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

Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant married ORG and their daughter PERSON was born in DATE . Following the couple ’s divorce on DATE , the mother was granted physical custody of the child . As the parents had reached an agreement regulating the applicant ’s contact with the child , the visiting rights were not discussed in the divorce proceedings .

Until DATE , the applicant had unhindered opportunity to talk to his daughter on the phone and to take her to his home whenever he wished . After DATE , ORG stopped answering the phone and the only possibility for the applicant to see his daughter was outside her school .

Consequently , on DATE the applicant instituted contact proceedings before the ORG , as a result of which on DATE a visiting schedule was established in favour of the applicant .

DATE N.E.C. appealed , arguing that the applicant had never been prevented from visiting the child but that since the divorce he had not visited her more than once DATE and had not contributed in any way to the continuous medical treatment she required . During the proceedings the parties reached an agreement about the visiting schedule . On CARDINAL May DATE ORG questioned PERSON and noted :

“ The parents divorced DATE and after that she often used to visit her father up until DATE , when her mother stopped allowing her to answer the phone , because the father only wanted to make [ ORG ] angry . Since then , she can no longer answer the phone and her father has not seen her .

From her mother ’s accounts , she understood that her father was a bad person who caused trouble to [ ORG ] as they both had businesses selling the same products , and her father had taken away her mother ’s employees by promising them higher salaries .

She does not wish to visit her father because that would make her mother upset and she does not want that because she cares a lot about her mother . Her mother does not wish her to visit her father , who has a new family and a small child . ( ... ) . ”

In a decision of DATE ( hereinafter “ the contact order ” ) ORG took note of the GPE agreement as to the visiting schedule and considered that it was beneficial for the child to maintain contact with her father .

N.E.C. lodged an appeal on points of law , unhappy that the child would have to go to the applicant ’s home . In a final decision of DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . It noted that the child was used to going to her father ’s home and continuing this habit would help consolidate their relationship . It found :

“ The consolidation of the relationship between the applicant and the minor by means of complying with ORG decision is even more necessary since , from the report of the interview with the minor , it appears that the minor had been visiting her father after the GPE separation until DATE before the hearing , [ when the mother ] stopped allowing her to talk on the phone with the applicant ; from the same report it appears that the minor does not wish to see her father in order not to upset her mother .

In these circumstances , the [ ORG ] has correctly decided that the visits should take place in the applicant ’s home , in order to allow the normal parental ties to develop and to avoid the possibility of inculcating feelings of hatred towards the father , which would run counter to the child ’s harmonious psychological development . ”

As ORG continued to oppose any contact with the child , on DATE the applicant contacted a court bailiff and started enforcement proceedings . On DATE the application was allowed by ORG , which ordered enforcement of the contact order .

NORP The bailiff invited ORG to bring the child to his office on CARDINAL DATE , which she failed to do . On DATE and DATE and on DATE he went to her home together with the applicant , the police and representatives of ORG ( “ the child protection authority ” ) . On each occasion they found no one there , despite prior notification .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , the bailiff lodged with ORG an application for penalties against ORG , under the provisions of LAW ( “ the ORG ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG reiterated that , as PERSON was refusing to see her father , she would not agree that the child be taken against her will to the applicant ’s home . On DATE the court ordered ORG to pay a fine of CARDINAL NORP Lei ( RON – approximately MONEY ( ORG ) at the relevant time ) for DATE of non - enforcement of the contact order , starting from the date on which the ORG decision was notified to her . ORG reiterated the findings of the report of CARDINAL DATE concerning the interview with PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and found that the mother was responsible for the failure to enforce the visiting schedule . It found :

“ From the same report it appears that , although the minor likes to visit her father , she does not wish to do so any more because she does not want to upset her mother .

The court concludes that the non - enforcement of the obligation set down in the contact order is caused exclusively by the debtor and there is no evidence to show that the minor herself would refuse in absolute terms contact with the creditor or that she would manifest aversion towards him . ”

On DATE , acting on an application lodged by the bailiff under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG fined ORG RON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the relevant time ) for obstructing the enforcement proceedings .

Meanwhile , on DATE the bailiff noted that ORG was continuing to reject the visiting schedule and concluded that the enforcement had become objectively impossible . Consequently he terminated the enforcement proceedings and lodged a criminal complaint against ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) under the provisions of LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant objected to the stay of execution and asked ORG to compel the bailiff to continue the enforcement proceedings . He also argued that the provisions of the ORG allowing the bailiff to stay the execution while a criminal complaint was ongoing were unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the debtor − in bad faith − to stay or obliterate the enforcement efforts and to manipulate the child ’s behaviour to the point of rejecting the non - custodial parent . He did not otherwise contest the findings of the bailiff ’s report . On DATE the Brezoi ORG dismissed his objection on the grounds that it had become objectively impossible to enforce the court order and that the bailiff had correctly stayed the enforcement once the prosecutor ’s office had taken over the case . On DATE the appeal lodged by the applicant was also dismissed as unfounded by ORG . The latter found that the bailiff had complied with all the obligations arising from Articles CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Later on , in its decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the constitutional complaint raised by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to quantify the amount of damages to which he was entitled under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG maintained that it had been the applicant who had distanced himself from the child and that due to the break - up of the father - daughter relationship it was impossible to comply with the contact order at that time . On DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the relevant time ) . The latter could not obtain this payment as ORG had sold all her possessions and had not declared any fixed income .

On DATE the applicant asked the child protection authority to seek a court order for DATE of psychological counselling for his daughter , reiterating that ORG was alienating PERSON from her father . On DATE the child protection authority refused to intervene since the bailiff had not recorded in his report that the child had opposed the enforcement “ in absolute terms ” , as required by LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant reiterated his request for psychological counselling . In addition , he asked that the relationship between the parties involved be monitored for a period of DATE and that ORG be fined for the delays in executing the contact order . The child protection authority ’s inspectors met ORG on four occasions : on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE . Subsequently , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE the authority informed the applicant that ORG had not allowed them to talk with the child about her relationship with her father . The child protection authority advised as follows :

“ In view of the fact that for DATE your relationship with your daughter has only consisted of a few isolated encounters , we consider that reinitiating the fatherdaughter relationship must be done gradually , bearing in mind the child ’s wishes , her school programme and her extra - curricular activities . ( ... )

For the time being , [ ORG ] considers that it is not in the child ’s best interest to reinitiate the father - daughter relationship and refuses to lend her support to this end .

In the light of the above , we consider that it is important for the child that both you and your former spouse try to improve your communication and that you change your current attitude ( complaints before courts and other institutions , enforcement proceedings ( ... ) ) , in order to overcome the conflicts and to offer your daughter the support and reassurance that she requires at this age . ”

Acting upon the criminal complaint lodged by the bailiff on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG started an investigation into the commission of the offence of a breach of a court judgment ( nerespectare a hotărârii judecătoreşti ) .

On DATE the prosecutor changed the legal classification of the alleged facts into the offence of a breach of custody measures ( nerespectarea măsurilor privind încredinţarea minorului ) .

On DATE the prosecutor interviewed PERSON in the presence of ORG ’s lawyer and a psychologist from the child protection authority . PERSON refused to re - establish contact with her father and expressed her belief that her father was only trying to hurt her mother through his actions because of their work - related conflicts , of which she had been partially informed by her mother . She said :

“ I believe that by his actions my father wants , in reality , to hurt my mother . DATE I discussed this subject with my mother , as I had done once before , and she told me that she did not wish to trouble me , as those were work - related problems created by my father . It might be that through his actions my father wants to hurt my mother . I know some aspects , but not too much about the conflict between my parents concerning my mother ’s work .

It is possible that my father started these actions because he loves me and wishes to know me .

I no longer want to know him or to have personal relations with him . ( ... )

I think it would be best if my father left me alone . ( ... )

It is true that my mother has never said bad things about my father , but she has never encouraged me to have personal ties with him either . ”

On DATE , acting at the prosecutor ’s request , the psychologists from the child protection authority assessed M.A. They noted in their report that PERSON refused to see her father because she had been disappointed by the manner in which he had tried to get in touch with her , namely via the authorities , thereby causing upset to her mother . The expert did not consider that counselling for PERSON would be beneficial for re - establishing the relationship between the applicant and his daughter . He recommended psychological support for the parents .

