonesty by a debtor ( CARDINAL ) considerable benefit is sought , ( CARDINAL ) considerable or particularly substantial damage is caused to the creditors , or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the dishonesty by a debtor is aggravated also when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated dishonesty by a debtor to imprisonment for DATE and at DATE .

ORG has taken a stand on the ne bis in idem principle in its precedent case ORG which concerned tax surcharges and aggravated tax fraud . In that case it found , inter alia , that even though a final judgment in a taxation case , in which tax surcharges had been imposed , prevented criminal charges being brought about the same matter , such preventive effect could not be applied to pending cases ( lis pendens ) crossing from administrative proceedings to criminal proceedings or vice versa . However , in DATE ORG reversed its line of interpretation , finding that charges for tax fraud could no longer be brought if there was already a decision to order or not to order tax surcharges in the same matter ( PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .

The Act on Tax Surcharges and Customs Duty Surcharges Imposed by a Separate Decision ( laki erillisellä päätöksellä määrättävästä veron- tai tullinkorotuksesta , lagen om skatteförhöjning och tullhöjning som påförs genom ett särskilt beslut , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . According to the LAW , the tax authorities can , when making a tax decision , assess whether to impose a tax surcharge or to report the matter to the police . The tax authorities can decide not to impose a tax surcharge . If they have not reported the matter to the police , a tax surcharge can be imposed by a separate decision by the end of the calendar year following the actual tax decision . If the tax authorities have imposed tax surcharges , they can no longer report the same matter to the police unless , after imposing the tax surcharges , they have received evidence of new or recently revealed facts . If the tax authorities have reported the matter to the police , tax surcharges can , as a rule , no longer be imposed . The purpose of the LAW is thus to ensure that a tax or a customs duty matter is processed , and possibly punished , in CARDINAL set of proceedings . The LAW does not , however , contain any transitional provisions extending its scope retroactively .


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

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised complaints under LAW .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;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)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG FAC uprava ORG ) lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant alleging that he had participated in a group of members of the NORP paramilitary forces who , in DATE , had shot DATE prisoners of war in GPE , killing CARDINAL and severely injuring CARDINAL of them . The police noted in their report that the applicant could not be apprehended because he lived in an area of GPE which was , at the time , outside the country ’s effective control .

On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant , his brother , PERSON , and CARDINAL others , GPE and GPE , in connection with a suspicion that they had committed war crimes against the prisoners of war . As all the suspects were at large , the judge ordered their pre - trial detention and issued arrest warrants .

During the investigation the investigating judge questioned a number of witnesses . Several of them testified about the applicant ’s brother ’s involvement in the killings and his position as commander of the paramilitary group . They also named PERSON as a direct perpetrator of the killings . CARDINAL of the witnesses , PERSON , testified that after the killings he had heard people saying that “ PERSON ’s group ” had committed the crime and he had later seen the applicant with that group . Another witness , ORG , who had survived the shootings , testified that after the event he had been shown the applicant ’s photo and it had appeared to him that the applicant had also been there and had personally killed CARDINAL people . Another survivor of the shooting , GPE , testified that after the crime one of the newspapers in GPE had published photos of the applicant and his brother . He had recognised the applicant ’s brother as CARDINAL of the participants in the shooting but he had not recognised the applicant as having been at the scene .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG ( GPE državno odvjetništvo u ORG ) indicted the applicant , ORG . , GPE and GPE in ORG on charges of war crimes against prisoners of war .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG asked ORG to try the applicant and the other accused , who lived on the occupied territory of GPE , in absentia , as they were not available to the NORP authorities , and requested that warrants for their arrest be issued .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention pending trial and issued an arrest warrant .

It also granted the request for the applicant ’s trial in absentia on DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ On DATE PERSON and others were indicted in this court on a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the offence [ specified ] under LAW of LAW . The ORG Attorney further requested that they be tried in absentia .

The request is granted .

The accused are at large and a detention and arrest warrant have been issued , as noted in the police report .

Since the accused have been indicted for a crime against humanity and international law – a war crime against prisoners of war under LAW , and given that they are at large , [ this court ] considers that highly justified reasons for their trial in absentia exist . ”

On DATE the President of ORG appointed the applicant and the other accused a legal - aid lawyer , E.F.

At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard CARDINAL witnesses , including GPE and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They all confirmed the statements they had made to the investigating judge . The Deputy State Attorney and the applicant ’s legal - aid lawyer asked no questions and made no objections to their statements . The parties also agreed that the written records of statements by CARDINAL other witnesses , including PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , be admitted in evidence without those witnesses having been questioned at the trial . In his closing statement , the applicant ’s legal - aid lawyer stated :

“ The defence notes that the pre - trial and trial procedure has been thorough and invites the court to assess all the evidence adduced , in particular each witness statement taken alone and in conjunction with other statements , and , based on that assessment , to deliver a decision in accordance with the law . ”

On DATE the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The trial court considered that the witness statements provided sufficient evidence for conviction and noted that the legal - aid lawyer had made no objections to those statements .

The applicant ’s legal - aid lawyer lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE arguing that the first - instance judgment was not sufficiently reasoned .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal , quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial on the grounds that the first - instance judgment lacked sufficient reasoning

In the resumed proceedings , CARDINAL hearings , scheduled for CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE were adjourned , because the defence lawyer could not be summoned . A further hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned owing to the absence of CARDINAL of the members of the trial panel . During this period the trial court also obtained a number of autopsy reports concerning the victims of the crime at issue .

At a hearing held on DATE the trial court , with the approval of the parties , read out the evidence from the case file and concluded the hearing . The legal - aid lawyer reiterated his previous closing statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment . It based its judgment on the witness statements and the autopsy reports concerning the victims of the crime .

On DATE the legal - aid lawyer lodged an appeal with ORG arguing that the first - instance judgment lacked sufficient reasoning .

On DATE CARDINAL of the accused , GPE , was apprehended and brought before the investigating judge , who informed him of the proceedings and ordered his pre - trial detention .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment of ORG in the part which concerned the applicant , PERSON and GPE , and quashed it and ordered a retrial in respect of GPE , on the grounds that the latter had been apprehended and that therefore he had the right to a fresh trial in his presence .