On DATE the prosecutor decided to terminate the investigation on the grounds that it had not been established beyond any doubt that ORG had acted in such a manner as to repeatedly prevent the applicant from seeing his daughter and that the lack of communication was caused by ORG ’s unequivocal wish and will .

On DATE , in response to a complaint lodged by the applicant , the prosecutor in chief of the prosecutor ’s office upheld the above decision . However , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG allowed a complaint lodged by the applicant , quashed the prosecutor ’s decision and sent the case back to the prosecutor ’s office for further examination . The court considered that , because of the mother ’s influence over her , the child might suffer from parent alienation syndrome which constituted a form of psychological abuse ; in order to clarify this aspect , further psychological investigation was needed .

In DATE , the applicant resumed contact with his former spouse , through the offices of a new bailiff . He tried to visit her home in order to see the child on DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he asked ORG ’s opinion as to what would be the appropriate method for him to re - establish contact with his daughter .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

ORG The applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder on DATE . On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The conviction was upheld on appeal by ORG on CARDINAL DATE . ORG of GPE rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant as inadmissible .

According to the applicant , prior to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against him and his detention , he had no major medical problems and was in good health .

Subsequent to his arrest , the applicant was placed in FAC no . CARDINAL from where he was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL and then back to FAC no . CARDINAL sometime in DATE .

According to the applicant , in DATE his state of health started to deteriorate . He had a fever and was coughing . He lost weight and felt extremely weak . The applicant alleged that he voiced his medical concerns with the prison administration and requested a medical check - up , however in vain as he was not provided with any medical assistance . He failed to submit a copy of any of the complaints in this connection .

On DATE the applicant , after having complained to the prison administration , was seen by a prison doctor who prescribed him antibiotics . DATE , on DATE , he was transferred to the prison hospital , where he underwent various medical examinations . On DATE he was diagnosed with tuberculosis of the right lung MGB ( + ) positive , further complicated by left - arm spontaneous pneumothorax . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was placed on the ORG programme ( Directly Observed Treatment , Short - course – the treatment strategy for the detection and cure of ORG recommended by ORG ) and started receiving conventional , first - line anti - TB medication . In addition , he was provided with vitamins .

On DATE the applicant completed the course of treatment . However , a medical examination of DATE revealed a recurrence of the tuberculosis . On DATE the applicant was enrolled in the second phase of anti - TB treatment which he successfully completed on DATE . On DATE the applicant underwent another bacteriological sputum smear , which was negative , that is to say it showed no evidence of the ORG microbacterium .

According to the case file , since then the applicant had repeatedly undergone sputum tests . The latest medical examination of which the ORG was informed , on DATE , revealed that the applicant ’s GPE was in a non - active phase . Thus , he did not require any anti - TB treatment .


CASE OF GAVRASHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

NORP In DATE a group of CARDINAL irregular migrants in the GPE who DATE as rejected asylum - seekers – were no longer entitled to ORG - sponsored care and accommodation for asylum - seekers , squatted the St. Joseph Church in GPE . These irregular migrants formed an action group called “ We Are Here / PERSON ” seeking attention for and relief from their situation . During their stay there , ORG was colloquially referred to as FAC ( ORG ) . It appears that the group was evicted from ORG on DATE .

On DATE the municipality of GPE offered temporary shelter to the original members of the group “ We Are Here ” who had been staying in ORG since DATE . Accordingly , CARDINAL persons were housed temporarily in a former detention facility on the NORP in GPE DATE which came to be known as LOC ( GPE ) – until DATE . The remaining persons from ORG who had been evicted from there and not been offered shelter in LOC , squatted an indoor car park , which came to be known as LOC .

A number of residents of LOC initiated administrative proceedings against the municipality of GPE demanding that they be provided with shelter , food and clothing . In CARDINAL of those proceedings , lodged by CARDINAL residents of LOC , not including the applicant , a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) was granted on DATE pending further appeal proceedings before ORG ( ORG ) . At the request of the CARDINAL petitioners , the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG ordered the municipality of GPE to provide TIME shelter , a shower , breakfast and dinner to the petitioners . In that decision , account was taken of the fact that ORG voor de Rechten van de Mens ) had found degrading living conditions in LOC . In addition , regard was had to CARDINAL decisions of ORG ( hereinafter the “ ECSR ” ) of DATE , in which the GPE was found to have breached Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( hereinafter the “ LAW ” ) by failing to provide adult irregular migrants with adequate access to emergency assistance , that is food , clothing and shelter ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In response to this provisional measure , ORG ( PERSON ) DATE in agreement with the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) DATE set up a scheme to offer basic provisions to irregular migrants , the so - called Bed , Bath and Bread Scheme ( bed - bad - broodregeling ) . That scheme entailed that the central municipalities would provide basic accommodation to irregular migrants including night shelter with shower facilities , breakfast and dinner , starting from DATE . It was announced from the outset that this scheme would be temporary , awaiting the adoption of a resolution by ORG concerning the ORG ’s CARDINAL decisions , pursuant to LAW to ORG for a System of Collective Complaints . Although these resolutions were adopted by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the scheme has been prolonged and is currently still in place .

The applicant fled from GPE to the GPE in DATE . His application for asylum was rejected as unfounded . Apart from the fact that , for reasons found imputable to him , the applicant did not hold any identity or travel documents , he was found to have given inconsistent , contradictory , vague and summary statements to the immigration authorities . In DATE he was released from immigration detention ( vreemdelingendetentie ) because , according to the applicant who has not provided any further details , an effective removal to his country of origin proved not possible . As a rejected asylum - seeker who had failed to leave the country within the voluntary return grace period of DATE , the applicant was no longer entitled to ORG - sponsored accommodation and care in one of the reception centres for asylum - seekers .

NORP In DATE the applicant , having joined the group “ We Are Here ” , took shelter in LOC in GPE together with CARDINAL other irregular migrants . It appears that he lived in LOC until DATE . Meanwhile , the applicant instituted the proceedings set out in paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below .

On DATE the applicant filed a fresh asylum application , which was accepted on DATE . He was provided with a temporary residence permit for asylum purposes valid from DATE until DATE , based on section CARDINAL § CARDINAL(a ) of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant requested the municipality of GPE to grant him ORG - sponsored care and reception facilities similar to the facilities offered to asylum - seekers by ORG for ORG ( Centraal Orgaan Opvang ORG ; hereinafter “ ORG ” ) , submitting , inter alia , that he found himself in an emergency situation considering the appalling living conditions in LOC . He further submitted that he had applied for shelter in LOC but that , unlike other irregular migrants from ORG in a similar situation , he had not been admitted to LOC .

The applicant submitted that the living conditions in LOC were poor . Housing CARDINAL persons , it was overcrowded . A limited , insufficient number of toilets was available and there were no washing facilities . Electricity was not always available . The irregular migrants staying in the garage were dependent on volunteers for food and the atmosphere between them was tense , regularly resulting in confrontations which were sometimes violent . The applicant himself had once been threatened and assaulted by a co - resident in the garage . He had sustained a light stab wound . He had reported that incident to the police .

On DATE the Mayor and Aldermen ( college PERSON ) of the municipality of GPE , treating the applicant ’s request as an application for access to community shelter services ( maatschappelijke opvang ) under LAW ( PERSON ) , rejected it as the applicant was neither a NORP national nor did he hold a residence permit as required by the aforementioned act . An exception to that rule could apply when the right to respect for physical or psychological integrity flowing from LAW was at stake , in particular if the person concerned was a minor or vulnerable because of a medical emergency . However , as the applicant had not provided any medical information – even though he claimed that he required medical care DATE he was considered as not falling within the category of vulnerable persons .

With regard to the fact that the applicant had been denied access to LOC , the Mayor and Aldermen held that accommodation at that location had been offered to the original members of the group “ We Are Here ” who had stayed in FAC for an uninterrupted period of time and who were willing to cooperate with the municipality and other institutions in the organisation of their return to the country of origin . The applicant did not fulfil those requirements .