On DATE , after the applicant ’s conviction had become final , a sentence - execution judge of ORG issued an arrest warrant for the applicant ’s arrest and imprisonment .

Meanwhile , the applicant learned through a lawyer in GPE about his criminal conviction in ORG .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to reopen the proceedings on the grounds that he had learned about the judgment of DATE only in DATE and that he had not committed the crime at issue . He argued that the witnesses had just mentioned his name and that the only witness statement directly implicating him in the crime , that of GPE , had not been properly interpreted in the judgment . He stressed that he would be prepared to take part in a witness confrontation with any of those who had testified against him or counter any evidence against him . He also asked that a number of witnesses be heard on his behalf , and that the possibility of trying him before a war crimes tribunal in GPE be considered . Together with his request the applicant submitted certified statements by CARDINAL people excluding the possibility of his involvement in the crime on the grounds that at the relevant time he had not been in ORG .

Based on the information provided by the applicant , and given that the witnesses at issue lived in GPE , ORG asked the NORP authorities to question them . During their questioning the witnesses reiterated their statements excluding the possibility that the applicant had been in ORG at the time of the events .

After receiving the witness statements from the NORP authorities in DATE , ORG forwarded the case file to the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG for their observations on the applicant ’s request for a retrial .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG submitted their observations on the applicant ’s request for a retrial which , in the relevant part , read :

“ Given that the trial proceedings in the case at issue were fair and given that the first and second - instance courts gave sufficient reasons for their judgments , we consider that the request for a retrial in the absence of the second accused PERSON should not be granted because none of the witnesses ... confirmed the arguments from the request for retrial ... ”

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request on the grounds that he had failed to show that there were any new facts which could alter his conviction . The relevant part of this decision reads :

“ ... this panel of ORG considers that PERSON request for a retrial does not contain any new facts or evidence which could , in themselves or in conjunction with the previously adduced evidence , lead to his acquittal or his conviction under more lenient law .

All the witnesses stated that they had known Mile ORG from the period before the war . Although they all , and in particular witnesses DATE . and GPE , attempted to exclude the possibility of the convict ’s presence in the area where the killings of the NORP soldiers took place in DATE , this panel considers that these statements are not sufficiently credible or precise to completely exclude the possibility of the convict ’s participation in the massacre .

In the proceedings before ORG Sanader was found guilty of the offence under LAW and ORG upheld that judgment . Based on the comprehensively and correctly established facts [ the trial court ] found beyond reasonable doubt that the massacre of the NORP soldiers had been committed by the so - called ‘ PERSON and that the leader of that group had been the convict ’s brother , PERSON .

Witness PERSON , who had been a soldier in the paramilitary group , testified that the third convict , PERSON , had told him that he had killed the prisoners at the request of PERSON , while witness GPE , one of the survivors of the shooting , testified that he had recognised PERSON as the perpetrator of the crime from a photo and PERSON as having killed CARDINAL prisoners while they had been lying face down on the ground with their hands on their heads .

Against this background , the panel considers that the second convict , PERSON , has not managed to cast doubt on the facts established during the trial which led to his conviction for the offence under LAW and his sentencing to DATE imprisonment . ”

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG on DATE , arguing that the relevant domestic law required an automatic reopening of proceedings where an accused had been tried in absentia and then sought a fresh hearing , a fact to which ORG had given no consideration . He also argued that the evidence suggested that he was not guilty of the offences he had been convicted of .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request on the grounds that he could not rely on the provision granting automatic reopening of the proceedings since he lived in GPE and was not available to the NORP judicial authorities . It examined , therefore , whether any new facts warranted the reopening of the proceedings and found that no such facts existed . Accordingly , the applicant ’s request was dismissed .

The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on DATE , arguing that he had not been able to obtain a retrial and that during the proceedings conducted in his absence he had not been effectively represented .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the constitutional complaint concerned the proceedings for the reopening of the criminal proceedings and not any criminal charge against the applicant .


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in the centre for persons in preventive detention on the premises of FAC ( hereinafter “ FAC preventive detention centre ” ) .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder and , applying the criminal law relating to young offenders , sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It found that in DATE the applicant , then aged DATE , had strangled a woman who had been jogging on a forest path , had partly undressed the dead or dying victim and had then masturbated . The court found that the applicant had acted with full criminal responsibility .

From DATE , after he had served his full prison sentence , the applicant was remanded in provisional preventive detention under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG , with Judge PERSON sitting on the bench , ordered the applicant ’s retrospective preventive detention under LAW no . CARDINAL of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The court , having regard to the reports made by a criminological expert ( Bo . ) and a psychiatric expert PERSON . ) , found that the applicant was still harbouring violent sexual fantasies and that there was a high risk that he would again commit serious sexual offences , including murder for sexual gratification , if released . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG , in a leading judgment , allowed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint . It quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ORG judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG . It further found that the order for the applicant ’s provisional preventive detention DATE which had become devoid of purpose once the order for the applicant ’s retrospective preventive detention in the main proceedings had become final – to be unconstitutional ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . ORG found that the impugned judgments and decisions had violated the applicant ’s right to liberty and the constitutional protection of legitimate expectations guaranteed in a ORG governed by the rule of law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to order his immediate release . He claimed that following ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which had quashed the judgment ordering his retrospective preventive detention , there was no longer any legal basis for his detention .

On DATE ORG , allowing ORG request of CARDINAL DATE , again ordered the applicant ’s provisional preventive detention under LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW , first sentence , of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The court found that the applicant ’s provisional preventive detention was necessary because there were weighty grounds for expecting that his retrospective preventive detention would be ordered LAW no . CARDINAL of LAW , read in the light of the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE .

By submissions dated DATE , received by ORG on DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision , for which he submitted further statements of grounds on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . He claimed , in particular , that his provisional preventive detention was unlawful .

On DATE ORG refused to amend its decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded . It had regard to ( i ) a request lodged by ORG on DATE requesting that the applicant ’s appeal be dismissed , ( ii ) the findings of fact made by ORG in its judgment of DATE , ( iii ) the findings of CARDINAL medical experts in the proceedings leading to the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ( iv ) the findings of CARDINAL other experts in previous proceedings regarding the applicant ’s mental condition and the level of danger that he posed , and ( v ) the new restrictive standards set by ORG in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint regarding a breach of his right to be heard and his objection to the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against the decision of ORG dated DATE , as confirmed by ORG . He further requested that the execution of these decisions be stayed by way of an interim measure until ORG delivered its decision . The applicant claimed , in particular , that his right to a speedy decision , enshrined in his constitutional right to liberty , had not been respected in the proceedings concerning the review of his provisional preventive detention .

On DATE ORG communicated the applicant ’s constitutional complaint to the regional Government of GPE , to the President of ORG and to ORG at the latter court .

On DATE ORG , in a reasoned decision , refused to stay the order for the applicant ’s provisional preventive detention by way of an interim measure .

By submissions dated DATE the applicant replied to the submissions of the regional Government of GPE , of the President of ORG and of ORG at the latter court dated DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE ORG , without giving reasons , declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on CARDINAL DATE .

In the resumed proceedings before ORG following the remittal of the case to it , the applicant lodged a motion for bias against Judge PERSON latter had been a member of the bench of ORG , which had ordered the applicant ’s retrospective preventive detention on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant claimed that Judge PERSON had remarked to the applicant ’s female defence counsel on CARDINAL DATE , immediately after the delivery of ORG judgment ordering the applicant ’s retrospective preventive detention , in reference to the applicant : “ Be careful that after he is released , you do n’t find him standing in front of your door waiting to thank you . ” He claimed that the remark had been made in the course of a discussion between the judges and the applicant ’s CARDINAL lawyers in camera concerning the applicant ’s possible transfer to a psychiatric hospital following ORG judgment .

In a comment of CARDINAL DATE on the applicant ’s motion for bias , Judge PERSON explained that he remembered having a discussion about the applicant ’s possible transfer to a psychiatric hospital at a later stage , after the delivery of the judgment . However , given the amount of time that had elapsed , he neither recalled the exact context in which he had allegedly made the impugned remark nor the precise contents of the discussion .

On DATE ORG dismissed the motions for bias lodged by the applicant . The court considered in particular that , even assuming that the applicant had established to the satisfaction of the court that Judge PERSON had made the remark in question , there were no objectively justified doubts as to P. ’s impartiality as a result thereof . Even assuming that the applicant could reasonably consider the sense of the words “ thank you ” in the above context as meaning that the applicant could commit a violent offence , it had to be noted that ORG , including Judge PERSON , had just established that the applicant still suffered from fantasies of sexual violence and that there was at that time a high risk that he would again commit serious offences against the life and sexual self - determination of others . Assuming that Judge PERSON had indeed made the remark in question , his “ advice ” had therefore constituted in substance nothing more than the application of ORG said findings to a particular case . The remark had further been made within the context of a confidential exchange between the participants in the proceedings in the absence of the applicant . Judge PERSON could have expected that the applicant ’s female counsel would interpret his remark in the above - mentioned manner within that context .

Furthermore , Judge PERSON ’s remark had reflected his view as it had been on DATE of ORG judgment of DATE . It did not suggest in any way that Judge PERSON had not been ready to take an impartial decision in the present proceedings , DATE after the impugned remark and following the conclusion of a new main hearing . The fact that Judge PERSON had previously dealt with the applicant ’s case did not in itself render him biased .

On DATE ORG , having held hearings DATE , again ordered the applicant ’s retrospective preventive detention .

ORG found , in particular , that , as required by Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , read in conjunction with ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , a comprehensive assessment of the applicant , his offence and , in addition , his development during the execution of the sentence relating to young offenders revealed that there was a high risk that the applicant , owing to specific circumstances relating to his person or his conduct , could commit the most serious crimes of violence and sexual offences , similar to the one he had been found guilty of , if released .

ORG further found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder for the purposes of section LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Having regard to the case - law of ORG and ORG , it considered that , whereas a mere “ accentuation of the personality ” was not sufficient to constitute a mental disorder within the meaning of the said LAW , such disorder did not have to be so serious as to exclude or diminish the criminal responsibility of the person concerned for the purposes of ORG LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Given that the sexual sadism the applicant suffered from was of a serious nature and had substantially affected the applicant ’s development since his adolescence , it amounted to a mental disorder within the meaning of LAW .

ORG based its view on the reports of CARDINAL external psychiatric experts , PERSON and PERSON , whom it had consulted . Having regard to the findings of these experts , as well as to the findings of several experts who had previously examined the applicant since his arrest following his offence , ORG was satisfied that the applicant has had violent sexual fantasies involving the strangulation of women since DATE . He was suffering from a sexual preference disorder , namely sexual sadism , as described by the relevant tool for the classification of diseases , the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems in its current version ( ICD-CARDINAL ) ; this disorder had caused and been manifested in his brutal offence and still persisted . The therapy the applicant had undergone until DATE , in particular social therapy , had not been successful . Even though he appeared ready , in principle , to participate in further therapy , he was not currently undergoing any .

In an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant complained of the unlawfulness of his retrospective preventive detention and of the fact that the judgment had been determined with the participation of a biased judge , P.

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained , in particular , that the retrospective order for his preventive detention had not complied with the prohibition on retrospective penalties under LAW and LAW , with the right to liberty and the protection of legitimate expectations in a ORG governed by the rule of law , or with LAW . He further argued that his constitutional right to a tribunal established by law had been violated because Judge PERSON had been biased against him .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE , following the order for the applicant ’s provisional preventive detention , the applicant was transferred from the wing for persons in preventive detention in FAC to a wing for persons in detention on remand . As a consequence , the applicant lost the privileges reserved for persons in preventive detention . In particular , there was no longer the possibility to undergo therapy . On DATE he was transferred back to and again detained in the wing for persons in preventive detention in FAC until DATE .