The Mayor and Aldermen further made reference to the possibility of the applicant requesting the Repatriation and Departure Service ( PERSON ) of ORG and ORG ( PERSON ) to impose a measure on him within the meaning of section QUANTITY of LAW in order to gain access to reception facilities at a centre where his liberty would be restricted ( vrijheidsbeperkende locatie ) . In such centres the focus is on departure from GPE of the person concerned , meaning that reception facilities are provided on condition that the person concerned cooperates in the organisation of his or her departure to the country of origin .

The applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaar ) against the decision of DATE which was dismissed by the Mayor and Aldermen on CARDINAL DATE , in accordance with an advice drawn up by the objections committee ( ORG ) on DATE and on the same grounds as those on which the initial decision had been based . The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with ORG ( rechtbank ) .

On DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s appeal and quashed the Mayor and Aldermen ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . Proceeding to decide on the matter itself , ORG considered that the ORG ’s decisions of DATE , in which the ORG had found violations of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW , could not be overlooked notwithstanding the fact that they were not binding for the State Parties to the LAW . Accordingly , ORG considered that the denial of shelter , food and clothing to irregular migrants touched upon the right to respect for human dignity in such a way as to preclude a person ’s enjoyment of private life within the meaning of LAW . It concluded that the ORG was under a positive obligation to provide the applicant with shelter , food and clothing and that that provision should not be made conditional on the applicant ’s cooperation in the organisation of his departure from the GPE . It was noted , however , that the municipality of GPE , simultaneously with other municipalities in major cities of the GPE , had established the Bed , ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , providing , as of DATE , basic accommodation to irregular migrants including night shelter with shower facilities , breakfast and dinner . As far as the applicant had argued that the Bed , ORG was insufficient , he had failed to substantiate that argument with any prima facie evidence .

NORP Moreover , the applicant had obtained a residence permit on DATE as a consequence of which he was already entitled to ORG - sponsored social benefits . The applicant ’s argument that his right to emergency social assistance should nevertheless be acknowledged retroactively and that he should be granted living allowances ( leefgeld ) by way of compensation was dismissed . ORG held that although such a right to emergency social benefits should be acknowledged retroactively , that is from DATE , there was no legal basis on which to conclude that this right included a right to living allowances . It was open to the applicant to claim compensation for damage in separate proceedings .

Both the applicant and the Mayor and Aldermen lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal but accepted the Mayor and Aldermen ’s appeal and quashed ORG judgment . ORG found that the Mayor and Aldermen ’s rejection of the applicant ’s request for shelter under LAW was justified as the applicant had the possibility of receiving shelter at a centre where his liberty would be restricted . Unlike ORG , it agreed with the Mayor and Aldermen that irregular migrants may be denied access to such a centre if they refuse to cooperate in the organisation of their return to their country of origin , unless there existed exceptional circumstances . Such exceptional circumstances could exist when the person concerned had demonstrated that he or she was unable to foresee the consequences of his or her actions or omissions due to his or her psychiatric state of mind . It was , however , incumbent upon the irregular migrant to claim that such exceptional circumstances pertained .

No further appeal lay against this decision .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had also requested the Deputy Minister of Security and ORG to grant him , either in cooperation with the municipality of GPE or independently , ORG - sponsored care and accommodation , in particular to offer him shelter as well as ( allowances for ) food and clothing .

On DATE the Deputy Minister rejected the applicant ’s request , considering that he could apply for admission in a centre run by the Repatriation and Departure Service where his liberty would be restricted and where he would have to cooperate in the organisation of his departure from the GPE . The applicant was reminded of the fact that he was already under a statutory obligation to leave the GPE pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW CARDINAL as his asylum request had been rejected .

The applicant filed an objection against this decision , which was dismissed by the Deputy Minister on DATE .

An appeal lodged by the applicant was declared inadmissible by ORG of GPE on DATE , which considered that the applicant no longer had any interest in challenging the impugned decision in view of the provisional measure issued by ORG on DATE , pursuant to which the municipality of GPE had been ordered to provide TIME shelter , breakfast and dinner to irregular migrants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP Although possible , the applicant did not lodge a further appeal with ORG of ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak PERSON ) against the decision of ORG .

The admission , residence and expulsion of aliens are regulated by LAW . LAW of the said act reads as follows :

“ An alien who has been refused entry into the GPE shall leave the GPE immediately , duly observing such directions as may have been given to him for this purpose by a border control officer . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . An alien who is not lawfully resident may not claim entitlement to benefits in kind , facilities and social security benefits issued by decision of an administrative authority . The previous sentence shall apply mutatis mutandis to exemptions or licenses designated in an Act of ORG or Order in ORG .

The first subsection may be derogated from if the entitlement relates to education , the provision of care that is medically necessary , the prevention of situations that would jeopardise public health or the provision of legal assistance to the alien .

The granting of entitlement does not confer a right to lawful residence . ”

Section CARDINAL of the said LAW provides the following on the legal consequences of a rejection of an application for a residence permit in the GPE :

“ CARDINAL . The consequences of a decision whereby an application for the issue of a residence permit for a fixed period [ ... ] or a residence permit for an indefinite period [ ... ] is rejected shall , by operation of law , be that :

( a ) the alien is no longer lawfully resident [ ... ] ;

( b ) the alien should leave the GPE of his own volition within the time limit prescribed in section CARDINAL , failing which the alien may be expelled ;

( c ) the benefits in kind provided for by or pursuant to the LAW on ORG for ORG or another statutory provision that regulates benefits in kind of this nature will terminate in the manner provided for by or pursuant to that LAW or statutory provision and within the time limit prescribed for this purpose ;

( d ) the GPE supervision officers are authorised , after the expiry of the time limit within which the alien must leave the GPE of his own volition , to enter every place , including a dwelling , without the consent of the occupant , in order to expel the alien ;

( e ) NORP the GPE supervision officers are authorised , after the expiry of the time limit referred to in ( c ) , to compel the vacation of property in order to terminate the accommodation or the stay in the residential LOC provided as a benefit in kind as referred to in ( c ) .

Subsection CARDINAL shall apply mutatis mutandis if :

( b ) A residence permit has been cancelled or not renewed .

The consequences referred to in subsection CARDINAL shall not take effect as long as the application for review lodged by the alien suspends the operation of the decision .

[ The ] Minister may order that , notwithstanding subsection CARDINAL , opening words and ( c ) , the benefits in kind provided for by or pursuant to the LAW on ORG for Asylum - Seekers or another statutory provision that regulates benefits in kind of this nature will not terminate for certain categories of alien . The order shall be repealed DATE after its notification .

An alien to whom an order as referred in subsection CARDINAL is applicable shall be deemed to be lawfully resident as referred to in section CARDINAL ( j ) . ”

Under the Act on ORG for ORG ( PERSON Orgaan Opvang Asielzoekers ) and related regulations , including LAW and Other Categories of Aliens ( PERSON verstrekkingen asielzoekers en andere categorieën vreemdelingen ) , ORG DATE an autonomous administrative authority – is responsible for the provision of reception facilities which comprise housing , basic subsistence means and health care to asylum - seekers .

If no residence permit is granted to an asylum - seeker , he or she will remain entitled to benefit from the reception facilities for asylum - seekers for a grace period of DATE after DATE of the final decision taken on his / her request . The rejected asylum - seeker is given this grace period to leave the GPE voluntarily DATE if need be assisted by ORG as he / she is no longer lawfully staying in the GPE and under a legal obligation to leave . After the expiry of this period , access to reception facilities is automatically terminated without a specific decision . Nevertheless , an alien in such a situation may apply to ORG for continued reception facilities . If highly exceptional circumstances so require , ORG can take a decision to that effect . A negative decision can be appealed to ORG and , subsequently , to ORG . Both before ORG and ORG it is possible to apply for a provisional measure pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings .

Rejected asylum - seekers and other migrants in an irregular situation are entitled to health care in cases of medical emergency ( as well as legal aid and education for minors ) . Rejected applicants for a residence permit with physical and/or psychological problems severe enough to make them unfit for travel may furthermore apply for the deferral of their departure from the GPE under LAW of LAW . The expulsion is then suspended for the duration of the severe medical condition and the migrant concerned is granted a right to accommodation .

A migrant , who is under the legal obligation to leave the GPE because his or her lawful residence or entitlement to ORG - sponsored care and accommodation has come to an end , can be offered accommodation in a centre where his or her liberty is restricted . Such accommodation is based on a so - called liberty - restricting measure ( vrijheidsbeperkende maatregel ) within the meaning of LAW of LAW , which measure entails that the person concerned can move in and out of the centre freely but is prohibited from crossing the municipal boundaries where the centre is located . That accommodation is offered for DATE and its main focus is the migrant ’s departure from the GPE to the country of origin with the Repatriation and ORG assistance : there has to be a realistic prospect of an effective return within DATE and the migrant must be willing to cooperate by taking steps to effectuate his or her departure from the GPE .

A temporary residence permit may be issued to migrants who , through no fault of their own , can not leave the GPE ( buitenschuldvergunning ) pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit CARDINAL ) . Section BCARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) lays down the conditions with which an alien must comply in order to be eligible for such a residence permit . At the relevant time the conditions were that :

“ [ T]he alien has :

- done everything within his power to organise his departure independently ;

- no doubt exists about his nationality and identity ; and

- he can not be blamed for his inability to leave the GPE .

the alien has :

- turned to ORG in order to facilitate his departure ; and

- this organisation has indicated that it is not capable of organising the ORG departure due to the fact that the alien submits that he is unable to have travel documents at his disposal [ ; ]

the alien has :

- requested the Repatriation and Departure Service to mediate in obtaining the required documents of the authorities of the country to which departure is possible ; and

- the mediation has not led to the desired result ; and

the alien :

- is residing in the GPE without a valid residence permit ;

- does not comply with other conditions for being granted a residence permit ; and

- has not also filed an application for a residence permit for the purpose of residence on other grounds . ”

From DATE , section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ; “ ORG ” ) has provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . An alien can only be eligible for individual assistance , women ’s shelter services or a payment as referred to in section DATE if he is lawfully resident within the meaning of section CARDINAL , subsection ( a ) to ( e ) inclusive and ( l ) of LAW .

An alien can only be eligible for community shelter services if he is lawfully resident within the meaning of section CARDINAL , subsection ( a ) to ( e ) inclusive and ( l ) of LAW , except in cases referred to in DATE , paragraph CARDINAL of Directive CARDINAL .

Notwithstanding subsections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , in cases designated by order in council , if necessary notwithstanding section CARDINAL of LAW , categories of aliens residing unlawfully in the GPE specified by or pursuant to that order may be wholly or partially eligible for assistance specified by that order or for a payment as referred to in section DATE . Eligibility for assistance or a payment as referred to in section CARDINALa does not confer any right to lawful residence on an alien .

NORP The order referred to in subsection CARDINAL may provide that the municipal executive is responsible for delivering the assistance designated by that order . ”

LAW , entitled “ The right to social and medical assistance ” , provides as follows :

“ Anyone without adequate resources has the right to social and medical assistance .

With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to social and medical assistance , the Parties undertake :

NORP to ensure that any person who is without adequate resources and who is unable to secure such resources either by his own efforts or from other sources , in particular by benefits under a social security scheme , be granted adequate assistance , and , in case of sickness , the care necessitated by his condition ;

NORP to apply the provisions referred to in DATE , CARDINAL of this article on an equal footing with their nationals to nationals of other Parties lawfully within their territories , in accordance with their obligations under LAW , signed at GPE on DATE . ”

DATE of the LAW , entitled “ The right to housing ” , provides as follows :

“ Everyone has the right to housing .

With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to housing , the Parties undertake to take measures designed :

to prevent and reduce homelessness with a view to its gradual elimination ;

The first paragraph of the Appendix to the Social Charter reads :

“ Without prejudice to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , and LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , the persons covered by Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL include foreigners only insofar as they are nationals of other Contracting Parties lawfully resident or working regularly within the territory of ORG concerned , subject to the understanding that these articles are to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of ORG DATE .

This interpretation would not prejudice the extension of similar facilities to other persons by any of the Contracting Parties . ”

On DATE the ORG adopted CARDINAL decisions on the merits in the cases of Conference of European Churches ( ORG ) v. the GPE ( complaint no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and in ORG working with ORG ) v. the GPE ( complaint no . CARDINAL ) . It found that the GPE had violated LAW , which guarantees the right to social assistance , and LAW , the right to housing , by failing to provide adequate access to emergency assistance ( food , clothing and shelter ) to adult migrants in an irregular situation . In ORG v. the GPE the ORG held the following :

“ CARDINAL . With regard to LAW in particular , the ORG recalls that emergency social assistance should be provided under the said provision to all foreign nationals without exception ( Conclusions DATE , GPE ) . Also migrants having exceeded their permitted period of residence within the jurisdiction of ORG in question have a right to emergency social assistance ( Conclusions DATE , GPE ) . The beneficiaries of the right to emergency social assistance thus include also foreign nationals who are present in a particular country in an irregular manner ( Conclusions DATE , GPE ) .

The ORG observes in this connection that the complaint concerns the provision of the necessary food , water , shelter and clothing to adult migrants in an irregular situation . It considers the issues at hand to be closely linked to the realisation of the most fundamental rights of these persons , as well as to their human dignity .

Pursuant to the above , LAW applies to migrants in an irregular situation .

The ORG recalls that human dignity is the fundamental value and the core also of NORP human rights law ( FIDH v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

Even though the Convention and the relevant legal rules of ORG on asylum are applicable only to foreigners staying in a regular manner within the jurisdiction of GPE Parties , the ORG observes that both the ORG and ORG in their recent case - law have acknowledged the importance of preserving human dignity in connection with the minimum protection provided to migrants ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The ORG observes in this connection that the scope of the LAW is broader and requires that necessary emergency social assistance be granted also to those who do not , or no longer , fulfil the criteria of entitlement to assistance specified in the above instruments , that is , also to migrants staying in the territory of the GPE Parties in an irregular manner , for instance pursuant to their expulsion . The LAW requires that emergency social assistance be granted without any conditions to nationals of those GPE Parties to the LAW who are not Member States of the Union . The Committee equally considers that the provision of emergency assistance can not be made conditional upon the willingness of the persons concerned to cooperate in the organisation of their own expulsion . ”

Following the abovementioned decisions of the ORG , ORG , on DATE , adopted CARDINAL substantially the same resolutions ( Resolution nos . ORG and ORG ) . Taking note of ORG submissions in which they had expressed their concern that the ORG had not given a correct interpretation of the appendix to the LAW which excludes from the scope of the LAW all aliens who are not lawfully residing on the territory of ORG , these resolutions read , in so far as relevant :


Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Yonko Grozev

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

On DATE ORG recognised the ORG inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since the remaining plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .

The Commission decision remains unenforced .

On DATE ORG recognised the applicant ’s and other heirs’ inherited title to a CARDINAL - storey building and to a plot of land surrounding the building measuring QUANTITY m. Since the plot of land measuring QUANTITY was occupied , the applicant and the heirs would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law . It was also decided that the building should be restored to them .

The applicant claimed that in DATE and DATE he instituted CARDINAL legal actions against a third party for the vacation and restoration of his property . However , he decided to discontinue those actions , having regard to pending judicial proceedings in other cities . It would appear that the third party has built unauthorised constructions on the applicant ’s plot of land .

On DATE ORG recognised the ORG inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since the remaining plot of land measuring QUANTITY was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .

On DATE ORG recognised the ORG inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m of which CARDINAL sq . m were restored to them . Since the remaining land measuring QUANTITY . m consisted of arable land , roads and channels ( “ e llojit arë , rrugë e kanale ” ) was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .

The relevant domestic law and practice have been described in detail in , inter alia , ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

On DATE and DATE the ORG approved and issued new property valuation maps , which included the reference price per square CARDINAL throughout the country ( Council of ORG decisions ( “ the ORG ” ) nos . CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .

Subsequent to the events described in GPE and Others v. ORG ] , ORG . ORG , ORG , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , ORG gave a decision on DATE on the execution of judgments concerning the NORP authorities’ failure to enforce final domestic judicial and administrative decisions awarding compensation in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law to the applicants in lieu of the physical restoration of their plots of land . This decision , which was adopted at its CARDINAL meeting , stated , in so far as relevant , the following :

“ The Deputies

considered the actions taken since DATE and the measures foreseen for DATE and DATE as encouraging ; regretting , however , that the deadline fixed by the pilot judgment will not be met , underlined that in order to fulfill the obligations imposed by ORG and to introduce the required compensation mechanism without further delay and within the time frame proposed by the action plan , the political commitment expressed in the action plan must be followed by concrete and substantial actions at the domestic level , in particular in the fields identified by ORG in its Interim Resolution CM / ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ;

The ORG of ORG decision of DATE on the execution of judgments concerning the NORP authorities’ failure to enforce final domestic judicial and administrative decisions awarding compensation in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law to the applicants in lieu of the physical restoration of their plots of land , which was adopted at its CARDINAL meeting , stated , in so far as relevant , the following :

“ The Deputies

NORP welcomed the formal adoption by ORG of the action plan for the establishment of an effective compensation mechanism , thereby rendering the action plan binding , and noted with satisfaction that the measures foreseen are being adopted in conformity with the previsions in that plan ;

NORP in view of the overall deadline foreseen for the implementation of this mechanism , strongly encouraged the authorities to intensify their efforts with a view to reducing this time - frame as much as possible ;

The ORG of ORG decision of DATE , which was adopted at its CARDINALth meeting , stated , in so far as relevant , the following :

“ The Deputies

NORP welcomed the commitment showed by the NORP authorities in the search for an effective and sustainable solution to the important structural problem at stake in this group of cases ; welcomed in this regard their presentation of the draft law and their co - operation with ORG , as well as the close consultations held with ORG , particularly in GPE on DATE ;

NORP noted that , as requested by ORG and by the pilot judgment ORG , the authorities have conducted a careful review of all of the legal and financial implications and have estimated the overall cost of compensation in order to have a concrete basis for considering the necessary legislative changes ;

invited the NORP authorities to submit , as soon as possible , explanations and additional information on the solutions proposed in the draft law ...


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)

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

The applicants complained of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

NORP The applicant , PERSON ’S ORG . , is a private company with a registered office in PERSON . It was represented before the ORG by Mr I. Trebec , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

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

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

At the time of the events at issue , the applicant company was acting as a forwarding agent and customs broker for import - export transit operations . In that capacity , it was liable for the payment of customs debts if they were incurred . In DATE , the company carried out a transit procedure for the importation of goods supposedly destined for GPE ; however , in reality the goods never reached their destination , but were placed on the NORP market . The operation formed part of a wider fraud involving CARDINAL customs official , GPE , and a number of other persons . Once the fraud had been detected , the customs debt incurred as a result of the fact that the goods had not left the national territory was imposed on the applicant company as the principal actor in the transit procedure .

On DATE , the applicant company paid CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and on DATE it paid SIT CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) . Although it was not disputed by the authorities that the applicant company was the victim of fraudulent activities by third parties , it could not relieve itself of that liability .

The applicant company challenged its liability for the payment of the debt . ORG dismissed its challenge , finding that although it was not the applicant company ’s fault that the goods in question had been unlawfully removed from customs supervision , as the principal actor it was nevertheless liable for the payment of the customs debt . Moreover , ORG noted that any unlawful activity on the part of customs officials bore no relation to the applicant company ’s duty to pay the debt . ORG subsequently dismissed an administrative action lodged by the applicant company . ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant company , upholding the position of the lower instances that , by acting as the principal company in the transit procedure , the applicant company had assumed the risk of having to pay customs debt . ORG refused to accept the applicant company ’s constitutional complaint for consideration .

NORP In their submissions the Government noted that in DATE the applicant company had instituted commercial proceedings before ORG against GPE and GPE seeking compensation for the customs payment ( SIT CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , together with statutory default interest and costs of the proceedings .

The Government further explained that on CARDINAL DATE the ORG had found in favour of the applicant company .

GPE and GPE lodged an appeal . Thus , when the application was lodged before ORG on DATE , the proceedings were pending before ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , which then became final .

On DATE GPE lodged a motion for the protection of legality against the judgment of DATE with ORG , which did not accept to file a request for the protection of legality .

On DATE GPE enforced the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and paid the applicant company ORG CARDINAL ( SIT CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

In its application to the ORG the applicant company did not mention the commercial proceedings or the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which had been enforced . In its later submissions , it expressed its wish to maintain the application .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention in police custody for a period of DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer . The applicant confessed to being a member of an illegal organisation and having been involved in a murder .

On DATE the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the events ( yer gösterme ) with another suspect PERSON , organised by the police in the absence of a lawyer . According to a report , drafted by police officers and signed by the applicant and PERSON , both of the accused gave the details of the murder which they had committed .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor from ORG . A collective medical report was drawn up in respect of the applicant and CARDINAL other suspects . According to the report , there were no traces of ill - treatment on the applicant ’s body .

NORP On DATE the applicant was heard by a public prosecutor and an investigating judge respectively . In his statements to the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , the applicant denied his police statements alleging that they had been taken under duress . Following his questioning , the investigating judge ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand .

On DATE a public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court , charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order , an offence prescribed by LAW .

On DATE the applicant was heard by the trial court during the first hearing in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant denied all the charges against him and stated that his statements at the police had been taken under duress .

In the meantime , ORG were abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . Accordingly , the case was transferred to ORG .

On DATE , relying on , inter alia , the applicant ’s and his co - accused PERSON statements to the police , ORG held that the applicant had committed the offence under LAW and sentenced him to life - imprisonment .

On an unknown date the applicant ’s lawyer appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Morocco)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in the GPE .

On DATE the applicant left his home in GPE ) , where he had been living with his parents , for the GPE . He went to the GPE to visit family but overstayed his tourist visa , which was valid until DATE . During his stay in the GPE he lived with his brother and the latter ’s family in GPE .

According to an official report ( ambtsbericht ) drawn up by ORG ( Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst – “ the ORG ” ) dated DATE , information provided by a generally reliable source indicated that a certain NORP national residing in the GPE , had sworn allegiance to PERSON , PERSON in GPE and ORG ( “ ORG ” ) , and that he was trying to obtain a firearm with which to attack the GPE police . The information also contained CARDINAL telephone numbers used by that person . The official report further stated that it appeared from the ORG ’s own investigation that the person was the applicant , that he was not registered in the GPE and that he did not have a valid residence permit .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed acts in preparation of terrorist offences and placed in police custody . The house where he had been staying was searched by the police , who found and seized notes containing , inter alia , instructions on how to make an improvised explosive device ( IED ) and a written pledge to ORG . Furthermore , the police seized a computer and found on the applicant ’s ORG account conversations in which he had made enquiries into how to make IEDs , projecting himself as a supporter of ORG and expressing his wish to join the jihad in GPE .

On DATE the GPE investigating authorities sent a request for mutual legal assistance ( rechtshulpverzoek ) to the competent NORP authorities in connection with the criminal investigation against the applicant , requesting , inter alia , the examination of a number of bank accounts and bank cards . The request contained the number of the applicant ’s national identity card and specified that the criminal investigation concerned suspicion of ( preparation of ) murder with a terrorist motive , participation in a criminal organisation with a terrorist aim , preparation of a terrorist offence , and financing of terrorism . On DATE a supplementary request was sent to the NORP authorities .

The applicant ’s remand in custody was extended . Criminal proceedings against him commenced on charges of several preparatory acts of terrorism , including the criminal offence defined in LAW ( PERSON ) , namely the acquisition of information and know - how in preparation of the commission of a terrorist offence .

NORP In DATE several articles , written in NORP , LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE , about the dismantling of a terrorist cell and arrest of its members in Selwane were published on Internet news sites . Those articles also mentioned the arrest in the GPE of a NORP living there , who was planning attacks in the GPE and who had links with that terrorist cell . Some of the articles also stated that information provided by the NORP intelligence agency ( ORG of the National Territory – “ the ORG ” ) to the ORG had led to the person ’s arrest in the GPE .

On DATE ORG ( rechtbank ) acquitted the applicant of all charges . It found that his intent to commit terrorist offences had not been proven in the light of evidence presented by him showing that his chat messages had been meant to impress and show off . His acquittal was reported by various media outlets in the GPE . CARDINAL of those reports stated that , according to his lawyer , the applicant intended to apply for asylum in the GPE , as he feared that , in the event of his removal to GPE , he would be detained in GPE as a terror suspect . The public prosecutor ( officier van justitie ) appealed against the acquittal .