Since DATE the applicant has been detained in the newly built FAC preventive detention centre . In that institution , which can house CARDINAL detainees , CARDINAL psychiatrist , CARDINAL psychologists , CARDINAL general practitioner , CARDINAL social workers , CARDINAL lawyer , CARDINAL teacher , CARDINAL prison inspector , CARDINAL nurses , CARDINAL members of general prison staff and CARDINAL members of the administrative staff are in charge of the detainees . Inmates can stay outside their cells , which DATE measure QUANTITY , TIME The applicant has refused any offers of therapy at that centre , in particular , one - to - one or group social therapy , participation in an intensive treatment programme for sex offenders , or therapy administered by an external psychiatrist .


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

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention .


CASE OF ZHIVKO GOSPODINOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)

Erik Møse;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicants are serving either life sentences or whole - life sentences in different prisons in GPE .

The applicant is currently serving a whole - life imprisonment sentence in ORG . The sentence was delivered by ORG in DATE . It was confirmed on appeal in DATE and , subsequently , by ORG in a final judgment of DATE .

As it is apparent from documents in the file , the applicant had unsuccessfully sought presidential clemency several times since DATE . He was initially placed in the high - security wing of FAC where he started serving his sentence ; since DATE he has been under the “ special regime ” .

He described , and the Government did not comment on , the conditions under which he had been detained there as follows . His cell measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had a small grilled window which did not let much light in during DATE . The lighting at TIME was also insufficient . The cell was humid , badly heated during DATE and deprived of ventilation during DATE . Given that in the cell there was neither running water , nor toilet facilities , the applicant had had to use a bucket to relieve himself . He was allowed to leave his cell CARDINAL times a day , during meal times , for TIME each time , in order to slop out , eat , wash himself and re - fill his water bottle from the tap . The prison was infested with cockroaches and rats , and he was only allowed to shower once a fortnight . The food was insufficient in quantity and of poor quality . During visits , he was separated from his family and lawyers by a grill and the meetings always took place in the presence of prison staff . His correspondence was routinely read by prison staff as he was obliged to transmit his letters to the outside world in open envelopes . The envelopes carrying correspondence with his lawyer bore a stamp showing that they had been checked .

Both parties submitted that the applicant had been transferred to ORG on DATE , where he continued to serve his sentence under the “ special regime ” . He was detained in the high - security wing of this prison , alone in a cell .

According to the ORG , since the beginning of his time in that prison , the applicant had gone on several hunger strikes . According to documents in the file , at the beginning of his stay in ORG he demonstrated suicidal intentions and was identified as aggressive and hostile , as well as prone to attempting to escape . On the basis of an order of the prison governor of DATE , he did not take part in collective activities with other inmates , even those in his own category . In addition , the ORG submitted that owing to lack of physical space in the prison , it was impossible to organise collective sport activities , or gather inmates for the purposes of reading , listening to music , playing board games or using the computer . Also , they emphasised that the impossibility was underpinned by the personal characteristics of the inmates which made them incompatible with each other and were an impediment to the authorities’ organising joint activities for them .

The parties submitted that the applicant ’s cell in FAC was secured by a door and an external grill , both of which were locked . The light bulb remained on throughout the night , for security purposes , which the applicant claimed interfered with his sleep . His DATE walks in the open air took place in a grilled space measuring , according to the applicant and not disputed by the Government , QUANTITY . m , where only persons serving life sentences were taken . According to the applicant , its floor was partially made of bare cement and there was no sports equipment there . According to the Government , there was a climbing wall , a bench and a fixed - height bar . Both parties submitted that each time the applicant left the high - security wing of the prison , he was handcuffed and the handcuffs were shackled to a belt . He claimed that his correspondence was routinely checked . According to the Government , ORG correspondence was checked out of security considerations . However , the authorities only checked the contents of the envelopes which the applicant received and not the text of the letters in them .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment . The documents in the case file indicate that he had been initially imprisoned in FAC and was transferred to FAC on DATE where he was placed in the high - security wing .

The Government submitted that he had been serving his sentence under the “ special regime ” since CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant submitted that he had been kept in isolation in FAC under the “ special regime ” and that the living conditions in his prison cell were inadequate . In particular he claimed that he spent TIME a day locked up in a very small , poorly lit cell with a non - secluded toilet close to his bed .

The Government did not dispute his claims . They specified that the size of his cell was QUANTITY m , that it was a “ normal ” as opposed to a “ punishment ” cell , that he had a bed , a drawer , a sink and a toilet in his cell , and that there was enough space for him to move about in it .

The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in a final judgment of DATE of ORG .

The applicant complained that , in accordance with the “ special regime ” under which he had been serving his sentence , he had been permanently locked up in a cell which he had only been allowed to leave for CARDINAL and TIME a day . He also alleged very poor living conditions , the presence of rats , insufficient lighting , tainted water , limited space and time for outdoor activities , and consistent overuse of handcuffs .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been serving his sentence under the “ special regime ” in FAC DATE and DATE when his regime had been changed to “ severe ” . He had spent DATE under the “ severe regime ” and on DATE his regime had been changed to “ strict ” . During his stay in GPE FAC DATE the applicant had been in the high - security wing , alone in a cell measuring just under QUANTITY m. The cell had contained a sink and a toilet separated from the rest of the space . Hygiene in the cell had been satisfactory ; the bed sheets had been washed DATE and the prisoners had been provided with sanitary products once DATE . The cells had been disinfected and treated against mice with the same frequency .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been kept in a permanently locked up cell in FAC , in strict compliance with the relevant legal provisions and in particular section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre - trial LAW . As of DATE , they specified that the applicant had formally satisfied the conditions for being detained together with other prisoners but that the applicant had considered himself not ready for it .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG upon his request and was placed in the high - security wing , in a cell measuring QUANTITY m. He expressed an interest in working but the authorities were not in a position to provide him with work . He had not committed disciplinary breaches to the time of application . As to the conditions of detention in FAC , the ORG submitted that he had not raised related grievances with the authorities .