On DATE ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE quashed the impugned judgment , convicted the applicant of having committed the offence under LAW , and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The applicant ’s intent to acquire information and know - how in order to use it in the commission of a terrorist offence was found proven on the basis of numerous chat messages and written notes . Referring to the systematic and radical nature of those messages and given the relatively long period during which the applicant had been engaged in the internet conversations , ORG dismissed the argument that he had merely been trying to impress and show off .

The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal in cassation with ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible , providing summary reasoning in application of section CARDINALa of ORG ( Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s remand in custody came to an end and he was placed in immigration detention ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) . On DATE he applied for asylum , claiming that , if removed to GPE , he would , inter alia , run the risk of being arrested by the NORP secret service , detained in inhumane conditions and tortured , as the NORP authorities considered him to be a terrorist .

NORP In support of his claim , the applicant referred to various press articles about the criminal proceedings against him in the GPE , as well as to several Internet news articles written in NORP , NORP and LANGUAGE about a terrorist cell in PERSON ‒ the town where he had been living before going to the GPE ‒ which had been dismantled by the NORP authorities in DATE . Some articles also mentioned that a member of that terrorist cell who was residing in the GPE had been arrested . According to the applicant , they had been referring to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Although the applicant denied that he had any contacts with this cell , he stated that because of these allegations he will be associated with these NORP suspects of terrorism .

The applicant further submitted that he had learned from his family in GPE that CARDINAL acquaintances from his place of birth , LOC named “ QUANTITY and “ PERSON ” , had been arrested by the NORP security service in DATE or DATE . According to the applicant , this was a strong indication that he too was a target of the NORP security service .

By a letter of DATE , the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) requested ORG ( GPE PERSON ) to conduct an investigation in GPE in relation to the applicant ’s asylum application . In so far as relevant for the instant case , the letter contained the following questions :

“ CARDINAL ) Is [ the applicant ] known by his stated identity ... at his last known address in GPE ... in PERSON , region of LOC ?

CARDINAL ) NORP The report about the dismantling of a terrorist cell appeared in NORP and international media on DATE . When were the members of the NORP terrorist cell arrested ?

CARDINAL ) Are DATE and PERSON among those who were arrested ? If so , are they from [ the applicant ’s ] birth place , namely LOC ?

CARDINAL ) Is it known whether [ the applicant ] and the persons mentioned under CARDINAL ) know each other ?

CARDINAL ) Are the persons mentioned under CARDINAL ) still detained since their arrest in DATE ? If so , what are the charges ? If not , when were they released ?

CARDINAL ) Is [ the applicant ] known by name in the media in GPE as the member residing in the GPE of the terrorist cell dismantled in GPE ( as referred to in question CARDINAL ) ?

CARDINAL ) Is [ the applicant ] being searched for by the NORP authorities in the context of the criminal investigation of the terrorist cell ( as meant in question CARDINAL ) ?

CARDINAL ) Is there a charge against [ the applicant ] ? If so , what is the charge ?

CARDINAL ) Is [ the applicant ] being searched for by the NORP authorities in relation to offences other than those mentioned under CARDINAL ? If so , in relation to what offences is he being searched for ? Has he been convicted of those offences and , if so , what is the sentence ? ”

NORP In reply to the above request , a person - specific official report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) was released on DATE by ORG . The relevant part of the report stated as follows :

“ Question CARDINAL :

The address ... in PERSON , region of Nador , is [ the applicant ’s ] last known address in GPE .

Question CARDINAL :

a ) The members of the NORP terrorist cell were all arrested on DATE .

b ) A.M. and PERSON do not find themselves in the group [ of persons ] arrested on DATE .

Additional information : the above - cited names are not necessarily the actual names of the persons . In the group of persons , there is an A. and a B .. However , these persons do not have the surname LAW

c ) This question can not be answered in the light of the above .

Question CARDINAL :

At the time of the investigation , the persons referred to in CARDINAL ) were still detained . The charge is :

‘ the establishment of a criminal organisation which supports NORP ideology , in particular by planning to assassinate persons with opposing religious GPE ( ‘ la constitution d’une bande criminelle adepte de la pensée djihadiste , projetait notamment l’assassinat de personnes aux convictions religieuses contraires’ ) .

Question CARDINAL :

[ The applicant ] is not mentioned by name in the media reports . It was mentioned in the media reports that a NORP national residing in the GPE had been arrested in cooperation with the local authorities .

Additional information : nor were the other persons who were arrested on DATE mentioned by name in the media reports . ...

Question CARDINAL :

a ) No , at the time of the investigation [ the applicant ] was not being searched for by the NORP authorities in the context of the criminal investigation as referred to in question CARDINAL .

b ) DATE No , at the time of the investigation , there was no charge against [ the applicant ] .

c ) No , at the time of the investigation [ the applicant ] was not being searched for by the NORP authorities in the context of a criminal investigation into offences other than those as referred to by question CARDINAL . ”

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE , in reply to a request for further clarification , the Minister of ORG stated :

“ There are no indications that [ the applicant ] is being searched for by the NORP authorities in the context of the criminal investigation referred to in question CARDINAL of your letter of DATE . There are also no indications of a charge against [ the applicant ] or indications that [ the applicant ] is being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with a criminal investigation of facts other than those referred to in question CARDINAL of your letter of DATE . ”

The asylum application was rejected by the Deputy Minister on CARDINAL DATE . In addition , an entry ban ( inreisverbod ) of DATE was imposed on the applicant , the Deputy Minister holding that he posed a threat to public safety on account of his criminal conviction and information from the GPE security service that he posed a danger to national security . Furthermore , and referring to the person - specific official report of DATE , the Deputy Minister held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he faced a real and personal risk of treatment contrary to LAW . The applicant was not being searched for by the NORP authorities , nor had he been charged with any criminal offences there . The Deputy Minister found that the applicant ’s fear of being arrested , tortured and detained was based on general reports and assumptions . The Deputy Minister referred to earlier experiences with young NORP men who had stood trial in the GPE on charges related to NORP terrorism and who had been removed to GPE . None of them had encountered any problems from the side of the NORP authorities that could be regarded as relevant from an asylum - law perspective . On this point , the Deputy Minister referred to an article published on DATE in the GPE DATE newspaper ORG about the experiences of CARDINAL convicted members of the NORP terrorist “ NORP group ” ( ORG ) who , after having served their sentence in the GPE , had been removed to GPE .

The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with ORG , submitting in addition to his previous submissions , inter alia , a copy of an email from his NORP attorney , ORG , and extracts from a NORP police report dated DATE concerning a criminal investigation in respect of several persons , including CARDINAL “ PERSON ( previously referred to by the applicant as “ PERSON ” ) . The police report stated that PERSON was the person behind the radicalisation of his neighbour ( the applicant ) , who was being detained in the GPE in connection with terrorism . It further stated that , after the applicant ’s departure to the GPE , they had remained in contact by telephone and that in their conversations , the applicant had indicated his wish to buy a firearm , and that he intended to learn how to make explosives for use in a terrorist act in the GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting in GPE , dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned decision . As regards the applicant ’s reliance on LAW , it held as follows :

“ CARDINAL . [ The appellant ] argues that on return he will be at a real risk of a violation of LAW . He fears that he will be detained and ill - treated because – due to media reports – he is being linked by the NORP authorities to terrorist groups and terrorist activities . On this point [ the appellant ] refers to various documents . In addition , [ the appellant ] argues that [ the Deputy Minister ] was not allowed to base his decision on the person - specific official report of ORG as insufficient due care had been taken in drawing it up and , in addition , as it lacks clarity .

The court states at the outset that it is in principle for [ the appellant ] to make out a plausible case that he is running a real risk of a violation of LAW . [ The appellant ] has submitted a number of documents in substantiation of his claim . In addition , [ the Deputy Minister ] has met [ the appellant ] halfway in the discharge of the burden of proof which rests on the latter by having ORG conduct an investigation which has resulted in a person - specific official report . The court will discuss below [ the appellant ’s ] documents and the person - specific official report of ORG .

[ The appellant ] has submitted media reports about a terrorist cell that intended to commit attacks in the GPE and about a NORP man , [ name of appellant ] , who was arrested in DATE in the GPE on suspicion of terrorism and convicted by ORG . [ The appellant ] also submitted documents about a NORP Dutchman who had been interrogated and tortured in GPE and referred to information from ORG about torture and ill - treatment of detainees and unfair proceedings for terrorist suspects in GPE . In addition , [ the appellant ] has submitted an email message from his NORP lawyer about the negative attention which [ the applicant ] will attract upon return and a copy of ( part of ) an official report of the police in GPE in the terrorism case of PERSON in which [ the appellant ’s ] name is mentioned . In addition , [ the appellant ] has submitted part of a judgment of the [ Tribunal Correctionnel de GPE ] concerning PERSON , who is suspected of terrorist activities and [ the appellant ] claims that this person has been convicted again in GPE for the same set of facts .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . In so far as it appears from the documents submitted by [ the appellant ] that he is known as a terror suspect or has been convicted of facts relating to terrorism , the court considers that this has already been found credible by [ the Deputy Minister ] . The circumstance that , because of media reports about this , [ the appellant ] is known in the GPE and GPE does not mean that therefore he runs a real risk of serious harm when he returns to GPE . [ The appellant ] fears that , because of being known [ by those authorities ] , he will upon return be arrested and ill - treated by the NORP authorities , but for substantiation purposes has not submitted documents concerning [ himself ] . [ The appellant ] has pointed to general information about the treatment of detainees in GPE and about the proceedings in respect of terrorist suspects , but this information is only relevant if it is plausible that [ the appellant ] upon return will be arrested or prosecuted for terrorism . In the court ’s opinion , [ the Deputy Minister ] has not unjustly adopted the position that [ the appellant ] has not made out a plausible case . In the email message from [ the appellant ’s ] NORP lawyer submitted by [ the appellant ] , this lawyer reports that [ the appellant ] will be tried when transferred to GPE , even though he has already been tried in the GPE , and refers to CARDINAL decisions in which the same person was convicted both in GPE and in GPE for the same facts . This means that the email message contains no more than a statement from [ the appellant ’s ] lawyer , without specific further substantiation relating to [ the appellant ] from which it follows that [ the appellant ] will be prosecuted in GPE . Reference is only made to a case of another person convicted in GPE , but no documents have been submitted showing that this person has been convicted of the same facts in GPE . Nor have documents been submitted from which it can be deduced that [ the appellant ] finds himself in the same situation . It can further not be concluded from the copy of ( a part of ) a report of the NORP police , submitted by [ the appellant ] , that [ the appellant ] is being searched for in GPE as a suspect of terrorism . As pointed out rightly by [ the Deputy Minister ] , the document only contains information about the activities of the suspect PERSON , including the influencing of [ the appellant ] , but it does not appear from the document that [ the appellant ] is involved in any criminal proceedings . However , triggered by what [ the appellant ] has presented about the terror cell dismantled in DATE , of which PERSON was a member , [ the Deputy Minister ] asked ORG for a person - specific official report , which will be discussed below .

According to the constant case - law of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) ( including the ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG : NL : RVS:CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , an official report from the Minister of ORG about the situation in a country is an expert opinion for the Deputy Minister for the exercise of the latter ’s powers . If it provides information in an impartial , objective and transparent manner with an indication , in so far as this is responsible , of the sources from which this information is derived , the Deputy Minister may , in making a decision , assume the correctness of this information , unless there are concrete reasons for doubting that accuracy . As regards person - specific official reports , ORG has considered that , if a person - specific official report contradicts the asylum claim which it concerns , it is for the alien concerned to refute the official report .

[ The appellant ’s ] argument that [ the Deputy Minister ] was not allowed to base his decision on the person - specific official report of ORG because insufficient due care had been taken in drawing it up , fails . On DATE the Deputy Minister carried out a REK - check , which entails [ the Deputy Minister ] assuring himself that the person - specific official report has been drawn up with due care and is comprehensible . The outcome of the REK check was that this could not be concluded . Subsequently , ORG was asked for further clarification , [ in response ] to which ORG supplemented , by letter of CARDINAL DATE , the person - specific official report . On DATE a fresh REK check was carried out and it was concluded that the person - specific official report was comprehensible but that , procedurally , due care had not been exercised in preparing the report , as the investigation in GPE had taken place without using a trusted local advisor ( vertrouwenspersoon ) . Although in the case of an asylum application this falls short of due care , the court finds that in this case [ the Deputy Minister ] did not have to see reason for not taking into account in the decision making the person - specific official report of ORG , as [ the Deputy Minister ] has given sufficient reasons for holding that the interests of [ the appellant ] were not harmed by this failure to exercise due care . [ The Deputy Minister ] has indicated that the use of a trusted local advisor is to ensure that the authorities of the country of origin are not informed of the alien ’s stay in the GPE and of his asylum application , whereas in this case it can be assumed that the NORP authorities , due to reports in the media there , are already aware [ of this circumstance ] . On this point [ the Deputy Minister ] has referred to a number of media reports . [ The appellant ] has not argued or further substantiated that that knowledge by the NORP authorities will lead to problems . Also for the remainder , [ the appellant ] has not indicated why his interests would have been harmed by the lack of due care in the preparation of the person - specific official report .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . NORP The person - specific official report of ORG states , inter alia , that the members of the terrorist cell dismantled on DATE , which is mentioned in the coverage referred to by [ the appellant ] , were all arrested on that date . This group does not include TIME or PERSON as mentioned by the applicant , but these names are not necessarily the names of the persons . The group does include an LOC and a B. , but not with the family name PERSON In addition , the person - specific official report states that these persons were still in detention at the time of the investigation and that neither [ the appellant ] nor these persons were mentioned by name in press reports about the dismantled terror cell . It is indeed mentioned in press reports that a NORP staying in the GPE has been arrested in cooperation with the local authorities . Finally , it has been included in the person - specific official report that at the time of the investigation [ the appellant ] was not being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with the criminal investigation into the dismantled terror cell , that at the time of the investigation no charge had been brought against [ the appellant ] and that at the time of the investigation [ the appellant ] was not being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with a criminal investigation into other facts .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . [ The appellant ’s ] argument that [ the Deputy Minister ] was not allowed to base his decision on the person - specific official report of ORG because it contains unclear points , also fails . In the opinion of the court , [ the appellant ] has not presented any concrete arguments for [ the court ] to doubt the correctness of the person - specific official report . [ The appellant ] has argued that it is unclear to what extent the [ NORP ] investigating judge ( onderzoeksrechter ) is competent to make statements about [ the appellant ] . In the first place , this mere remark does not comprise a concrete argument as mentioned above . Irrespective of this , the court considers that , on the basis of the underlying materials of the person - specific official report which the court has consulted , it can be assumed that the investigating judge in question is competent and able to provide the information given . Also the mere assertion of [ the appellant ] that it is odd that the investigating judge , who apparently holds all information on terrorism cases , is not asked whether [ the appellant ] is being searched for , is not a concrete argument in the above sense . Moreover , it follows from question CARDINAL in the letter from [ the Deputy Minister ] to ORG of DATE that the ORG has been asked both whether [ the appellant ] is being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with the criminal investigation into the arrested terror cell and whether [ the appellant ] is being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with a criminal investigation into other facts . Also , the unclear assertions made by [ the appellant ] about the names of the persons arrested , mentioned in the person - specific official report and the notion ‘ at the time of the investigation’ offer no concrete reasons to doubt the accuracy of the person - specific official report . The term ‘ at the time of the investigation’ can not be read otherwise than that the question has been answered by the investigating judge on the basis of the state of affairs at the time of the investigation . Incidentally , [ the appellant ] has not argued that the state of affairs would be different at a different ( later ) point in time . As to the names of the arrested persons , the person - specific official report already states that the names may also be different . Also on this point the court sees no reason for doubting the correctness [ of the official report ] . As the document from the criminal case file submitted by [ the appellant ] , which possibly refers to him , is of DATE than the person - specific official report of ORG , it is not plausible that this reference has given the NORP authorities cause to open a criminal investigation against [ the appellant ] . This is [ therefore ] not a concrete reason for doubting the correctness and completeness of the person - specific official report .