The applicant was sentenced for a number of offences and was given a total sentence of whole - life imprisonment in DATE . He complained that his sentence had amounted , from the time of its imposition , to inhuman and degrading punishment , in breach of LAW and that he did not have an effective remedy in this connection .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was sentenced by an NORP court to life imprisonment . He was transferred from GPE to GPE on DATE in order to serve his sentence . On DATE ORG confirmed the sentence and accepted it for enforcement . This was upheld on appeal by ORG in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant has been serving his sentence under the “ special regime ” since DATE . He is kept in a permanently locked cell in PERSON , in the high - security wing , in accordance with applicable rules for life prisoners under the Execution of Punishments and Pre - trial FAC .

The applicant was sentenced to whole - life imprisonment on CARDINAL DATE in a final judgment of ORG .

The applicant complained that his sentence had amounted , from the time of its imposition , to inhuman and degrading punishment , in breach of LAW and that he did not have an effective remedy in this connection .

NORP The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in a final judgment of ORG of DATE . He has been serving his sentence under the “ special regime ” in FAC . He alleged that he spent his time almost permanently locked up in isolation from the other inmates , while the Government claimed that he was in “ almost permanent contact with other inmates ” without submitting more details . The applicant submitted that he had had to relieve himself in a bucket in his cell where there had been no running water . The Government clarified that this changed in DATE when a toilet had been built in his cell . The food , according to the applicant and disputed by the authorities , was insufficient and of poor quality .

The applicant was sentenced for different offences and given a total sentence of life imprisonment in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE by ORG . The applicant has been serving his sentence in PERSON under the “ special regime ” in a permanently locked cell located in the high - security wing of the prison . The Government submitted that he was allowed to leave his cell twice a day for TIME at a time when he could see and communicate with other inmates detained in the same prison wing . He was also allowed to use sanitary facilities outside of his cell CARDINAL times a day , and to shower twice a week . There was no toilet in the applicant ’s cell and no ventilation system had been installed .

The applicant had been serving a sentence of whole - life imprisonment in ORG since DATE under the “ special regime ” . In DATE he was placed under the lighter “ severe regime ” and DATE under the even lighter “ strict regime ” when he was also placed in a cell together with other inmates .

The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment and has been serving his sentence under the “ special regime ” since DATE . Until DATE he was detained in FAC and since DATE he has been detained in FAC . He complained in respect of his detention after DATE , the conditions of his detention before DATE having been examined by ORG in an earlier case with application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which was decided in a judgment of DATE .

Both the applicant and the ORG submitted that he was detained in a permanently locked cell and isolated from the other prisoners . The Government pointed out that the applicant left his cell for an hour in the morning and for an hour in the afternoon every day for exercise and to spend time in the open air .

The applicant also claimed that the material conditions in which he had been serving his sentence were inadequate and that he had been offered no collective activities or other forms of occupation .

The Government stated that he was enrolled in the following DATE activities : a catechism course lasting an TIME - and - a - half per week ; and a course in basic computer skills with TIME - long sessions ; he also had TIME in the open air , as well as TIME to take a bath on DATE TIME . Furthermore , when various competitions had taken place in the prison , or there had been concerts or recitals , inmates serving life sentences had been offered a chance to attend them as spectators . The Government further clarified that the applicant ’s regime had been changed to “ strict ” in DATE but he had continued to be in the high - security wing ; according to the Government , he had repeatedly stated that he had not wished to be placed together with other prisoners .


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

Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the relevant events , she was an investigative journalist working in GPE .

During TIME a group of CARDINAL armed persons were involved in a violent incident that took place in GPE , a seaside resort on the outskirts of GPE . Several locations in GPE – including Hotel F. , belonging to a company in which ORG , mayor of GPE since DATE , was a shareholder – were attacked and severely damaged .

Following that incident , ORG accepted to participate in a television show hosted by ORG and broadcast on “ NORP ” , a national television channel . During the show , the applicant intervened and made some remarks which ORG considered as defamatory . Consequently , he instituted civil proceedings against the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The relevant excerpts from the television show are set out below :

“ [ ORG , the host of the show , acting as a moderator , asks [ the applicant ] , a journalist in GPE ] : What types of clans are we talking about , are they gangs , are they clans , who are these people we are talking about ?

[ The applicant ] : These are clans , it is well known , the city of GPE is divided between the supporters of ORG and his enemies . More precisely , it is the PERSON clan , in other words the clan of the PERSON brothers , who are at war with the supporters of ORG This war has been going on for DATE and it is well known that at the beginning , the PERSON brothers and PERSON were good friends . The hostility occurred , if my memory is not mistaken , on the occasion of the construction of Hotel O. , when CARDINAL of the PERSON brothers was excluded from the business , in spite of the initial plan . This does n’t mean that PERSON [ R.M. ] or ORG is personally involved in this war . This war continued between the people that represent the CARDINAL , and the enmity has continued to DATE . ... But the crux of the problem is not the conflict between PERSON and the PERSON brothers . It seems that nowadays they have different claims , at a different level , within different hierarchies ...

[ ORG ] : The image you describe is that of a city torn between the underworld clans , in which the offenders retaliate against the mayor . The latter is a business partner of the President of ORG and during TIME anything can happen because the police have made a pact ... and do not want to sanction anyone .

[ The applicant ] : Lately , the police have been doing their job , as I said before . Except that they do not succeed in finalising it ... DATE , when there was a big fight in the city centre , before the eyes of everybody , when the PERSON clans were opposed to the P. clan – and here we are talking about the same clan masters – the police did not intervene promptly because , they said it clearly , these were ORG men and they were afraid , because PERSON [ R.M. ] was and still is the mayor . The only victims were the heads of the city police , who were sacked ; the aggressors were allowed to go free .

[ ORG ] : I have the impression that we are talking about an ungoverned city , in which the delinquents walk freely and the mayor fights different clans . Is this an erroneous conclusion ?

[ R.M. ] : I have the impression that [ the applicant ] needs to be hospitalised DATE in a psychiatric hospital ( la balamuc ) . How dare she ? What is this story , this nonsense ? The supporters of ORG fight I do not know who PERSON I do not even know him , I have never seen him in my life and I have never spoken to him .... I have listened for TIME to her [ the applicant ’s ] lucubrations , in which she tries to create about PERSON the image of a demonic city , in which the mayor runs everything , is a smuggler , has clans with PERSON and bodyguards ...

[ ORG ] : Would I be entitled to believe that this conflict was generated by CARDINAL of your actions , or by CARDINAL of your past activities , or your past partnerships ; maybe you had relations with them and in this context they came to vandalise your hotel ?

[ ORG ] : Mr. PERSON , [ the applicant ] is a journalist , she should have submitted a document from ORG to prove that I have a business partnership with whomever she mentioned . She had not submitted anything because it is all false . I personally asked the police to intervene and arrest the perpetrators . ... I do not know the people who were fighting . It does not interest me what they do in their free time , why they fight . All I said was that it is unacceptable to see QUANTITY people armed with axes . Let them identify and arrest the guilty . Everything else is just a fantasy of [ the applicant ] , worthy of a psychiatric hospital ...

[ ORG ] : ... this is what the mayor says , that everything is false ...

[ The applicant ] : What I have said , I said as an observer of the DATE events ; these things have been observed , discussed , noted for DATE . I have presented a general picture of the situation .

[ ORG ] : And they must be proved ... Just like other journalists , you have learned to drag others in the mud , with no evidence to support what you state .

[ The applicant ] : If I understand correctly , he does not know the PERSON brothers , he knows them well , but that is not the point , the point is that their men ... ( interrupted )

[ R.M. ] : But I do not know them ! Prove the contrary if you please ; I have never spoken to any of them , I do not know them . Stop lying ...

[ The applicant ] : ... the reality is that they present themselves as being PERSON ’s men , or ORG ’s men . This does not mean that PERSON [ R.M. ] or ORG order these conflicts . You know what happens in the world of ordinary people : I am strong because I represent PERSON , who is mayor . Or I am stronger because I have the backing of the PERSON brothers ... PERSON , I did not say that you ordered this assault . But this is indeed what has been going on for DATE in the city of GPE .

[ ORG ] : Actually , we are dealing with a band of delinquents ; it does n’t matter who they are associated with or who is behind them and supports them , these people were on the street , made noises and I , as a simple citizen , am dissatisfied with not seeing them arrested . This is the only thing I can say , apart from the political connotations and connotations of the clans . I now turn to Mr. PERSON , a sociologist , a specialist in violent incidents . This type of incident , what do you think ? ...

[ ORG ] : ... I would ask Mr. PERSON if he is still live ... it is necessary to know that mayors elsewhere in the world , such as PERSON or PERSON , have had what are called urban policies of prevention and that they were directly involved . I am talking about a sociological perspective , an area that in which I specialise . I am not interested in your relationship with the institutions that accuse you today in one way or another . Do you have an urban prevention policy project ? For if this were the case , such events would not happen again . ...

[ R.M. ] : Do you know that according to NORP legislation , the police are not under the authority of the mayor ? ... I have asked the police to intervene and to arrest those who are guilty ...

[ ORG ] : Thank you ... The story we have followed is a violent one . NORP go during TIME , armed with axes and knives , something very common lately , and vandalise a hotel . The police , ineffective , react very late , disinterestedly , unconvincing ... At the same time , the name of Mayor PERSON and his business partners appears again directly linked to a strange business . And all these strange things , which I quote ‘ need ORG , accumulate and accumulate , one after the other , and create in the end the perception of a mayor who raises certain questions , of a forgotten city and , in general , of inefficiency at all levels . In this story , in my opinion , the CARDINAL managers are also guilty , the police are also guilty and we are also guilty , because we tolerate endlessly the incompetent authorities . I thank you . ”

On DATE R.M. lodged a civil complaint against the applicant . He alleged that , in her capacity as a journalist , she had made defamatory statements during a television show hosted by ORG in relation to a violent incident that had occurred during TIME CARDINAL - CARDINAL August CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON requested that the applicant write a public letter of apology , that she publish at her own expense the final judgment allowing his claims in CARDINAL newspapers , CARDINAL with a nationwide circulation and the other a local circulation , and that she pay him MONEY ( ORG ) in non - pecuniary damages .

R.M. complained that the applicant had attempted to persuade people that GPE was divided between CARDINAL gangs , “ PERSON ’s men and those who were against PERSON , and that he himself had at CARDINAL point been familiar with certain persons from the underworld ( “ persoane interlope ” ) , namely with the PERSON clan , who had allegedly been at the origin of the violent incident in DATE . He considered that the applicant ’s imagination had proved to be “ diabolical and of an infinite malice ” , as her remarks had gone beyond what was permitted not only by freedom of speech , but also by professional deontology . He claimed that the applicant had failed to first check her information before using it , and then to prove her statements .

ORG further claimed that the defamatory statements the applicant had made against him in prime time on national television had seriously damaged his image as a public person and a locally elected official .

The applicant submitted that her statements during the television show had reflected her opinion in an honest and ethical manner . Like any other opinion , hers was inevitably subjective , the important issue being that it had been expressed with honesty and in good faith , based on information concerning ORG conflicts with the PERSON brothers that had been presented more than once in the local press .

The applicant further argued that the non - pecuniary damage claimed by ORG was unjustified , in so far as there was no evidence to prove that her statements had had any impact among ORG supporters in connection with his public image .

On DATE ORG dismissed ORG claims . The court started with an overview of the ORG ’s case - law on freedom of expression , referring specifically to the essential role played by journalists in a NORP society and to the fact that the essential criteria in assessing their statements is whether they are made in good faith . The court held that in the case before it , the applicant ’s statements could not be interpreted as a personal attack on the claimant and in any event , they were not of such a severe nature as to harm ORG honour , reputation or dignity . The court further noted that in answering the questions of ORG , the host of the show , the applicant had provided an objective explanation for her opinion ; in support of her opinion , she had submitted before the court excerpts of articles from the local press , as well as from a publication issued by several investigative journalists on the topic of public integrity , a project implemented by ORG , in which the name of the mayor , ORG , was connected to several ongoing criminal investigations .

The court concluded that the applicant ’s intervention had not been made in bad faith ; her opinions concerned a matter of general interest and did not have an illicit nature ; at the same time , her opinions were not found to have harmed the reputation of the claimant .

R.M. appealed against that judgment . He essentially argued that the applicant ’s defamatory statements had not only consisted of her personal opinions , but also reports on specific facts which had not been previously verified , nor ever proved to be true . He further argued that by associating his name and image with that of criminal groups or clans , the applicant had seriously harmed his reputation .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and awarded ORG claims in part , holding the applicant liable for the payment of CARDINAL ORG in non - pecuniary damages , and CARDINAL ORG in respect of legal costs . It also ordered her to publish the judgment at her own expense in CARDINAL national newspaper and in another local newspaper and to present ORG with written public apologies within DATE of the date of the final judgment .

ORG considered that the conclusion of the television show , as drawn by ORG , was based essentially on the applicant ’s statements , namely that the city was “ torn between the underworld clans , in which the offenders retaliate against the mayor ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that the same conclusion would have been drawn by anyone else who had watched the show . From that perspective , it was evident that the applicant ’s statements had damaged the reputation of the claimant .

The court also held that the applicant ’s intention had not been to present facts , but to deliberately discredit PERSON by claiming in bad faith that he was involved in illegal activities . Such allegations , made without prior verification and lacking factual support , were of a serious nature and had severely damaged the claimant ’s image .

Furthermore , in trying to support her allegations with extracts of articles from the press reporting on the activities of ORG , the applicant had only proved that what she had presented in the television show was information , and not her personal opinions .

The applicant appealed against that judgment , reiterating her arguments that the impugned statements were in fact her opinions as an investigative journalist , and that they had been expressed in an honest and ethical manner . She pointed out that ORG had not analysed whether ORG had participated in the television show in his capacity as a public person or as a private one , so as to attract specific consequences in the balancing - of - rights exercise carried out by the court . She pointed out that the sanction imposed by the court was excessive and lacked appropriate reasoning and any justifying criteria .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the lower court ’s judgment .

The appellate court firstly noted that ORG had participated in the television show in his capacity as a shareholder of ORG , as well as in his capacity as a local politician .

While drawing a clear distinction between opinions and information , the court held that that the applicant had not put forward any argument or explanation to support her allegation that what she had expressed in the show were her opinions , and not factual elements :

“ By setting herself up as a connoisseur of what was going on in the local area , she had presented to the public , in the form of undeniable truth , some information that was not true ” .

The court further referred to the responsibilities of journalists , namely to present information and ideas to the public , while respecting certain limits in relation to the rights and reputation of others . The applicant , as a journalist , “ had breached the rules of journalistic ethics by manifesting aggression and intention to blame , with no evidence and without maintaining a balance between the statement made and the unconfirmed allegations ” .

The court considered the amount of damages to be paid by the applicant to be fully justified , in view of the fact that the defamatory statements had been broadcast in prime time on a national television channel , and that the amount had been reduced by the appeal court to CARDINAL of the full amount claimed by ORG The court held :

“ If she had complied with the first obligation , namely ‘ to ORG , the court would have examined the proportionality of the amount in relation to her intentions , as she does not contest the allegations , but by means of victimisation , she gives them strength , albeit without any evidence or documents having been submitted to the present day ” .

It appears that in DATE the applicant fully complied with the terms of the final judgment .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

The applicant was born in DATE in LOC , GPE .

The applicant stood accused of theft and murder . On DATE ORG in GPE fixed , in the hearing held without the applicant ’s attendance , the opening date for the trial and ordered an extension of his pre - trial detention . On DATE the applicant was convicted and given a custodial sentence .

On DATE ORG held , in unrelated proceedings , that the provisions of LAW ought to be interpreted as guaranteeing the right of the defendant to take part in the hearing where the matter of detention was decided , to make submissions to the court and to produce evidence ( Judgment no . CARDINAL , point CARDINAL of the operative part ) .

On DATE the ORG of ORG of the Khakassiya Republic quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE in the part relating to the detention matter . Referring to the case - law of ORG , it found that ORG had unlawfully extended the applicant ’s detention without giving him an opportunity to take part in the hearing or to make submissions to the court .

The applicant sued ORG , seeking compensation for the unlawful detention from DATE to DATE . By judgment of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE , ORG rejected his claim , holding that he was not eligible for compensation in respect of pre - trial detention because he had been found guilty and given a custodial sentence .


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

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in Aistersheim .

The applicant owned a landholding of QUANTITY , which is an approved hunting ground ( ORG ) . According to ORG ( Oberösterreichisches Jagdgesetz ) , DATE , ORG has to establish the boundaries of the NORP hunting grounds . In this respect , requests may be filed by landowners to have adjacent land allocated to their hunting grounds where , for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of hunting rights , boundaries need readjustment ( LOC ) . On DATE the applicant filed such a request for readjustment in respect of the next six years’ hunting period , i.e. from DATE .

On DATE ORG Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) partly granted the applicant ’s request and assigned specified plots of third persons to the applicant ’s hunting grounds , but dismissed her request concerning some other parcels of land .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ) .

On DATE ORG declined to deal with the applicant ’s complaint due to lack of prospects of success and referred the case to ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) on DATE . On DATE ORG requested the applicant to complement the complaint . The applicant submitted her additional comments on DATE and requested an oral hearing . On DATE the ORG submitted its additional comments to ORG .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing on DATE , ORG dismissed the complaint as unfounded . That decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić

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

On DATE the ORG rendered a judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered the applicant ’s employer “ LOC ” AD ORG ( hereinafter “ the debtor ” ) to carry out a reallocation of plots for the construction of apartments . This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested enforcement of the above judgment and the ORG issued an enforcement order on DATE .

On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor .

On DATE the Herceg Novi First Instance Court transferred the case to ORG for further action .

On DATE ORG suspended ( obustavio ) the enforcement due to the opening of the insolvency proceedings , which decision became final on CARDINAL DATE .

The judgement in question remains unenforced to the present day .

On DATE the applicant instituted administrative proceedings seeking , on the basis of the above judgment , the removal of competing titles from ORG .

NORP On DATE ORG terminated ( prekinuo ) the administrative proceedings because ORG had commenced insolvency proceeding in respect of the debtor .

On DATE the applicant submitted an objection against the above decision . This objection was rejected as being out of time by ORG on DATE .

NORP The administrative proceedings are still pending .

On an unspecified day in DATE , the applicant instituted separate civil proceedings against the debtor , as his former employer , seeking reinstatement and damages . Following CARDINAL remittals , on DATE the ORG rendered a judgment in the applicant ’s favour .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment on the merits , but quashed it as regards the costs .

On DATE the ORG transferred the case to ORG for further action due to the commencement of the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor .

On DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of the applicant regarding the costs .

The parties did not inform the ORG about when ORG decision became final and was served on the applicant .


Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

From DATE to DATE the applicant was the director general of a NORP limited liability company , ORG ( hereinafter “ the company ” ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE declared the company bankrupt and opened liquidation proceedings . The proceedings were closed on DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE considered a request from ORG to hold the applicant jointly liable for the company ’s debts because of the company ’s inability to cover all its debts with its remaining assets . Although duly notified , the applicant was not present at the hearing .

ORG request was granted and the applicant was found liable to pay MONEY ( RUB , MONEY ) .

On DATE the company officially went into liquidation .

The applicant only became aware of the outcome of the proceedings against him in DATE when money was seized from his bank account .

The applicant appealed against the decision of ORG of GPE of DATE .

The CARDINALth ORG of Appeal considered the appeal on the merits and on DATE discontinued the appeal proceedings . With reference to the position of ORG , the appeal court concluded that it was impossible to adjudicate bankruptcy - related disputes concerning a company that had already gone into liquidation . The operative part of the appeal decision stated that the applicant could file a cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed a cassation appeal of the applicant . Reasoning adopted by the appeal court was upheld in full . The applicant did not appeal further against that decision .

NORP In DATE the applicant attempted to initiate a separate set of proceedings before ORG , but his complaint was found inadmissible .

On DATE several amendments to the LAW introduced by LAW No . CARDINAL ( ORG РФ о поправке к PERSON от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL No . CARDINAL-ФКЗ ) entered into force . Among other things , the amendments provided that ORG was to be abolished following a provisional DATE and all its functions were to be gradually transferred to ORG .

With some material and procedural exceptions , final court decisions issued by a first - instance and appeal courts in commercial cases may be challenged by way of cassation appeal before a commercial court of a Circuit ( LAW ) .

On DATE amendments to LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) came into effect . ORG was empowered to consider cassation and supervisory review appeals against the final decisions of commercial courts . There were no specific transitional provisions . For a detailed description of the procedure in force before the amendments refer to GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . DATE , DATE ) .

A cassation appeal may be lodged within DATE after the last impugned court decision became final ( Article CARDINAL of the Code ) . A panel of judges examines a cassation appeal within DATE ( ORG CARDINAL of the Code ) . The scope of review includes the issues of legality as raised by the parties and , proprio motu

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides that final judicial decisions of commercial courts that have already been subjected to review in a cassation appeal by regional courts may be challenged further in cassation appeal proceedings before ORG . The proceedings may be taken by the parties to a case and by others whose rights or legal interests have been adversely affected by those decisions .

According to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL cassation appeals may be filed within DATE the last judicial decision in the case became legally binding .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL sets out that the deadline for submitting a cassation appeal may be extended in exceptional circumstances at the request of the appellant . An extension , however , is only possible if the request is submitted either by a party to the proceedings within DATE the last judicial decision in the case became legally binding , or by a third party affected by the case within DATE he or she became aware of a violation of his or her rights .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that the admissibility of a cassation appeal is considered by a single judge of ORG . The judge can either find the cassation appeal inadmissible or refer it to ORG for consideration .

According to LAW and CARDINAL the admissibility of a cassation appeal is to be considered within DATE if the case file has not been requested from the lower court , and within DATE if the file has been requested . That time - limit excludes the period between the request for the case file and its receipt . The time - limits may be extended by DATE by the President of ORG or his or her deputy .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL states that ORG is to examine the case within DATE of the date of the admissibility decision .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that following examination of the case , ORG may , among other things , quash wholly or in part one or all of the judgments previously delivered in the case by the first - instance , appeal or cassation courts and remit the case for reconsideration by any of those courts .

Chapter CARDINAL of the Code provided that final judgments could be challenged by way of supervisory review before ORG of GPE ( see further ORG and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , cited above ) . When ORG of GPE ceased to exist , the review of final judgments in commercial cases was assigned to ORG of GPE according to the rules of new LAW .

A newly introduced chapter , LAW , provides that the Presidium of ORG of GPE can consider applications from parties for supervisory review of binding judgments issued by lower judicial instances .

According to LAW ( CARDINAL ) , in an ordinary civil case where the proceedings started at a first - instance commercial court , parties may lodge an application for supervisory review only if their case has previously been examined in cassation proceedings by ORG . Such applications may be brought within DATE on which the impugned decision became binding ( LAW ) .

According to LAW and CARDINAL the admissibility of an application is decided by a single judge of ORG , who may dismiss the application or transfer it for examination by the ORG . That decision must be taken within DATE if the case file has not been requested and within DATE if it has been requested . The time - limit excludes the period between the request for the case file and its receipt .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that a decision by a single judge to dismiss an application may be overruled by the President or Deputy President of ORG . The LAW contains no explicit time - limit for the exercise of that power .

Following examination of a case the Presidium of ORG may , in accordance with Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , uphold , vary or quash any of the judgments previously delivered in a case , be it by the first - instance , appeal or cassation courts . If it does so , the ORG may adopt a new decision or send the case back for reconsideration . Article CARDINAL provides that binding decisions may be quashed on supervisory review if they breach : ( CARDINAL ) human rights and freedoms enshrined in the LAW or principles of international law and international treaties to which GPE is a party ; ( CARDINAL ) the rights and legitimate interests of an undefined group of people or other public interests ; ( CARDINAL ) the uniformity of case - law .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL states that the Presidium of ORG is to examine cases within DATE of the date of the admissibility decision .