In addition to the person - specific report of ORG , [ the Deputy Minister ] has also referred to experiences made with young NORP men ( including members of the NORP group ) who had been the subject of a terrorism trial in the GPE and/or constituted a danger to NORP national security in connection with involvement in NORP terrorism and/or jihad and for that reason [ had been ] returned to GPE . According to [ the Deputy Minister ] , no signals to be taken seriously have been received from them that , upon their return , they had encountered problems , relevant from an asylum - law perspective , from the side of the NORP authorities . The court notes that [ the appellant ] has not rebutted this in a substantiated manner and finds that [ the Deputy Minister ] has correctly taken this into account in his assessment . In this respect , the court refers to the ruling of the [ Administrative Jurisdiction ] Division of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG : NL : PERSON ) . [ The appellant ] has not established that the NORP authorities will act differently in his case .

The court concludes that it follows from the person - specific official report of ORG that [ the appellant ] is not being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with the criminal investigation concerning the dismantled terror cell or other facts and that [ the appellant ] has not put forward any concrete arguments for [ the court ] to doubt the correctness of this information . Nor can it be deduced from the documents submitted by [ the appellant ] that he is being searched for by the NORP authorities and/or will be detained and tortured upon return . This can also not be inferred from previous experiences in similar cases . Thus the fear alleged by [ the appellant ] upon return has not been made plausible . In view of this , [ the Deputy Minister ] rightly took the view that [ the appellant ] has not established that , upon return , he will run a real risk of a violation of LAW . ... ”

NORP The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) against ORG decision with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . He also requested a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) , namely to stay his removal pending the outcome of the further appeal . Neither a further appeal nor a request for a provisional measure has automatic suspensive effect .

On DATE the applicant asked the ORG to apply an interim measure under LAW , in order to stay his removal to GPE . The determination of that request was adjourned by ORG on DATE and the Government were requested to submit factual information .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request for a provisional measure by revoking the order to expel the applicant to GPE scheduled for DATE . In view of that decision , the ORG decided on DATE to suspend until further notice the determination of his Rule CARDINAL request .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s further appeal . It held that under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , no further reasoning was called for , as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring determination in the interest of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against this ruling . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for a provisional measure .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer was informed that the applicant ’s removal to GPE had been scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the ORG applied Rule CARDINAL for DATE and requested further factual information from the Government . The requested information was received on DATE .

The Government informed the ORG that in the context of the criminal proceedings against the applicant information had been exchanged between the NORP and the NORP authorities through a legal assistance request submitted by the NORP authorities on CARDINAL DATE and a supplementary request on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They added that ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) , in establishing that there was no Article CARDINAL risk for the applicant were he to be removed to GPE , had taken into account that the NORP authorities had been apprised of the criminal proceedings and that they were likely to be aware of the outcome thereof . The Government added that the NORP authorities had not sought the applicant ’s extradition . The Government had not sought specific guarantees from the NORP authorities as they took the view that the applicant ’s removal would not result in a violation of LAW . The authentic and valid ID - card held by the applicant was sufficient for him to be accepted onto a flight to GPE . No special procedure had been put in place for his removal , but during his transfer he would be accompanied by officers of ORG ( ORG ) and after arrival he would be handed over to the authorities at the destination airport . The Government lastly informed the ORG that they had not been able to obtain further information regarding the criminal proceedings against the members of the terrorist cell which had been dismantled in GPE in DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that , through his NORP attorney ORG , he had been able to obtain a copy of the judgment by which PERSON and CARDINAL others had been convicted of , inter alia , the establishment of a terrorist group loyal to the NORP ORG intended to commit terrorist activities against the public order of GPE . PERSON had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The judgment in LANGUAGE , which runs to CARDINAL pages , contains the following passage :

“ PERSON has several connections with jihadis . In particular , he recruits young men in his area for his terrorist organisation . In DATE a befriended policeman in GPE informed PERSON after receiving secret Government information DATE that he should break off his contact with people involved with terrorist organisations , including amongst others [ the applicant ’s name ] who lives in the GPE . ”

On DATE the interim measure under Rule CARDINAL staying the applicant ’s removal to GPE was extended for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the Government submitted a copy of a judgment given on DATE by the criminal division of ORG on an appeal lodged by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above at point CARDINAL ) – assisted by the attorney ORG against a judgment given on DATE by the criminal division of ORG . The appellate court overturned the impugned judgment , finding that pursuant to LAW , which contains the ne bis in idem rule , the appellant could no longer be tried for facts in respect of which he had already been convicted by a criminal court in GPE and had already served the sentence imposed by that court . Consequently , it acquitted him of the charges of the establishment of a criminal group for the preparation and commission of terrorist offences , illegal use and possession of fire arms and ammunition in the context of a joint project aimed at endangering public order , and inciting and persuading others to commit terrorist offences . It did , however , convict him of complicity in providing support to those who commit a terrorist offence and imposed a conditional DATE prison sentence .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE an investigator decided to institute criminal proceedings in connection with alleged usury by the applicant , proscribed by LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE ordered a search of the applicant ’s apartment .

On DATE the applicant was formally charged under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG with performing usury as a profession which resulted in dire financial consequences for the injured parties . On DATE the investigator decided , as a preventive measure , to have the applicant give a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence .

On DATE the investigator decided to confiscate for security the applicant ’s property .

On DATE the investigator sent the bill of indictment to the GPE and PERSON - Marash district prosecutor ( “ the prosecutor ” ) for approval but on DATE the prosecutor refused to approve it and returned the case to the investigator for further investigation .

On DATE the investigator initiated another set of criminal proceedings , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , concerning the acquisition of property rights through fraud by the applicant . On DATE this case was merged with the case on usury .

On DATE and DATE respectively the investigator ordered forensic handwriting examinations to be conducted . The results of these examinations were received on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .

On DATE the investigator decided to amend the applicant ’s charges and to bring new charges against him under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and MONEY ( CARDINAL ) , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , and LAW on account of fraud in large and particularly large amounts , extortion in particularly large amounts , usury performed as a profession which resulted in dire financial consequences for the injured parties , and forgery of evidence .

On DATE the investigator lodged an application with the GPE and ORG of GPE , seeking to have the applicant detained for DATE , which was rejected by ORG . However , upon an appeal by the prosecutor , on DATE ORG overturned ORG decision and ordered the applicant ’s detention for DATE .

On DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator lodged applications with ORG for a search warrant and to confiscate information covered by bank secrecy . These applications were granted on CARDINAL and DATE and DATE .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case was sent to ORG , which took it over on DATE .

By ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE the case was set for trial . DATE and DATE , the court held CARDINAL hearings which were adjourned because of the absence of victims and/or witnesses . In addition , on QUANTITY occasions the hearings were adjourned because of applications by the prosecutor or on the court ’s own motion , and on QUANTITY occasions because the applicant ’s applications were granted . On CARDINAL occasions the court decided to have the absent witnesses and/or victims brought by force to the hearing .

On DATE ORG granted an application by the applicant ’s counsel to have him released on bail .

On DATE the powers of the judge in charge of the applicant ’s case were suspended . On DATE another judge took over the case and the examination of the case started anew .

DATE and DATE , the court held DATE hearings which were adjourned because of the absence of the applicant or his lawyer or because of applications lodged by them . In addition , on CARDINAL occasions the hearings were adjourned because of the absence of the victims or witnesses or because of applications lodged by them , and on QUANTITY occasions because the prosecutor ’s applications had been granted or because the court had decided to adjourn the case of its own motion . On CARDINAL occasions the court decided to have the absent witnesses and victims brought by force to the hearing .

On DATE and DATE respectively the prosecutor decided to amend the charges and/or to bring new charges against the applicant .

In DATE and DATE ORG partially granted or refused applications , introduced by the applicant and one of the victims , requesting that it order a forensic examination .

On DATE the ORG gave judgement , finding the applicant guilty of CARDINAL counts of the offences set out in LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( fraud ) , LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( extortion ) , LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ( usury ) , and LAW ( forgery of evidence ) of the ORG and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , confiscated CARDINAL of his property and imposed a fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) . It appears that during the proceedings ORG examined CARDINAL witnesses , CARDINAL pieces of documentary evidence and CARDINAL expert opinions , CARDINAL of which was ordered by ORG .

The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against this judgment .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeals and upheld ORG judgment .

The applicant ’s counsel lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit .